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.
I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.
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
Of course we will that's not up for debate. Will we stay in the EEA or keep free movement though? No answer yet from Leave.
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.
Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.
WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.
I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.
The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.
The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.
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
Of course we will that's not up for debate. Will we stay in the EEA or keep free movement though? No answer yet from Leave.
Given Remain hasn't actually launched yet or even posed the question what is there for Leave to answer ?
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.
Farage would be best campaigning in the parts of the country where he's popular, such as Outer East London, Kent, Essex, East Anglia, ex-coalfields, and the West Midlands, outside Birmingham.
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.
Farage would be best campaigning in the parts of the country where he's popular, such as Outer East London, Kent, Essex, East Anglia, ex-coalfields, and the West Midlands, outside Birmingham.
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..
The Australian government calls it a visa, I trust the Australian government on this. Brits can apply for the same Authority as the Japanese can, we just can't apply online.
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.
Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.
WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.
I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.
The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.
So would my reading of that be correct if I said that if Leave convinced you that Britain could be even more warm, upbeat, internationalist and outward-looking then you might vote for it?
"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
Re your last point: you are assuming that they are primarily Britain's responsibilities. But is this assumption true? Isn't it rather the case that passing humanitarian responsibilities to others is precisely what some of those countries in the Middle East are doing.
And if she and the others want to be taken seriously then they have an obligation to explain why Britain should take any? If there were a humanitarian disaster in Bolivia, say, would we have an obligation to take in refugees from there? Why? Asking these questions and answering them is the first thing to be done before berating government for its "inadequate" response. What would be "adequate"? Like too many others she is assuming what she needs to prove, what she needs to persuade others of.
The money we are spending on refugees in the region is evidence that Britain is doing something, rather more in fact than other countries who have been so quick to criticise us. Just because Britain does not agree with Germany's course of action does not mean that Germany is being humanitarian and we are not.
The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.
Well that worked well for UK workers.
Our companies undercut our own people with East Europeans.
The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.
Doesn't that just mean that European companies are undercut by rivals from other parts of the world instead?
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
PT very odd that the Japanese call it anything else other than a visa and it can be issued at the OZ airport..but Brits would be turned back if the said visa was not in their passport..The arrangements seem to be miles apart and certainly disadvantage the Brits..but you go ahead and vote for in so that your OZ fiends can get easier access to the EU....
WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.
I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.
The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.
But your vision of the Britain you love is contained within the M25 :-)
The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.
That's just my concern: you can hitch so much to the back of a single market that you can argue is needed to make it work - incl. common social, justice and migration policy, and a currency, foreign policy and legal identity - that it in effect becomes a single state anyway. And that's not the end of it: you can undercut with tax policy as well.
To me, if the line was clearly drawn at just a single market for goods, services and money then we'd have a much more sellable deal. Part of that would be clearly redefining what's EU and what's national, with no ratchet clauses, so we could give UK voters a clear choice.
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.
Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.
PT very odd thatbthe Japanese callmit antythingb alse other than a visa and it can be issuedcat the OZ airport..but
Maybe its a language issue with the Japanese but the Australian government is unambiguous - only Australian and New Zealand citizens can enter Australia without a visa.
The ETA that the Japanese can apply for online we can apply for too (the exact same authority) but we just can't do it online. As for at the airport - no link to what's allowed and not but I've seen on Australian Border Patrol airport TV shows Brits be issued a visa at the airport. So I suspect the same rules still apply to both.
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.
Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
Which was why one of Cameron's points of his four point plan, about having an "explicit statement" that we could keep the pound, was such nonsense. He may as well get an "explicit statement" that we're allowed to keep the monarchy. It's already a done deal.
Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.
That's not what's being asked for. Of course we can keep the pound, that is unambiguous but currently there is a notion that the Euro the official EU currency that all nations (except UK and Denmark IIRC) should be using and protections are lacking for those outside the Eurozone.
Seeking protections for the nations outside the euro is not the same as saying "please can we keep our currency" - it is attempting to address the problem commonly mentioned here.
WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
For me it will come down to who we think we are. I expect that there remain considerable financial advantages to remaining in, but not so considerable as to decide the question.
I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.
The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.
So would my reading of that be correct if I said that if Leave convinced you that Britain could be even more warm, upbeat, internationalist and outward-looking then you might vote for it?
I have no doubt it could be. I have severe doubts that a Britain under the influence of the people currently holding much sway in the Leave campaigns would be.
The Leave camp also has to be explicit about where it in practice would be looking to work in cooperation with the EU and how.
There are a wide range of possible futures if Britain were to leave the EU. The Leave camp can't just say "we don't much like the EU". They need also to set out how they see the alternative.
PT And on my many trips to OZ I have seen Brits being put back on the plane....
As you will other nations. It is of course harder to get a visa at an airport and it is moronic not to get a visa in advance. I suspect the Japanese who can enter with the exact same visas as we can would say the exact same thing.
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?
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. T
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
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
Which was why one of Cameron's points of his four point plan, about having an "explicit statement" that we could keep the pound, was such nonsense. He may as well get an "explicit statement" that we're allowed to keep the monarchy. It's already a done deal.
We already have it: it's called the Maastricht Treaty.
Whatever he gets must be subject to a stress-test against a future Labour government signing it away without a referendum. An extra clause to Lisbon saying that 'ever closer union' don't apply to the UK is an exceptionally easy paper win for Cameron but effectively meaningless.
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?
Because meaningless concessions are the easiest one to get
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
Of course we will that's not up for debate. Will we stay in the EEA or keep free movement though? No answer yet from Leave.
Sadly, we haven't had much information from either campaign yet.
What I would like to see from Leave is a clear picture of what trade deals we could likely secure with the EU and other nations, based on solid research of what other countries have done/are doing.
What I would like to see from Remain is a clear method for how we're going to change Franco-German/Eurozone domination, the ongoing slide towards integration by new legislation, and unsustainable levels of immigration.
My vote is very much up for grabs. I want to stay in the EU as a community of nations, but not at any cost.
Interesting interview on the Today programme this morning with a retired asylum judge about what Britain is doing re refugees from the Middle East.
Two initial thoughts: (1) she was assuming that all those who wanted to come were refugees. Not the case and one would have thought that an asylum judge would know the difference between refugees and migrants; and (2) the underlying assumption was that a problem created by civil war in the Middle East was the responsibility of Europe to sort out. 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.
The "rich" countries in the Gulf, the US and UK protectorates created the IS problem. An organisation does not come out of nowhere and occupy a third of an entire country. It needs resources to begin with.
That may well be so. But that does not mean that Britain has an obligation to let people into this country. My point was that the person being interviewed seemed to think that this was primarily Britain's problem to resolve and that we were not doing our "fair" share without really explaining how she was determining what was "fair".
At the same time, is it the interviewee's business to decide who should take the refugees ? Why not Argentina or, dare I say, Australia ? There, they would be transported shipped to a remote island.
Isn't it the interviewee's business to say why Britain should take refugees? Saying that Britain should without saying why is not satisfactory IMO. We are more likely to get behind a policy of inviting refugees in if those in favour of such a policy make the case for why we should. Rather than berating people for even asking the question.
So as to be clear I do think we should take some refugees and have said on here who my priority candidates would be and why.
PT very odd thatbthe Japanese callmit antythingb alse other than a visa and it can be issuedcat the OZ airport..but
Maybe its a language issue with the Japanese but the Australian government is unambiguous - only Australian and New Zealand citizens can enter Australia without a visa.
The ETA that the Japanese can apply for online we can apply for too (the exact same authority) but we just can't do it online. As for at the airport - no link to what's allowed and not but I've seen on Australian Border Patrol airport TV shows Brits be issued a visa at the airport. So I suspect the same rules still apply to both.
Just had a look at the current Aussie website. Looks like the situation is now very similar to the US system, except that it’s free.We went for a holiday in Oz around 5 years ago and I’m sure we just went and landed, although since there’s no charge and it’s a simple on-line application I might have forgotten.
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.
I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.
I'm pretty sure you agree with that.
No I don't. The Australian process is closer to ours than you realise, they have a reciprocal free movement agreement with New Zealand in the exact same way we do with the rest of the EU. So the question is where do you draw the line, not an issue of principle.
I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?
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.
Blair, Martin Freeman, Eddie Izzard, Mandelson, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson are my dream Remain team.
Can you correlate these results to media coverage of the migrant crisis in EU and hopes (expectations?) of what Cameron might be able to negotiate to soothe concerns? What purports to be soothsaying in connection with likely outcome of EUref is actually a wild shot in the dark given 2 huge uncertainties (amongst many lesser uncertainties). Firstly, the timing of the EUref and secondly where the EU migrant crisis will take us. What will the EU look like when we have to vote?
Immigration is central to EUref and to Tory health but anyone wanting to put it on the agenda is accused of racism and various other heinous personal tendencies. This is particularly true of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade and lefties in general (leftie commentariat particularly). Regardless, this particular nettle will have to be grasped.
To my mind, as a two horse race, EUref is not much of a betting proposition either.
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 they want to drive down turnout the other approach is to make floating voters annoyed at both sides and generally sick of the whole thing. Sounds doable, no?
Plenty of time to rehearse the arguments for a referendum that's probably 18 months away at best. It may be rather like the political equivalent of baseline tennis with LEAVE and REMAIN not choosing to venture too far from their prospective comfort zones.
I do think Cameron's view will be hugely significant - the "Trust Dave" Party had a very good result in May forcing the core Conservative vote into overall majority territory and the Prime Minister retains the confidence and trust of a good number of voters who would not be instinctively Conservative.
Cameron opting for LEAVE would be the rush to the net moment for the LEAVE campaign carrying both the greatest risks and the greatest rewards. Given his personal political capital, he cannot adopt Wilsonian neutrality.
Yet IF he chooses REMAIN, will he be able to take his Cabinet with him ? Will any Ministers choose to resign on the point of principle and work with the LEAVE campaign ? Backbenchers like Steve Baker must know that if REMAIN wins on a re-negotiation package he himself cannot support, he'll be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.
Is there a re-negotiated package the Conservative Party (or at least the overwhelming majority of it) can support ? Even if there isn't, to what extent will Party loyalty triumph over principle ?
Are we then to believe that if REMAIN wins and the next Conservative leader is a supporter of LEAVE, there won't be a second referendum in the 2020-25 Parliament if the Conservatives are re-elected ?
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
Which was why one of Cameron's points of his four point plan, about having an "explicit statement" that we could keep the pound, was such nonsense. He may as well get an "explicit statement" that we're allowed to keep the monarchy. It's already a done deal.
No that was not all the point said. It went further than that.
Though judging anything from a leak at this stage is difficult if not pointless.
The case for deciding worker protection (guaranteed holidays etc.) at European level is that it largely disposes of the argument that if our companies treat people well they'll be undercut by Continental rivals who don't. It's a special case of a whole raft of minimum standard issues, including things as uncontentious as safety of HGVs. Some of them have stronger cases for decision at European level than others, and I'd think that guaranteed holidays etc. was somewhere in the middle of the range.
Well that worked well for UK workers.
Our companies undercut our own people with East Europeans.
Nick Palmer has said that he plans to retire to either Norway or Switzerland once he has finished with his UK based mischief making. Strangely both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU.
PT My last word on the subject The Japanese do not need a visa..no matter how you dress it up..Get up to Brisbane and ask the airport staff there.. as we did..which prompted us to look for this mysterious town..eventually we were told that we were not permitted to visit there..because the Japanese who ran it did not grant permission..
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
PT My last word on the subject The Japanese do not need a visa..no matter how you dress it up..Get up to Brisbane and ask the airport staff there.. as we did..
My last word if this is your last word: The Australian government website says they do as I linked to above. The Japanese and the Brits can both apply for the exact same Electronic Travel Authority that you named.
I suspect the Australian government website is not dressed up but is accurate.
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.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?
Because in the absence of any substantial concessions, they think a promise not to do something that was never going to happen will play better with British voters than Cameron being photographed walking off the ferry at Harwich with a bit of paper pinned to his back saying "piss off, you dish-faced twat".
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
One clever move Dave could pull is a sunset clause. I.e. If all these negotiations are not secured in a future EU treaty and delivered in full and we're not happy inside 10 years then that'd trigger another referendum.
It'd be balderdash of course but he could pass it into law through parliament and it might swing a few votes.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
Well it depends on your view.
He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.
hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.
Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
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.
I was there with the family this summer. I applied online with no need to involve a travel agent or any other thrid party.
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.
Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?
Because in the absence of any substantial concessions, they think a promise not to do something that was never going to happen will play better with British voters than Cameron being photographed walking off the ferry at Harwich with a bit of paper pinned to his back saying "piss off, you dish-faced twat".
It's rather like Sean T's example, where we get a written undertaking that the guards at Buckingham Palace will always be allowed to wear red uniforms.
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.
I was there with the family this summer. I applied online with no need to involve a travel agent or any other thrid party.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
One clever move Dave could pull is a sunset clause. I.e. If all these negotiations are not secured in a future EU treaty and delivered in full and we're not happy inside 10 years then that'd trigger another referendum.
It'd be balderdash of course but he could pass it into law through parliament and it might swing a few votes.
I've been toying with a thread that says Leave shouldn't go down the neverendum route.
I think Leave should say it's now or never for leaving the EU. That might firm up a few votes towards Leave.
I have a son in America so I'm familiar with an ETA, and I also have a daughter and grandkids in Oz. We visit Oz every couple of years or so and I've never even thought of a ETA. Has it changed in the last two years?
On the level playing field issue Dr P, industry would complain about standards set at EU level because although certain countries happily signed up, they were never enforced in those countries.
A very uneven playing field. Politicians and bureaucrats always make the mistake of thinking that making laws solves the problem. Only if they're enforced on an even basis. Expect the EU to' solve' the problem by trying to bring in a Euro-wide Inspectorate force. No chance with the Mediterranean countries.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
Well it depends on your view.
He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.
hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.
He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race
A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.
Cameron is very good at politics.
Just look how he dealt with that Ashcroft book last week.
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.
Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.
There's nothing in the existing treaties that would allow any bureaucrats in Brussels to make Britain get rid of the pound, unless you're thinking of Nato who could presumably gang up on Britain and threaten to bomb them or something.
So why does the government apparently want some sort of written guarantee from Brussels that we have the right to keep the pound "for ever and ever"?
Because in the absence of any substantial concessions, they think a promise not to do something that was never going to happen will play better with British voters than Cameron being photographed walking off the ferry at Harwich with a bit of paper pinned to his back saying "piss off, you dish-faced twat".
What amazes me is that Cameron is so pro-EU notwithstanding that.
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
That's ludicrous. It may be a bee in your particular bonnet but it's not significant.
People are allowed to be "wrong" about things and to change their minds. The Conservatives have changed their mind on identity cards, the Iraq War, Europe, prison reform and no doubt a host of other things as well.
It's sticking with people who are completely consistent that leads to Jeremy Corbyn. No one is like that - the ability to question, re-evaluate and change is something every politician needs to possess because the world is constantly changing.
Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
I suspect it is because negotiations are best done behind closed doors. Ultimately a day of reckoning will arrive and no matter what it will arrive before the referendum.
Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.
There still isn't anyone to lead the out campaign though. If Goldsmith is a potential outer and he wins London that would be pretty significant. What is Boris going to do?
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
That's ludicrous. It may be a bee in your particular bonnet but it's not significant.
People are allowed to be "wrong" about things and to change their minds. The Conservatives have changed their mind on identity cards, the Iraq War, Europe, prison reform and no doubt a host of other things as well.
It's sticking with people who are completely consistent that leads to Jeremy Corbyn. No one is like that - the ability to question, re-evaluate and change is something every politician needs to possess because the world is constantly changing.
The problem is people who have been wrong about things and haven't changed their minds just the topic. Using the exact same old arguments reheated over the EU that were used over the Euro.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
Well it depends on your view.
He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.
hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.
He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race
A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.
Cameron is very good at politics.
Just look how he dealt with that Ashcroft book last week.
A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.
I agree with that, which is why Osborne is such a waste of space, he should be managing a sub post office.
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.
I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.
I'm pretty sure you agree with that.
No I don't. The Australian process is closer to ours than you realise, they have a reciprocal free movement agreement with New Zealand in the exact same way we do with the rest of the EU. So the question is where do you draw the line, not an issue of principle.
I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?
That's not a fair comparison, NZ has a population less than 5m and similar economic circumstances.
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.
I'm very uncomfortable that our current arrangement gives EU citizens different privileges than those from outside, the Australian process if far more preferable.
I'm pretty sure you agree with that.
No I don't. The Australian process is closer to ours than you realise, they have a reciprocal free movement agreement with New Zealand in the exact same way we do with the rest of the EU. So the question is where do you draw the line, not an issue of principle.
I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?
That's not a fair comparison, NZ has a population less than 5m and similar economic circumstances.
So discrimination is OK in your eyes. Especially if there are similar economic circumstances?
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.
I was there with the family this summer. I applied online with no need to involve a travel agent or any other thrid party.
Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
This thing would be best handled backwards. First get together with the other European politicians and work out what you're actually going to get, then work out how to stage-manage the public grandstanding that culminates in you officially getting it.
He won't want a repeat of the Juncker thing where he announced his opposition on the assumption that the other member states were going to pick somebody else and he could take the credit, only for them to change their minds and decide to keep Juncker after all, leaving Cameron unable to backpeddle.
Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
I suspect it is because negotiations are best done behind closed doors. Ultimately a day of reckoning will arrive and no matter what it will arrive before the referendum.
Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.
But the briefing from other governments is that they haven't got a clue what Cameron is trying to do. They are as much in the dark as anyone else.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
One clever move Dave could pull is a sunset clause. I.e. If all these negotiations are not secured in a future EU treaty and delivered in full and we're not happy inside 10 years then that'd trigger another referendum.
It'd be balderdash of course but he could pass it into law through parliament and it might swing a few votes.
I've been toying with a thread that says Leave shouldn't go down the neverendum route.
I think Leave should say it's now or never for leaving the EU. That might firm up a few votes towards Leave.
I actually agree with that. If we do vote to Remain by anything >5% then I think it's game over for at least 20 years and that we'll actually end up with *more* EU integration than we would have had if we'd never had a referendum at all.
I didn't want a referendum until the Leave lead was overwhelming.
The EU will say: you voted to Remain by a big margin on the status quo, even with the transparently meaningless paper concessions, so at heart you must be happy with it, so quit whinging and get with the programme.
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.
I think you omit immigration as an issue at your peril as far as we are concerned, but your point about trust is well made. It always seems strange to me that many seem in favour of decentralisation as far as the UK is concerned but centralisation (effectively) as far as the EU is concerned. How do you reconcile opting for EU centralisation when it seems to me to involve ceding power to unelected pillocks and a German megalomaniac.
Tom Clark's article on the Tory conference was quite striking. Liam Fox reckons there are potentially 200 Tory dissenters. Whether that is typical Liam Fox hyperbole or a true reflection of the situation, who knows?
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
I suspect it is because negotiations are best done behind closed doors. Ultimately a day of reckoning will arrive and no matter what it will arrive before the referendum.
Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.
But the briefing from other governments is that they haven't got a clue what Cameron is trying to do. They are as much in the dark as anyone else.
That's again not unusual in negotiations, to leak that the other party is muddled etc
Either way the day of reckoning will come before the referendum.
Nick Palmer has said that he plans to retire to either Norway or Switzerland once he has finished with his UK based mischief making. Strangely both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU.
I'm not really planning to retire at all, though I suppose health may rear its head at some point - at present I'm just carrying on with two jobs and good health. I think Norway and Switzerland were places I quoted when I was asked where I'd like to live, but in practice I expect it'll be here, if anywhere.
On topic, we don't know what Dave will get from his negotiations with the EU nor do we know the date of the referendum.
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
One clever move Dave could pull is a sunset clause. I.e. If all these negotiations are not secured in a future EU treaty and delivered in full and we're not happy inside 10 years then that'd trigger another referendum.
It'd be balderdash of course but he could pass it into law through parliament and it might swing a few votes.
I've been toying with a thread that says Leave shouldn't go down the neverendum route.
I think Leave should say it's now or never for leaving the EU. That might firm up a few votes towards Leave.
I actually agree with that. If we do vote to Remain by anything >5% then I think it's game over for at least 20 years and that we'll actually end up with *more* EU integration than we would have had if we'd never had a referendum at all.
I didn't want a referendum until the Leave lead was overwhelming.
The EU will say: you voted to Remain by a big margin on the status quo, even with the transparently meaningless paper concessions, so at heart you must be happy with it, so quit whinging and get with the programme.
On the other hand, a nice tight race with a few decent LEAVE leads will help Cameron no end with the negotiations. The Vow, etc, etc.
I want to be able to choose who we admit to the country based on what we need in the same way Australia do, I don't care where they come from or what their colour, religion, culture is. Having lived there you're very familiar with the requirements to enter the country.
Comments
I'm pretty sure you agree with that.
I don't think we're inward-looking angry ageing ranters. I don't think we're bovine recipients of the half-baked musings of an arrogant bureaucracy either.
The side that persuades me that the Britain I love living in will be allowed to develop is the side that I will vote for. At the moment, neither much enthralls me. The fuzziness on the Leave side coupled with the unattractiveness and strangeness of many of its leading advocates is making me lean towards Remain as a safety first option - the things that can go wrong with Remain are in a narrower band and more easily foreseen. But my vote is potentially up for grabs.
Mr. Royale, maybe Cumberbatch and Freeman will team up.
And if she and the others want to be taken seriously then they have an obligation to explain why Britain should take any? If there were a humanitarian disaster in Bolivia, say, would we have an obligation to take in refugees from there? Why? Asking these questions and answering them is the first thing to be done before berating government for its "inadequate" response. What would be "adequate"? Like too many others she is assuming what she needs to prove, what she needs to persuade others of.
The money we are spending on refugees in the region is evidence that Britain is doing something, rather more in fact than other countries who have been so quick to criticise us. Just because Britain does not agree with Germany's course of action does not mean that Germany is being humanitarian and we are not.
Our companies undercut our own people with East Europeans.
To me, if the line was clearly drawn at just a single market for goods, services and money then we'd have a much more sellable deal. Part of that would be clearly redefining what's EU and what's national, with no ratchet clauses, so we could give UK voters a clear choice.
The ETA that the Japanese can apply for online we can apply for too (the exact same authority) but we just can't do it online. As for at the airport - no link to what's allowed and not but I've seen on Australian Border Patrol airport TV shows Brits be issued a visa at the airport. So I suspect the same rules still apply to both.
Seeking protections for the nations outside the euro is not the same as saying "please can we keep our currency" - it is attempting to address the problem commonly mentioned here.
The Leave camp also has to be explicit about where it in practice would be looking to work in cooperation with the EU and how.
There are a wide range of possible futures if Britain were to leave the EU. The Leave camp can't just say "we don't much like the EU". They need also to set out how they see the alternative.
Whatever he gets must be subject to a stress-test against a future Labour government signing it away without a referendum. An extra clause to Lisbon saying that 'ever closer union' don't apply to the UK is an exceptionally easy paper win for Cameron but effectively meaningless.
What I would like to see from Leave is a clear picture of what trade deals we could likely secure with the EU and other nations, based on solid research of what other countries have done/are doing.
What I would like to see from Remain is a clear method for how we're going to change Franco-German/Eurozone domination, the ongoing slide towards integration by new legislation, and unsustainable levels of immigration.
My vote is very much up for grabs. I want to stay in the EU as a community of nations, but not at any cost.
So as to be clear I do think we should take some refugees and have said on here who my priority candidates would be and why.
I draw the line at reciprocity. Where do you draw the line since Australians too also have free movement agreements?
Immigration is central to EUref and to Tory health but anyone wanting to put it on the agenda is accused of racism and various other heinous personal tendencies. This is particularly true of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade and lefties in general (leftie commentariat particularly). Regardless, this particular nettle will have to be grasped.
To my mind, as a two horse race, EUref is not much of a betting proposition either.
So how lucky are Spurs, the first side to play a Klopp managed Liverpool?
Iain Gill
@iaingill
serious lack of diversity at the launch. rows and rows of suits. we must do better than this. we must reflect Britain #StrongerIn
Plenty of time to rehearse the arguments for a referendum that's probably 18 months away at best. It may be rather like the political equivalent of baseline tennis with LEAVE and REMAIN not choosing to venture too far from their prospective comfort zones.
I do think Cameron's view will be hugely significant - the "Trust Dave" Party had a very good result in May forcing the core Conservative vote into overall majority territory and the Prime Minister retains the confidence and trust of a good number of voters who would not be instinctively Conservative.
Cameron opting for LEAVE would be the rush to the net moment for the LEAVE campaign carrying both the greatest risks and the greatest rewards. Given his personal political capital, he cannot adopt Wilsonian neutrality.
Yet IF he chooses REMAIN, will he be able to take his Cabinet with him ? Will any Ministers choose to resign on the point of principle and work with the LEAVE campaign ? Backbenchers like Steve Baker must know that if REMAIN wins on a re-negotiation package he himself cannot support, he'll be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.
Is there a re-negotiated package the Conservative Party (or at least the overwhelming majority of it) can support ? Even if there isn't, to what extent will Party loyalty triumph over principle ?
Are we then to believe that if REMAIN wins and the next Conservative leader is a supporter of LEAVE, there won't be a second referendum in the 2020-25 Parliament if the Conservatives are re-elected ?
A year before the AV referendum AV was leading very comfortably.
Also the big impact, which side is Dave going to campaign on. In the last two plebiscites Dave's been on the winning side, he's very good at politics and winning elections and plebiscites
As an aside, Remain should not use anyone who was in favour of us joining the single currency.
Though judging anything from a leak at this stage is difficult if not pointless.
Get your terminiology right.
I suspect the Australian government website is not dressed up but is accurate.
It'd be balderdash of course but he could pass it into law through parliament and it might swing a few votes.
He was only on the winning side of Indyref because he sensibly stayed well out of it.
hard to call this one whether he's better in or out. Campaign for Out and Nicola may well wet herself whereas the idea of him getting Angela and the Germans purring might not be a plus.
He's caught between a Jock and a Lard Race
I chuckled at one column's reference to Cameron's EU renegotiation as an 'immaculate conception.' Why is Cameron being so coy? Either because he knows it would be suicidal to fail to achieve any of his aims but maybe he also realises that his standing within the party depends on him getting something pretty significant, which he can't and therefore he wants to defer the civil war as long as possible.
It's all a EU citizen needs. No more or no less than a Janapese citizen. Or a Malaysian, or a Canadian, or a ...
http://www.australia-eta.com/en/general-informations
I think Leave should say it's now or never for leaving the EU. That might firm up a few votes towards Leave.
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/653518140383567872
I have a son in America so I'm familiar with an ETA, and I also have a daughter and grandkids in Oz. We visit Oz every couple of years or so and I've never even thought of a ETA. Has it changed in the last two years?
On the level playing field issue Dr P, industry would complain about standards set at EU level because although certain countries happily signed up, they were never enforced in those countries.
A very uneven playing field. Politicians and bureaucrats always make the mistake of thinking that making laws solves the problem. Only if they're enforced on an even basis. Expect the EU to' solve' the problem by trying to bring in a Euro-wide Inspectorate force. No chance with the Mediterranean countries.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-battle-of-kleidion.html
Cameron is very good at politics.
Just look how he dealt with that Ashcroft book last week.
People are allowed to be "wrong" about things and to change their minds. The Conservatives have changed their mind on identity cards, the Iraq War, Europe, prison reform and no doubt a host of other things as well.
It's sticking with people who are completely consistent that leads to Jeremy Corbyn. No one is like that - the ability to question, re-evaluate and change is something every politician needs to possess because the world is constantly changing.
Better to get a good deal than to get a lot of puffing and huffing in public but nothing achieved.
A truly great politician recognises his limitations and weakness and acts accordingly.
I agree with that, which is why Osborne is such a waste of space, he should be managing a sub post office.
At the start, Hitler was in Hannibal at Cannae phase, it was towards the end he was at his Hannibal at Zama phase.
(beyond its original intention that was to shore up the votes of Eurosceptic Tories)
PM: He should answer those questions and examine his conscience about whether he's said enough so far.
He won't want a repeat of the Juncker thing where he announced his opposition on the assumption that the other member states were going to pick somebody else and he could take the credit, only for them to change their minds and decide to keep Juncker after all, leaving Cameron unable to backpeddle.
Hitler's life expectancy after his successes was closer to Caesar's.
I didn't want a referendum until the Leave lead was overwhelming.
The EU will say: you voted to Remain by a big margin on the status quo, even with the transparently meaningless paper concessions, so at heart you must be happy with it, so quit whinging and get with the programme.
Either way the day of reckoning will come before the referendum.
If he had, he would never have acted in the way he did
I want to be able to choose who we admit to the country based on what we need in the same way Australia do, I don't care where they come from or what their colour, religion, culture is. Having lived there you're very familiar with the requirements to enter the country.