Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Good morning all. I shall endeavour not to become too strident on this issue. I'd really like the remainders to explain how, exactly, we're going to reform the EU when it's already creaking at the seams with 28 members (and more to come). How many decades have we been trying to reform CAP?
The long term implications of a majority of EU members having a common currency are entirely inimical to British interests. We can no longer count on finding common cause - we can be outvoted on a wide range of issues that affect our economy, particularly the City.
Mr. L, why was Watson's office used? The individual's home, or the police station seem the only obvious places for questioning. What's it got to do with the Witchsmeller Pursuivant?
My guess is they used Watson's office because that is where they happened to be. They were taking a statement, not interviewing a suspect under caution.
These better off..worse off numbers are meaningless..and will fall apart under even mild scrutiny..It does not matter..because it is not the issue and any group that plays that line will lose..It is about total Sovereignty and the right to conduct our own business..
It seems to me INs biggest problem is that it will be backed foursquare by 'the establishment' and right now the voters are pretty anti-establishment.
Are the voters anti-establishment? The last General Election saw not just an increase in the main party of governments share and the lowest number of protest party seats in decades but an increase in the share of the vote for both established major parties.
It seems to be a truism to always claim that the voters are anti-establishment, but then the voters vote for the establishment. So I'm not sure there's any truth in the claim.
These better off..worse off numbers are meaningless..and will fall apart under even mild scrutiny..It does not matter..because it is not the issue and any group that plays that line will lose..It is about total Sovereignty and the right to conduct our own business..
Correct, that is the message that will win it for OUT.
I'm pleased with what I've seen from the IN campaign, elderly career politicians who in the past told us if we didn't join the Euro we'd be finished.
"There seemed to be no thought that, maybe - just maybe - some of the rich countries in the Middle East which are doing nothing (and there are those countries which are bearing the greatest burden) should also take their proportionate share and do far far more."
She was a British retired judge. Why on earth should she be talking about what other countries should do? That's what Farage does.
Passing humanitarian responsibilities to others is not actually very humanitarian
The benefits of the EU are many but not immediately obvious. I just heard someone on radio try to explain why we should stay in but it all sounded business orientated and not someting that touched most people. The 'stay in' side need to build a shopping list of how it benefits us all.
Something like a modern version of this very dated Dunlop commercial would be a good start.
The 48 hour directive for a start. All those maternity, paternity leave came from the EU. Part-time workers rights [ there are many now ] all enshrined in EU directives. There is no guarantee that an "Out" UK will keep those rights.
Isn't it up to the voters of Britain to decide the level of worker protections they want? Why do we need them to be decided by the votes of others?
The implication is that the UK has a natural right-wing majority, which only the EU can hold in check.
Of course, the opposite argument was made by Labour in the 1970s and early 1980s.
If you're relying on a supernational body to override the democratic wishes of the domestic electorate you will reap the whirlwind in the long-term IMHO.
Labour were persuaded by Delors that being part of the EU would enable the Social Chapter to be applicable to Britain and that "rights" not believed to be possible to enact in the HoC would be enforced.
It seems to me INs biggest problem is that it will be backed foursquare by 'the establishment' and right now the voters are pretty anti-establishment.
Are the voters anti-establishment? The last General Election saw not just an increase in the main party of governments share and the lowest number of protest party seats in decades but an increase in the share of the vote for both established major parties.
It seems to be a truism to always claim that the voters are anti-establishment, but then the voters vote for the establishment. So I'm not sure there's any truth in the claim.
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Another Corbyntastic week in the offing. IMO JC's problem is that everybody, including his former friends who ran their murder campaign, has moved on while he is still in about 1983.
The benefits of the EU are many but not immediately obvious. I just heard someone on radio try to explain why we should stay in but it all sounded business orientated and not someting that touched most people. The 'stay in' side need to build a shopping list of how it benefits us all.
Something like a modern version of this very dated Dunlop commercial would be a good start.
The 48 hour directive for a start. All those maternity, paternity leave came from the EU. Part-time workers rights [ there are many now ] all enshrined in EU directives. There is no guarantee that an "Out" UK will keep those rights.
Isn't it up to the voters of Britain to decide the level of worker protections they want? Why do we need them to be decided by the votes of others?
The implication is that the UK has a natural right-wing majority, which only the EU can hold in check.
Of course it is, but I was intrigued to see how @surbition would try and justify his stance
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
I'm hoping that Tony Blair tells Leave voters to get a transplant.
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Agreed. I found being branded a "quitter" for disagreeing with him surprisingly offensive
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
The trouble with the first part of that is that every protest group and charity since 2008 has made 'globalisation' synonymous with 'evil corporate behaviour that will rob you of a livelihood and gives bankers bigger bonuses to spend on yachts, cocaine, and escorts'.
The benefits of the EU are many but not immediately obvious. I just heard someone on radio try to explain why we should stay in but it all sounded business orientated and not someting that touched most people. The 'stay in' side need to build a shopping list of how it benefits us all.
Something like a modern version of this very dated Dunlop commercial would be a good start.
The 48 hour directive for a start. All those maternity, paternity leave came from the EU. Part-time workers rights [ there are many now ] all enshrined in EU directives. There is no guarantee that an "Out" UK will keep those rights.
Isn't it up to the voters of Britain to decide the level of worker protections they want? Why do we need them to be decided by the votes of others?
The implication is that the UK has a natural right-wing majority, which only the EU can hold in check.
Of course, the opposite argument was made by Labour in the 1970s and early 1980s.
If you're relying on a supernational body to override the democratic wishes of the domestic electorate you will reap the whirlwind in the long-term IMHO.
Peter Hitchens points this out in his documentary 'this sceptic isle' ... It's on you tube, very good
Basically after the British left had been destroyed by Thatcher by the early 90s, Jacques Delors started going around the trade unions letting them know that they could undo Thatcherism by committing to the EU... All of a sudden, kinnock did a u turn
Has Helen Goodman apologised directly to The Hunts, or is she just apologising because she was caught out on Twitter?
Helen Goodman was selected by Labour through an All-Women Shortlist. Another example of how rigging the selection process has reduced the talent pool on the Labour benches. From this warped talent pool Labour Leaders have to pick 50% of their cabinet.... My favourite story. (In June 2014, Goodman was invited to give a speech at the opening of a village fair at Ingleton, County Durham in the parliamentary constituency which she had represented for nine years.[8] During her speech, she praised the village for the beauty of its waterfalls and caves and for its connection with Arthur Conan Doyle. None of these features applied to the County Durham village, but were in fact references to the village of Ingleton, situated seventy miles away in North Yorkshire.[9] The speech reportedly "baffled" the audience and after five minutes she was called away from the microphone and informed of her mistake.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Goodman
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
If you'd bothered to read what I'd written, you'd see I gave a specific example. If you can't be bothered reading what I wrote, I can't be bothered producing endless lists.
Mr. Charles, it's akin to the unpleasant use of 'denier' for those who disagree with austerity or climate change. It's being told your opinion is invalid (or, in the case of 'quitter' the result of a defect, namely lack of resolve).
These better off..worse off numbers are meaningless..and will fall apart under even mild scrutiny..It does not matter..because it is not the issue and any group that plays that line will lose..It is about total Sovereignty and the right to conduct our own business..
No it is not. If it was we'd be talking about a Leave Landslide as quite clearly Leave has the best case regarding sovereignty.
The Remain case is about fear of change and the advantages of membership - and that is the bookies favourite (and my personal expectation) to win. So your premise is wrong.
It seems to me INs biggest problem is that it will be backed foursquare by 'the establishment' and right now the voters are pretty anti-establishment.
Are the voters anti-establishment? The last General Election saw not just an increase in the main party of governments share and the lowest number of protest party seats in decades but an increase in the share of the vote for both established major parties.
It seems to be a truism to always claim that the voters are anti-establishment, but then the voters vote for the establishment. So I'm not sure there's any truth in the claim.
The Lib Dems were establishment by May 2015.
Which saw them obliterated as an establishment third party is an oxymoron.
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
If you'd bothered to read what I'd written, you'd see I gave a specific example. If you can't be bothered reading what I wrote, I can't be bothered producing endless lists.
You weren't specific at all, you mentioned globalisation and co-ordinated governmental organisation whatever that means.
This is why I'm ever more confident of us leaving.
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Agreed. I found being branded a "quitter" for disagreeing with him surprisingly offensive
The benefits of the EU are many but not immediately obvious. I just heard someone on radio try to explain why we should stay in but it all sounded business orientated and not someting that touched most people. The 'stay in' side need to build a shopping list of how it benefits us all.
Something like a modern version of this very dated Dunlop commercial would be a good start.
The 48 hour directive for a start. All those maternity, paternity leave came from the EU. Part-time workers rights [ there are many now ] all enshrined in EU directives. There is no guarantee that an "Out" UK will keep those rights.
So what? That's up to the Commons and the British electorate to determine.
The EU serves a very good purpose in breaking down barriers between EU nations. But internal UK only issues like relations between employer and employee can be determined by the British government and the British electorate. The EU is overstretched meddling in those issues.
One of the much derided terms under negotiation was a red card for national parliaments. There is an argu!entire for leaving the EU, but it seems to be being couched in hysteria on here. Outers should beware the comfort zone of wittering to each other
F1: Raikkonen's demotion means Sauber are only 11 points off Lotus. Considering the pace the Lotus has (at certain tracks), that's really quite surprising. Nasr has more points than Maldonado. Not impossible for Lotus to be passed by Sauber.
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
A couple of pb-ers are experts, aiui, but as a voter on the Clapham omnibus, my first impression is that, like Labour's ISAs, this measure seems aimed at people with money rather than those without.
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
If you'd bothered to read what I'd written, you'd see I gave a specific example. If you can't be bothered reading what I wrote, I can't be bothered producing endless lists.
You weren't specific at all, you mentioned globalisation and co-ordinated governmental organisation whatever that means.
This is why I'm ever more confident of us leaving.
You were confident six months before the general election of UKIP winning Dover. They finished third. Since this is a two horse race, you can at least hope to improve your forecasting by at least one position.
NB I did mention competition policy. Perhaps you didn't get to the second sentence though before your prejudices were confirmed.
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Agreed. I found being branded a "quitter" for disagreeing with him surprisingly offensive
As offensive as being called a Quisling?
Mandelson will presumably be recycling his Fighter Not a Quitter speech.
Has Helen Goodman apologised directly to The Hunts, or is she just apologising because she was caught out on Twitter?
Helen Goodman was selected by Labour through an All-Women Shortlist. Another example of how rigging the selection process has reduced the talent pool on the Labour benches. From this warped talent pool Labour Leaders have to pick 50% of their cabinet.... My favourite story. (In June 2014, Goodman was invited to give a speech at the opening of a village fair at Ingleton, County Durham in the parliamentary constituency which she had represented for nine years.[8] During her speech, she praised the village for the beauty of its waterfalls and caves and for its connection with Arthur Conan Doyle. None of these features applied to the County Durham village, but were in fact references to the village of Ingleton, situated seventy miles away in North Yorkshire.[9] The speech reportedly "baffled" the audience and after five minutes she was called away from the microphone and informed of her mistake.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Goodman
Petard, hoisted.
She also was taken in by a faked arms fair poster a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps Father Jack Hackeett SJ has helped her with her apology.
Mr. Thompson, I agree. Fear of the unknown is generally greater than fear of the known.
I find it deeply depressing that English people consider self government with no exterior involvement 'fear of the unknown'
I completely agree but any change is always fear of the unknown. That is why the status quo always has an advantage in a referendum unless there's an overwhelming push for change.
The EU at its best is about more than just a lack of self-government. At its best the EU is about breaking down barriers to free trade between nations etc. That people like surbiton can't bring themselves to point out something intrinsically good about the EU rather than something they view as bad about their own country is deeply, deeply depressing.
Re Cumberbatch, he was filming at a hospice recently, and unlike other cast members, he took time to talk to those under the place's care including one of my relatives. A small gesture, but one which was appreciated.
I am sure Cumberbatch is your usual BBC comfy trendy lefty, but his mum is Wanda Ventham, so I am willing to let him off.
Has Helen Goodman apologised directly to The Hunts, or is she just apologising because she was caught out on Twitter?
Helen Goodman was selected by Labour through an All-Women Shortlist. Another example of how rigging the selection process has reduced the talent pool on the Labour benches. From this warped talent pool Labour Leaders have to pick 50% of their cabinet.... My favourite story. (In June 2014, Goodman was invited to give a speech at the opening of a village fair at Ingleton, County Durham in the parliamentary constituency which she had represented for nine years.[8] During her speech, she praised the village for the beauty of its waterfalls and caves and for its connection with Arthur Conan Doyle. None of these features applied to the County Durham village, but were in fact references to the village of Ingleton, situated seventy miles away in North Yorkshire.[9] The speech reportedly "baffled" the audience and after five minutes she was called away from the microphone and informed of her mistake.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Goodman
Petard, hoisted.
She also was taken in by a faked arms fair poster a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps Father Jack Hackeett SJ has helped her with her apology.
She does make the case for recall elections very persuasive.
MR Thompson the premise is not wrong at all..just your assessment of it..The voters need an almost certified list of what is on offer by both parties..What we stand to lose by leaving and what we stand to gain by staying..it is as simple as that.. Info for those intrepid zig zaggers around Europe..If an American flew into Berlin and hired a car he could zig zag around Europe as much as he liked..just the same as any Brit could..before and after membership of the EU..there are no barriers anywhere just for the exclusive use of non EU travelers... the only places where you have to stop are toll booths on the main highways
"Cumberbatch...an actor..someone who inhabits a fictional,fantasy world...figures.. "
Talking of inhabiting a fantasy world you'll be pleased to know Ab Fab the Movie has just started its first day of shooting in that well known lefty hotbed Villefranche. It's not often Edina and Patsy fit in so well
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
If you'd bothered to read what I'd written, you'd see I gave a specific example. If you can't be bothered reading what I wrote, I can't be bothered producing endless lists.
You weren't specific at all, you mentioned globalisation and co-ordinated governmental organisation whatever that means.
This is why I'm ever more confident of us leaving.
You were confident six months before the general election of UKIP winning Dover. They finished third. Since this is a two horse race, you can at least hope to improve your forecasting by at least one position.
NB I did mention competition policy. Perhaps you didn't get to the second sentence though before your prejudices were confirmed.
You are clearly one of those insecure people who resorts to personal abuse when cornered, I'm sure you delight in the fact that every prediction you've ever made has been proven correct.
Unlike yourself I have no prejudices at all, I simply want to be told how to live my life by Westminster rather than Brussels.
Except the gaming isn't console/PC, it's playing games twice a day on portable devices. That's not what most people think of or mean when they refer to videogames.
And the sample size is only 600 kids.
The below two quotes appear contradictory: "It found 41% of children who used portable gaming devices at least twice a day achieved at least five GCSE A* to C grades, compared with 77% of those who used them less than once a week."
"While the report recommends the introduction of a targeted scheme by government to ensure all young people have access to a computer or laptop at home, it also recommends that parents or carers limit the amount of time their child uses a games console."
I wouldn't call an Xbox One or PS4 or PC a 'portable gaming device'.
Are they talking about things like PS Vitas, PSPs and the 3DS?
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
MR Thompson the premise is not wrong at all..just your assessment of it..The voters need an almost certified list of what is on offer by both parties..What we stand to lose by leaving and what we stand to gain by staying..it is as simple as that.. Info for those intrepid zig zaggers around Europe..If an American flew into Berlin and hired a car he could zig zag around Europe as much as he liked..just the same as any Brit could..before and after membership of the EU..there are no barriers anywhere just for the exclusive use of non EU travelers... the only places where you have to stop are toll booths on the main highways
The voters will never get a certified list, that is impossible. Like every election or referendum ever they will get at least two deeply contested lists. Leave will give a list of advantages for leaving and problems for remaining; remain will give a list of advantages for remaining and problems for leaving.
A fraction of the electorate that back leave will view the leave list as certified. A fraction of the electorate that back remain will view the remain list as certified.
The rest of us will view both as certifiable. Ultimately then it becomes a judgement call as there will be no objective right answer for the majority of the nation.
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Agreed. I found being branded a "quitter" for disagreeing with him surprisingly offensive
As offensive as being called a Quisling?
As far as I can see, neither leader of each Leave campaign has branded any Remain voters "Quislings", or any other insult.
Having seen Will Straw on Sky News this morning, the Remain camp need to think about how to engage the heart and not just the head. It's all a bit mechanical.
Remainers should be focussing on where the EU has been a force for good and where the UK has been an effective force for change within the EU. Numbers leave most of us number.
As an IN supporter perhaps you could help us with this?
I'm a fence sitter, leaning towards In (so probably better placed than a devout INNER).
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Thanks but that's glib - how has the EU improved things?
If you'd bothered to read what I'd written, you'd see I gave a specific example. If you can't be bothered reading what I wrote, I can't be bothered producing endless lists.
You weren't specific at all, you mentioned globalisation and co-ordinated governmental organisation whatever that means.
This is why I'm ever more confident of us leaving.
You were confident six months before the general election of UKIP winning Dover. They finished third. Since this is a two horse race, you can at least hope to improve your forecasting by at least one position.
NB I did mention competition policy. Perhaps you didn't get to the second sentence though before your prejudices were confirmed.
You are clearly one of those insecure people who resorts to personal abuse when cornered, I'm sure you delight in the fact that every prediction you've ever made has been proven correct.
Unlike yourself I have no prejudices at all, I simply want to be told how to live my life by Westminster rather than Brussels.
Shocking!
I want to live my life as I choose and don't want to be told how to live my life by either Westminster or Brussels.
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
A couple of pb-ers are experts, aiui, but as a voter on the Clapham omnibus, my first impression is that, like Labour's ISAs, this measure seems aimed at people with money rather than those without.
People who have just retired and under new rues can do what they like with their lump sum if they have one and could choose to place some of it this way. This does not make them wealthy, just prudent during their working life. Invest about 8000 to get 1200pa for life at 65. ??
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
Sovereignty is a tool, not an end in itself.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
A couple of pb-ers are experts, aiui, but as a voter on the Clapham omnibus, my first impression is that, like Labour's ISAs, this measure seems aimed at people with money rather than those without.
People who have just retired and under new rues can do what they like with their lump sum if they have one and could choose to place some of it this way. This does not make them wealthy, just prudent during their working life. Invest about 8000 to get 1200pa for life at 65. ??
Actually the example is invest £8900 for £520pa for life.
The person who does that would break even (except for time value of money) at age 82.
Except the gaming isn't console/PC, it's playing games twice a day on portable devices. That's not what most people think of or mean when they refer to videogames.
And the sample size is only 600 kids.
The below two quotes appear contradictory: "It found 41% of children who used portable gaming devices at least twice a day achieved at least five GCSE A* to C grades, compared with 77% of those who used them less than once a week."
"While the report recommends the introduction of a targeted scheme by government to ensure all young people have access to a computer or laptop at home, it also recommends that parents or carers limit the amount of time their child uses a games console."
I wouldn't call an Xbox One or PS4 or PC a 'portable gaming device'.
Are they talking about things like PS Vitas, PSPs and the 3DS?
I am very thankful that my teenage years predated the Internet (I bought my first computer - if I can dignify it with that name - aged 19).
I am very prone to distraction, and would probably left school with nothing but an 'A' level in Amusing Kitten Video Appreciation.
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
Sovereignty is a tool, not an end in itself.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
Ceding control over multilateral international issues is one thing that can make sense. We get a fraction of the say for something that involves us and another nation to be done the same.
Your only examples are for internal issues between purely British parties though where British laws could decide. The EU if we're in it could have a say in how Brits interact with people from other EU nations outside of Britain, but if it is how Brits interact with other Brits then that should be decided by the British Parliament.
Mr Rose is really not giving a good starting impression. Having launched the Remain campaign last week mainly based on scaremongering, he is now branding anyone supporting Leave as "quitters".
Listen mate, I'm considering voting Leave and if I do, it's not because I'm a Quitter but because a multimillionaire has failed to set out a positive platform for the UK changing the existing dynamic in the EU. Insulting half the electorate generally isn't a good approach.
Agreed. I found being branded a "quitter" for disagreeing with him surprisingly offensive
As offensive as being called a Quisling?
I would find that offensive too.
But as far as I'm aware no one serious has used the term*
* Leave.eu and N. Farage do not qualify as "serious" although I don't know if they have used it
flightpath01...Wanda Bentham is a lovely lady.. I made a TV film with her and Edward Woodward...many years ago..maybe she should have a word with the lad..
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
The Leave people cannot even begin to asses what the effect on inward investment would be if we did leave and leave totally. Does the Leave group(s) have any opinion on the EEA? What have they got to say about the prospect of joining Shengen Schengen. These are easily considered practical issues. So far we are given no structure at all for life outside the EU and no suggestions that we somehow join the EEA.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
The £3k figure was for each family. As other posters have said, it's all made up nonsense.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
The Leave people cannot even begin to asses what the effect on inward investment would be if we did leave and leave totally. Does the Leave group(s) have any opinion on the EEA? What have they got to say about the prospect of joining Shengen Schengen. These are easily considered practical issues. So far we are given no structure at all for life outside the EU and no suggestions that we somehow join the EEA.
The UK is not joining Schengen either way around this is a moot issue.
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
A couple of pb-ers are experts, aiui, but as a voter on the Clapham omnibus, my first impression is that, like Labour's ISAs, this measure seems aimed at people with money rather than those without.
People who have just retired and under new rues can do what they like with their lump sum if they have one and could choose to place some of it this way. This does not make them wealthy, just prudent during their working life. Invest about 8000 to get 1200pa for life at 65. ??
Actually the example is invest £8900 for £520pa for life.
The person who does that would break even (except for time value of money) at age 82.
Yes. As someone in his late 70’s with most of his money in earlier arranged pensions, even though I’m in reasonable health I suspect I’d be better off spending my money as I wish to, rather than jam tomorrow. Even though there’s a suggestion that, in the event of one’s death, one’s surviving partner gets 50%.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
Sovereignty is a tool, not an end in itself.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
Ceding control over multilateral international issues is one thing that can make sense. We get a fraction of the say for something that involves us and another nation to be done the same.
Your only examples are for internal issues between purely British parties though where British laws could decide. The EU if we're in it could have a say in how Brits interact with people from other EU nations outside of Britain, but if it is how Brits interact with other Brits then that should be decided by the British Parliament.
It depends on what implications the interaction has for the single market, doesn't it?
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown 2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors 3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties 4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business 5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive 6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
Sovereignty is a tool, not an end in itself.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
Ceding control over multilateral international issues is one thing that can make sense. We get a fraction of the say for something that involves us and another nation to be done the same.
Your only examples are for internal issues between purely British parties though where British laws could decide. The EU if we're in it could have a say in how Brits interact with people from other EU nations outside of Britain, but if it is how Brits interact with other Brits then that should be decided by the British Parliament.
It depends on what implications the interaction has for the single market, doesn't it?
Except your examples have no interaction for the single market.
On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown 2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors 3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties 4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business 5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive 6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
You might find Number 6 gives the Out campaign a massive boost!
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
What is the worst that can happen?
That the Remain side turns out to be right and the Leave side turns out to be wrong.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
The Leave people cannot even begin to asses what the effect on inward investment would be if we did leave and leave totally. Does the Leave group(s) have any opinion on the EEA? What have they got to say about the prospect of joining Shengen Schengen. These are easily considered practical issues. So far we are given no structure at all for life outside the EU and no suggestions that we somehow join the EEA.
Well, predictions are difficult etc. However, in terms of inward investment, do you recall the dire warnings of what would happen to UK FDI if we didn't join? The Euro came in at the mid-point of the 90s. UK FDI was $30.5 billion in 1990, £118.7 billion in 2000. According to the latest figures (2014) we received 28% of Europes FDI ($35 billion).
After nearly 16 years of the Euro, the UK is still a leading destination for inward investment. Hmm. Perhaps those warnings were wrong?
Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figure
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?
They're making it up as they go along.
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
Sovereignty is a tool, not an end in itself.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
Ceding control over multilateral international issues is one thing that can make sense. We get a fraction of the say for something that involves us and another nation to be done the same.
Your only examples are for internal issues between purely British parties though where British laws could decide. The EU if we're in it could have a say in how Brits interact with people from other EU nations outside of Britain, but if it is how Brits interact with other Brits then that should be decided by the British Parliament.
It depends on what implications the interaction has for the single market, doesn't it?
Except your examples have no interaction for the single market.
On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown 2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors 3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties 4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business 5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive 6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
'In' has the support of all those who stand to gain either politically or financially and have a limited interest in the rights of everyone else to determine their own sovereignty.
They also have the added bonus of Farage as the figurehead for 'Out', which will will do more to drive votes away from leave than any other factor.
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
It means we have 2 years to negotiate precise terms of our divorce.
But if we agree nothing during that time then the UK will be an independent country, with a Queen, a Parliament, an elected PM, a seat on the Security Council, a flag and lots of other things.
In practice little will change, at least initially, because I'm sure a free trade agreement will be reached (in any event WTO rules will prevent any silliness). There will probably be some deal on free movement of labour - but certainly not the right to permanent residence without a job and with benefits.
The differences between path 1 and path 2 will become increasingly visible over a 10-20 year timeframe
Mr. Thompson, we can, but extricating ourselves will be more difficult and we'll have suffered years of damage from action designed to benefit the eurozone at our expense.
The EU wants a banking union, and then to shift to fiscal integration of the eurozone. I believe the banking union (within the eurozone, at least) is pretty much done. If the EU ever gets a grip of the migrant crisis [although Syria may run out of migrants/refugees first] that'll be on the eurocracy's agenda.
On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown 2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors 3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties 4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business 5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive 6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
I always assumed the Leave campaign would be more shambolic, but the Remain campaign has had a very poor start. They appointed a very internationalist millionaire from a sector dominated by cheap EU labour. They started their campaign going negative on the risk angle. They have already used two different sets of numbers about how much we'd lose. And then they insult half of the voters as being akin to losers.
On the plus side, at least they're not wheeling out celebrity luvvies.
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
What is the worst that can happen?
The sky will fall in.
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage? And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
What is the worst that can happen?
The sky will fall in.
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US preseident would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally insie the EU be a disadvasntage? And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
Doesn't your last sentence show that we don't have to stay in the EU?
Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
What is the worst that can happen?
The sky will fall in.
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US preseident would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally insie the EU be a disadvasntage? And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
Doesn't your last sentence show that we don't have to stay in the EU?
By election in Ogmore next year if Hugh Iranka-Davies gets Assembly nomination for that seat. Safe Labour hold, but interesting to see how UKIP fare this time.
The hallmark of imperial preference was not free trade within the Empire but trade barriers up around it. Unless a UK-AUS trade deal required them to put up tariffs with China it would not be a return to the old prefernce system.
The 48 hour directive for a start. All those maternity, paternity leave came from the EU. Part-time workers rights [ there are many now ] all enshrined in EU directives. There is no guarantee that an "Out" UK will keep those rights.
Comments
The long term implications of a majority of EU members having a common currency are entirely inimical to British interests. We can no longer count on finding common cause - we can be outvoted on a wide range of issues that affect our economy, particularly the City.
Off topic: I see Biden did not make his mind up over the weekend as widely expected. Or if he did he hasn't told anyone yet.
It seems to be a truism to always claim that the voters are anti-establishment, but then the voters vote for the establishment. So I'm not sure there's any truth in the claim.
I'm pleased with what I've seen from the IN campaign, elderly career politicians who in the past told us if we didn't join the Euro we'd be finished.
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
Now nobody's laughing.
When I make a joke, let me assure you its no laughing matter.
I would be stressing that globalisation is good for the world, but it requires co-ordinated governmental organisation at a level capable of dealing with the forces underlying that globalisation. The EU at its best has dealt well with these challenges - notably competition policy. Britain, with its outward-looking approach, is well-placed both to help the EU take a pragmatic line and to benefit from the greatly increased heft of the EU. Has the EU always worked well? No. But, I would be arguing if I were on the Remain camp, with all its faults it has improved things rather than made them worse.
Labour Briefing Editorial just after the Brighton bomb. IIRC JC was 'Chair of the Board'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html
The correct term for the language is Corbspeak
Or as Tommy Cooper used to say "People used to laugh at me when I said some day, I'd be a professional comedian. Well, no one's laughing now!"
Basically after the British left had been destroyed by Thatcher by the early 90s, Jacques Delors started going around the trade unions letting them know that they could undo Thatcherism by committing to the EU... All of a sudden, kinnock did a u turn
Another example of how rigging the selection process has reduced the talent pool on the Labour benches. From this warped talent pool Labour Leaders have to pick 50% of their cabinet.... My favourite story.
(In June 2014, Goodman was invited to give a speech at the opening of a village fair at Ingleton, County Durham in the parliamentary constituency which she had represented for nine years.[8] During her speech, she praised the village for the beauty of its waterfalls and caves and for its connection with Arthur Conan Doyle. None of these features applied to the County Durham village, but were in fact references to the village of Ingleton, situated seventy miles away in North Yorkshire.[9] The speech reportedly "baffled" the audience and after five minutes she was called away from the microphone and informed of her mistake.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Goodman
The Remain case is about fear of change and the advantages of membership - and that is the bookies favourite (and my personal expectation) to win. So your premise is wrong.
This is why I'm ever more confident of us leaving.
NB I did mention competition policy. Perhaps you didn't get to the second sentence though before your prejudices were confirmed.
Some people will think we're better off with the devil we know.
She also was taken in by a faked arms fair poster a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps Father Jack Hackeett SJ has helped her with her apology.
The EU at its best is about more than just a lack of self-government. At its best the EU is about breaking down barriers to free trade between nations etc. That people like surbiton can't bring themselves to point out something intrinsically good about the EU rather than something they view as bad about their own country is deeply, deeply depressing.
Info for those intrepid zig zaggers around Europe..If an American flew into Berlin and hired a car he could zig zag around Europe as much as he liked..just the same as any Brit could..before and after membership of the EU..there are no barriers anywhere just for the exclusive use of non EU travelers... the only places where you have to stop are toll booths on the main highways
"Cumberbatch...an actor..someone who inhabits a fictional,fantasy world...figures.. "
Talking of inhabiting a fantasy world you'll be pleased to know Ab Fab the Movie has just started its first day of shooting in that well known lefty hotbed Villefranche. It's not often Edina and Patsy fit in so well
Unlike yourself I have no prejudices at all, I simply want to be told how to live my life by Westminster rather than Brussels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34478462
Lots of gaming = worse exam performance.
Except the gaming isn't console/PC, it's playing games twice a day on portable devices. That's not what most people think of or mean when they refer to videogames.
And the sample size is only 600 kids.
The below two quotes appear contradictory:
"It found 41% of children who used portable gaming devices at least twice a day achieved at least five GCSE A* to C grades, compared with 77% of those who used them less than once a week."
"While the report recommends the introduction of a targeted scheme by government to ensure all young people have access to a computer or laptop at home, it also recommends that parents or carers limit the amount of time their child uses a games console."
I wouldn't call an Xbox One or PS4 or PC a 'portable gaming device'.
Are they talking about things like PS Vitas, PSPs and the 3DS?
The 'In' camp claim that 'Out' is an unquantifiable 'black hole', yet are somehow able to produce defined numbers to justify staying. It's all bollocks.
Numbers are irrelevant anyway. Sovereignty should be the number one concern.
A fraction of the electorate that back leave will view the leave list as certified.
A fraction of the electorate that back remain will view the remain list as certified.
The rest of us will view both as certifiable. Ultimately then it becomes a judgement call as there will be no objective right answer for the majority of the nation.
I want to live my life as I choose and don't want to be told how to live my life by either Westminster or Brussels.
Just (mainly boring) shadow boxing until then.
The ultimate aim of any democratic system of government must surely to be to secure the best possible outcomes for the highest number of people. That may mean maintaining absolute control over all issues at a national level, or it may mean pooling power with others and sometimes even ceding it.
The person who does that would break even (except for time value of money) at age 82.
This is the crux of the matter for me, govt in general is awful, the more layers we have make it even worse.
I am very prone to distraction, and would probably left school with nothing but an 'A' level in Amusing Kitten Video Appreciation.
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
Your only examples are for internal issues between purely British parties though where British laws could decide. The EU if we're in it could have a say in how Brits interact with people from other EU nations outside of Britain, but if it is how Brits interact with other Brits then that should be decided by the British Parliament.
But as far as I'm aware no one serious has used the term*
* Leave.eu and N. Farage do not qualify as "serious" although I don't know if they have used it
As other posters have said, it's all made up nonsense.
http://youtu.be/CY_BgnZdwko
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown
2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors
3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties
4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business
5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive
6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
After nearly 16 years of the Euro, the UK is still a leading destination for inward investment. Hmm. Perhaps those warnings were wrong?
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
They also have the added bonus of Farage as the figurehead for 'Out', which will will do more to drive votes away from leave than any other factor.
But if we agree nothing during that time then the UK will be an independent country, with a Queen, a Parliament, an elected PM, a seat on the Security Council, a flag and lots of other things.
In practice little will change, at least initially, because I'm sure a free trade agreement will be reached (in any event WTO rules will prevent any silliness). There will probably be some deal on free movement of labour - but certainly not the right to permanent residence without a job and with benefits.
The differences between path 1 and path 2 will become increasingly visible over a 10-20 year timeframe
The EU wants a banking union, and then to shift to fiscal integration of the eurozone. I believe the banking union (within the eurozone, at least) is pretty much done. If the EU ever gets a grip of the migrant crisis [although Syria may run out of migrants/refugees first] that'll be on the eurocracy's agenda.
On the plus side, at least they're not wheeling out celebrity luvvies.
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
Mr. Isam, quite. Not only that, there are opportunities elsewhere, as the eurozone languishes in a quagmire of predictable idiocy.
EDIT: These none of them have anything to do with the single market and are all issues that could be determined in Westminster within a single market: