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?
No.
So when Aus and NZ went solo, they didn't have the concerns about the future that we do about leaving the EU? Why is that?
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.
Remain need to figure out where their 50% comes from. Differential voter turnout is going to be key. Eurosceptics will be highly motivated already. It's all about getting those that aren't bothered but dislike change to block them. So that requires a safety & security campaign.
If we assume a breakdown.
CON:40, LAB: 30, UKIP:15, LD+NAT: 15
Assume LD+NAT and UKIP cancel each other out.
That leaves the battle in the LAB & CON parties. If REMAIN get half of the Tories, they should be safe.
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.
That the US President wants an ally in the EU is great for America, less significant for Brits. We may have wanted America to be a part of our Empire but what mattered is what the Americans want. What we want trumps what the Americans want.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
PT A simple question for you which you may be able answer given your OZ connections..Why do the Japanese not need a visa to travel to OZ and Brits do. Were you aware of a complete Japanese town in Queensland where Australians are banned from visiting.. it is for the Japanese only..
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.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
PT A simple question for you which you may be able answer given your OZ connections..Why do the Japanese not need a visa to travel to OZ and Brits do. Were you aware of a complete Japanese town in Queensland where Australians are banned from visiting.. it is for the Japanese only..
I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria and have never heard of that town or that visa requirement. Though the Australians have long sought closer deals with Japan and the rest of South East Asia (via ASEAN etc) as their future. In my primary school Japanese was a compulsory second language and it along with French, Latin and Indonesian were the language options available.
Looking online it seems the Japanese have the same visa requirements to enter Australia as we do and only Kiwis (with whom Australia have a reciprocal deal) can enter Australia visa-free: http://www.australia.com/en/planning/visa-information.html
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.
If you take into account income tax on the pension they will be nearer 87 as a basic rate tax payer (or even 93 if higher rate). Take into account the loss of value on your "investment" due to inflation I can't see many people being best advised to do it.
A bit of a gimmick to put more funds in government coffers.
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.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
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.
Anyone done the maths on the £20k pension thingy ? Not that I'm eligible and my Dad will miss out on it by being 3 months too young
Hargreaves Lansdowne chap reckoned it was a good deal but I'm not certain £20k in for £25/week return with loss of capital is actually THAT good even if it is inflationproofed.
Nobody will believe him after his hokey-cokey non-resignation before, it'll discredit when of the names in the Out campaign, and it'll shift the focus (such as it is) from Rose inventing unconvincing numbers to the dubious credibility of a figure that's of more use to In than Out.
Also, calling perhaps the critical group you need to get on-side 'imbeciles' for disagreeing isn't going to win hearts and minds.
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.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
Nobody will believe him after his hokey-cokey non-resignation before, it'll discredit when of the names in the Out campaign, and it'll shift the focus (such as it is) from Rose inventing unconvincing numbers to the dubious credibility of a figure that's of more use to In than Out.
Also, calling perhaps the critical group you need to get on-side 'imbeciles' for disagreeing isn't going to win hearts and minds.
I'm only calling those who say they would vote Remain to spite Farage 'imbeciles', not all Tories... There can't be many
Well maybe Farage should frame it differently, 'I won't quit until we leave' might be better than 'I will if we do'
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
If you take into account income tax on the pension they will be nearer 87 as a basic rate tax payer (or even 93 if higher rate). Take into account the loss of value on your "investment" due to inflation I can't see many people being best advised to do it.
A bit of a gimmick to put more funds in government coffers.
No, it's a good deal for some people. For example, at age 65 it's equivalent to an annuity yielding 5.84%, and it's effectively index-linked. That's a lot better than you could get by buying an index-linked annuity on the open market.
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.
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
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.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.
'Ooh the big boys will bully us'. Whatever. That sounds like scaremongering.
The UK has a few bargaining chips if it came to dealing with a US playing silly beggars. (Which they won't).
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Excellent summary. Mr Rose may as well stand aside now as well - he's made a silly claim, insulted a load of potential voters and pwned as a business man who said he wanted cheap immigrant labour. Terrible starting position.
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?
snip
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.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..
The Australian government says the Japanese do so I suspect there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
It’s not one of these short-term tourist-visa-on-arrival arrangements, is it? When a Brit (or an Aussie) goes to Thailand the passport is stamped with the arrival date and there’s a penalty if one overstays. Seem to recall a similar situation when we last went to Oz. And the time before we were on a cruise ship, and the Oz immigration people were much more friendly to us as Brits and what did we think of the then current cricket tour than they were to the Yanks, who were the majority on the ship. (I can recall ALL the friendly immigration officials I’ve every met) The Americans were somewhat jealous of our friendly treatment!
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.
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..
The Australian government says the Japanese do so I suspect there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
It’s not one of these short-term tourist-visa-on-arrival arrangements, is it? When a Brit (or an Auusie goes to Thailand the passport is stamped with the arrival date and there’s a penalty if one overstays. Seem to recall a similar situation when we last went to Oz.
The Japanese are treated the same as Brits are from what I can see. Which means its a lot easier to get a visa including a working holiday visa.
The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
It's a stupid claim.
For £450 you can control immigration, stop benefit tourism, avoid overloading the NHS, schools and housing and regain some of the £760 each household pays in to the EU.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
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.
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.
The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?
I really don't know.. He never said he was quitting politics at the GE, just standing down as UKIP leader.
But, given he has health problems and his life's ambition would have been realised, it may suit him to give up on the back of a leave vote, and may reduce any fears the undecided have about a post EU Britain
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argument
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argument
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argument
Not surprised at all, will probably end with the same outcome too. Although as less sovereignty is at stake and as the out campaign is not being led by the national government (like Out Scotland being led by the Scottish government) I don't expect it to be as close.
All this talk on the EU referendum is getting rather boring. There's little new to discuss, and so we're going into peoples' characters and examining the entrails of conversations.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argument
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
As did Scottish Nationalists.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argument
Not surprised at all, will probably end with the same outcome too. Although as less sovereignty is at stake and as the out campaign is not being led by the national government (like Out Scotland being led by the Scottish government) I don't expect it to be as close.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.
I thought Mandy and Danny Alexander were going to be leading the charge alongside Rose this morning?
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.
blockquote>
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.
'Ooh the big boys will bully us'. Whatever. That sounds like scaremongering.
The UK has a few bargaining chips if it came to dealing with a US playing silly beggars. (Which they won't).
There's no rational reason why sensible free trade arrangements could not be arranged between the UK and R-EU. It would be in both parties' interests.
But, it's possible that that R-EU might react very emotionally if we voted to Leave, and seek to punish us for it. Rational self-interest isn't everything in politics.
Not, that I would regard that as a strong reason to Remain.
The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.
I thought Mandy and Danny Alexander were going to be leading the charge alongside Rose this morning?
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.
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.
Again an issue of nation states. The fact is we're dealing with Merkel and not Juncker.
The EU is nowhere near a monolithic superpower that either its vehement supporters or vehement opponents imagine. The importance of Merkel is symptomatic of the EU being an EU of nations still today. It is economics and realpolitik that make Merkel and Cameron so important.
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.
These crazy made up numbers are what piss me off most about the IN campaign. They are plucked out their arse, but with a religious conviction. Have the temerity to vote LEAVE and you will be damned to the hellfires for all eternity - plus you'll be worse off to the tune of £3,000 a year.
By early 2016, they'll be claiming voting LEAVE will give you anal warts.
PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't. On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
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.
These crazy made up numbers are what piss me off most about the IN campaign. They are plucked out their arse, but with a religious conviction. Have the temerity to vote LEAVE and you will be damned to the hellfires for all eternity - plus you'll be worse off to the tune of £3,000 a year.
By early 2016, they'll be claiming voting LEAVE will give you anal warts.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't. On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.
I tend to agree with this so what does the EU offer?
Possible answers are:
A structure in which a series of relatively small states can coordinate policy on trade, diplomacy, crime prevention, minimum standards and fair trade.
A structure which allows that bloc to talk on at least equal terms with other blocs such as the NAFTA.
Joint policies on issues like pollution where actions in one country have immediate effects on their neighbours.
A portfolio of rights to the individual citizen including the right to visit or set up a business in any member state, to vote in some of their elections and to be treated fairly when applying for a job or a University place or a contract there.
Structural funds to help the poorer areas of the EU (including, historically, parts of the UK) come up to the standards of the majority.
Is the EU absolutely essential to achieve all these things? Probably not. But it undoubtedly makes at least some of them easier. Does it do all of these things well? Absolutely not. But maybe better than the alternatives?
As I have said I swither on this from day to day. I struggle to see how anyone can see this as something clear cut. It is a very complicated trade off between the undoubted irritations and the benefits. Where that cost benefit analysis ends up overall will depend in part as to how the EU is going to move forward from here. But only in part because it has come a long way already.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't. On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
We will keep the pound
Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't. On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up on both sides and until Cameron comes back with a definitive package they're all second guessing in any event.
However I have been surprised by how badly presented Remain has been to date on their trump card of the economy.
The arguments better improve or they're in trouble.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.
Yes you're right, both arguments are veering towards the spherical but I'm afraid it'sd what we will be stuck with for the next 2 years.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Our current situation is discriminatory
So what?
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.
PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..
It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.
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.
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
W
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.
Again an issue of nation states. The fact is we're dealing with Merkel and not Juncker.
The EU is nowhere near a monolithic superpower that either its vehement supporters or vehement opponents imagine. The importance of Merkel is symptomatic of the EU being an EU of nations still today. It is economics and realpolitik that make Merkel and Cameron so important.
I don't want to remain part of an EU where negotiations on matters of interest to us on shared competencies are subject to wild cards played by one nation state where we have an opt-out.
It doesn't have to be a monolith. If one nation state is so dominant it is able to dictate terms then the de jure QMV of a series of individually sovereign nation states becomes academic.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Our current situation is discriminatory
So what?
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.
I tend to agree with this so what does the EU offer?
Possible answers are:
A structure in which a series of relatively small states can coordinate policy on trade, diplomacy, crime prevention, minimum standards and fair trade.
A structure which allows that bloc to talk on at least equal terms with other blocs such as the NAFTA.
Joint policies on issues like pollution where actions in one country have immediate effects on their neighbours.
A portfolio of rights to the individual citizen including the right to visit or set up a business in any member state, to vote in some of their elections and to be treated fairly when applying for a job or a University place or a contract there.
Structural funds to help the poorer areas of the EU (including, historically, parts of the UK) come up to the standards of the majority.
Is the EU absolutely essential to achieve all these things? Probably not. But it undoubtedly makes at least some of them easier. Does it do all of these things well? Absolutely not. But maybe better than the alternatives?
As I have said I swither on this from day to day. I struggle to see how anyone can see this as something clear cut. It is a very complicated trade off between the undoubted irritations and the benefits. Where that cost benefit analysis ends up overall will depend in part as to how the EU is going to move forward from here. But only in part because it has come a long way already.
These are all very nice, however, the benefits of many are far outweighed by the loss of self determination and sovereignty.
STAY versus LEAVE. It's not mainly about "costs" and "benefits". People will make the choice according to whether they feel better about policies being decided by our government in Britain or by the EU. If you distrust the government here, then you'll want it to be constrained and have policy-making outsourced to Brussels. This is what drives Scottish nationalists' preference for the EU for example. And it is why Greece has not yet ditched the Euro – they trust Brussels more than Athens. Speaking for myself I distrust Brussels more than Westminster because of its lax governance and accountability, and also because decisions within the club reflect other countries' preferences and interests (e.g. the CAP for France, or the "vision" thing of ever closer union). I want Cameron to pull us out of the federalist tide and towards a looser confereration of autonomous nations.
PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..
It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?
Given the pathetic stuff we are being told is at the centre of our negotiating position, I can't see me voting to STAY. My big fear is we get a 52% REMAIN vote, with Scotland having stopped the UK voting LEAVE. We are then told, "that's settled then" and end up getting voted into ever closer union, regardless of us having in our hands a piece of paper....
I have some respect for the way that the EU has stuck together over the Euro, when many thought that Greece must leave. But I don't want to be on the wrong end of that democratic deficit, when 26 decide to stick it to us over something which will be to their benefit and our considerable detriment, such as stuffing the City of London. LEAVE has considerable attractions. I just worry that Farage, the EU's Useful Idiot, will muddy the waters with his temper tantrums, preventing a coherent alternative narrative being allowed to form.
I have no worries about the role of the UK outside the EU. I suspect not much will actually change, other than we won't have to write out huge subscription cheques. I would really love for LEAVE to highlight where they would spend this saving on domestic infrastructure projects. That would REALLY start to get the message through.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Our current situation is discriminatory
So what?
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?
You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.
As is the claim that the EU benefits each household by £3,000 a year and has a cost:benefit ratio of 10:1.
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Our current situation is discriminatory
So what?
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?
You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.
Australia discriminates, as we were discussing above. It is a lot easier to get into Australia as a Brit or Japanese than it is from other nations - and reciprocally it is easier for Australians to enter the UK or Japan than it is many other nations.
Australia also has a free movement agreement with New Zealand.
Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.
PT It is not a visa..not even called a visa..no attempt to be a visa..It is an Electronic Authority applied for on the web... Brits have to apply for a visa even for a very short trip.....or we don't get in..I said nothing about going to work in Aus If we turn up in OZ without a visa then we get back onthe plane The Japanese can get the Authority as they enter..
@RIchard_Nabavi Yes, actually £20k for £25/week is surprisingly enough a good deal. Most annuity deals look simply awful to me though.
Yeah, annuity rates are not exactly overwhelming in their generosity.
The other thing worth considering for anyone near pension age is simply deferring the state pension if they can afford to do so - that is currently an extremely good deal, but the rules are changing and for people who reach state pension age after 6 April 2016 it becomes much less generous.
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?
Given the pathetic stuff we are being told is at the centre of our negotiating position, I can't see me voting to STAY. My big fear is we get a 52% REMAIN vote, with Scotland having stopped the UK voting LEAVE. We are then told, "that's settled then" and end up getting voted into ever closer union, regardless of us having in our hands a piece of paper....
I have some respect for the way that the EU has stuck together over the Euro, when many thought that Greece must leave. But I don't want to be on the wrong end of that democratic deficit, when 26 decide to stick it to us over something which will be to their benefit and our considerable detriment, such as stuffing the City of London. LEAVE has considerable attractions. I just worry that Farage, the EU's Useful Idiot, will muddy the waters with his temper tantrums, preventing a coherent alternative narrative being allowed to form.
I have no worries about the role of the UK outside the EU. I suspect not much will actually change, other than we won't have to write out huge subscription cheques. I would really love for LEAVE to highlight where they would spend this saving on domestic infrastructure projects. That would REALLY start to get the message through.
Thanks MM. That's good to hear, and I agree entirely with you.
Have you seen the Vote Leave launch video? That largely answers your final question.
Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34505030
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with respect to November's election.
If we assume a breakdown.
CON:40, LAB: 30, UKIP:15, LD+NAT: 15
Assume LD+NAT and UKIP cancel each other out.
That leaves the battle in the LAB & CON parties. If REMAIN get half of the Tories, they should be safe.
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Were you aware of a complete Japanese town in Queensland where Australians are banned from visiting.. it is for the Japanese only..
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
It is not clear that Scottish nationalists will vote In if its their best chance for leaving the UK.
Liberal Democrat voters are also not as pro-EU as their activists and MPs are.
I agree Conservative voters are the swing bloc that will determine this.
Looking online it seems the Japanese have the same visa requirements to enter Australia as we do and only Kiwis (with whom Australia have a reciprocal deal) can enter Australia visa-free: http://www.australia.com/en/planning/visa-information.html
A bit of a gimmick to put more funds in government coffers.
If an Australian wants to live or work in France they need a visa.
Anyone done the maths on the £20k pension thingy ? Not that I'm eligible and my Dad will miss out on it by being 3 months too young
Hargreaves Lansdowne chap reckoned it was a good deal but I'm not certain £20k in for £25/week return with loss of capital is actually THAT good even if it is inflationproofed.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Nobody will believe him after his hokey-cokey non-resignation before, it'll discredit when of the names in the Out campaign, and it'll shift the focus (such as it is) from Rose inventing unconvincing numbers to the dubious credibility of a figure that's of more use to In than Out.
Also, calling perhaps the critical group you need to get on-side 'imbeciles' for disagreeing isn't going to win hearts and minds.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.
Well maybe Farage should frame it differently, 'I won't quit until we leave' might be better than 'I will if we do'
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
See the table towards the bottom of this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34474028
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
The UK has a few bargaining chips if it came to dealing with a US playing silly beggars. (Which they won't).
The Americans were somewhat jealous of our friendly treatment!
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.
For £450 you can control immigration, stop benefit tourism, avoid overloading the NHS, schools and housing and regain some of the £760 each household pays in to the EU.
Daft.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
But, given he has health problems and his life's ambition would have been realised, it may suit him to give up on the back of a leave vote, and may reduce any fears the undecided have about a post EU Britain
I thought that was Bob Monkhouse...
Can we have an AV thread please?
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
The EU is nowhere near a monolithic superpower that either its vehement supporters or vehement opponents imagine. The importance of Merkel is symptomatic of the EU being an EU of nations still today. It is economics and realpolitik that make Merkel and Cameron so important.
By early 2016, they'll be claiming voting LEAVE will give you anal warts.
Actually, I think you're correct. It's a good joke.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
Possible answers are:
A structure in which a series of relatively small states can coordinate policy on trade, diplomacy, crime prevention, minimum standards and fair trade.
A structure which allows that bloc to talk on at least equal terms with other blocs such as the NAFTA.
Joint policies on issues like pollution where actions in one country have immediate effects on their neighbours.
A portfolio of rights to the individual citizen including the right to visit or set up a business in any member state, to vote in some of their elections and to be treated fairly when applying for a job or a University place or a contract there.
Structural funds to help the poorer areas of the EU (including, historically, parts of the UK) come up to the standards of the majority.
Is the EU absolutely essential to achieve all these things? Probably not. But it undoubtedly makes at least some of them easier. Does it do all of these things well? Absolutely not. But maybe better than the alternatives?
As I have said I swither on this from day to day. I struggle to see how anyone can see this as something clear cut. It is a very complicated trade off between the undoubted irritations and the benefits. Where that cost benefit analysis ends up overall will depend in part as to how the EU is going to move forward from here. But only in part because it has come a long way already.
Mr. F, aye, I thought it was Monkhouse.
However I have been surprised by how badly presented Remain has been to date on their trump card of the economy.
The arguments better improve or they're in trouble.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
A kind of fast track Indyref.
It doesn't have to be a monolith. If one nation state is so dominant it is able to dictate terms then the de jure QMV of a series of individually sovereign nation states becomes academic.
People will make the choice according to whether they feel better about policies being decided by our government in Britain or by the EU.
If you distrust the government here, then you'll want it to be constrained and have policy-making outsourced to Brussels. This is what drives Scottish nationalists' preference for the EU for example. And it is why Greece has not yet ditched the Euro – they trust Brussels more than Athens.
Speaking for myself I distrust Brussels more than Westminster because of its lax governance and accountability, and also because decisions within the club reflect other countries' preferences and interests (e.g. the CAP for France, or the "vision" thing of ever closer union). I want Cameron to pull us out of the federalist tide and towards a looser confereration of autonomous nations.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
I have some respect for the way that the EU has stuck together over the Euro, when many thought that Greece must leave. But I don't want to be on the wrong end of that democratic deficit, when 26 decide to stick it to us over something which will be to their benefit and our considerable detriment, such as stuffing the City of London. LEAVE has considerable attractions. I just worry that Farage, the EU's Useful Idiot, will muddy the waters with his temper tantrums, preventing a coherent alternative narrative being allowed to form.
I have no worries about the role of the UK outside the EU. I suspect not much will actually change, other than we won't have to write out huge subscription cheques. I would really love for LEAVE to highlight where they would spend this saving on domestic infrastructure projects. That would REALLY start to get the message through.
Some people just want the conversations to be about them
Australia also has a free movement agreement with New Zealand.
The other thing worth considering for anyone near pension age is simply deferring the state pension if they can afford to do so - that is currently an extremely good deal, but the rules are changing and for people who reach state pension age after 6 April 2016 it becomes much less generous.
http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/state-pension-explained/deferring-your-state-pension/
...by 70% to 30%. None of them are really on the fence.
Have you seen the Vote Leave launch video? That largely answers your final question.