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.
You could argue (I don't) that nation-states are irrelevant, and it makes no difference whether power is vested at national government level, or supra-national government level.
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.
I think you mean "reside and work in", rather than "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.
Annuity rates, like most insurance rates, are bets. If you don't like the odds you don't have to bet but you wouldn't expect your bookmaker to have a different attitude to yours when setting the odds would you?
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
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.
No place for Russell Brand and Charlotte Church?
There are lines which cannot be crossed
Hmm.
Both mad. Both left. Both single.
Brand 4 Church.
Reduce the anxiety for both women and men in the population at a stroke.
Whatever he gets must be subject to a stress-test against a future Labour government signing it away without a referendum.
Or a future Conservative government, presumably?
Yes.
I think any administration tacks towards less freedom of information, increased authoritarianism, and sympathises more with other friendly adminstriations overseas as time goes on.
Its perceptions become ever more divorced from the electorate, and it makes the day-to-day job of governing easier.
Mr. Isam, blimey. Lucky we're in, or I'd be hugely in debt.
As a thought experiment, what would actually happen if everyone in the country was £480m in debt ?
Easily done. Borrow £50 from Wonga and if you don't repay in full within 30 days the debt works out at £500million. Fortunately they have an easy repayment scheme. Just £1 a month for the rest of time (or at least until you evolve into a less gullible lifeform.)
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.
Well I shall endeavour to do a thread on it sometime in the near future.
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
Comparing a neighbour of 5m with one of 500m is odd.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
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.
What a typically leftie view. You get a much better quality of regulation in the EU, like we are incapable of making appropriate decisions here. In mitigation he is a leftie.
It seems to me INs biggest problem is that it will be backed foursquare by 'the establishment' and right now the voters are pretty anti-establishment.
Are the voters anti-establishment? The last General Election saw not just an increase in the main party of governments share and the lowest number of protest party seats in decades but an increase in the share of the vote for both established major parties.
It seems to be a truism to always claim that the voters are anti-establishment, but then the voters vote for the establishment. So I'm not sure there's any truth in the claim.
Agreed. I don't doubt there is widespread dissatisfaction with 'the establishment', but for the time being, it seems to be holding steady.
@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.
Annuity rates, like most insurance rates, are bets. If you don't like the odds you don't have to bet but you wouldn't expect your bookmaker to have a different attitude to yours when setting the odds would you?
Is that strictly true with annuities, don't you need to use at least half (Previously all?!) your pension pot to buy them. Seeing as most employers match contributions on a DC scheme its worth buying in on. But can the terrible annuities be avoided completely ?
Personally I'd rather have as much as my pot on retirement as possible. I'd spend £20k on this though as beating 5.39% annuity risk free is tricky.
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.
No place for Russell Brand and Charlotte Church?
This is an open ended hate list. I'm tempted to play but I'm not sure I can spare the necessary time. I like the ones we've got so far.
What amazes me is that Cameron is so pro-EU notwithstanding that.
TBF the British government get a lot of what they want in European negotiations, the problem is that: 1) A lot of it's dull and technical 2) It's mixed up with compromises and things they don't want, and that's what the media are inevitably going to run those 3) It's mostly done in boring, largely consensual discussions, rather than through entertaining us-vs-them stand-offs.
The result is that despite doing all the dull compromising day-to-day stuff, he feels the need to put on a grand, spectacular save-the-British-sausage display every now and then.
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
Comparing a neighbour of 5m with one of 500m is odd.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
Well we're quite a bit bigger than either NZ or Aus. If you compare us to NZ then NZ has freedom of movement with an external population 5.2 times their size whereas we have freedom of movement with an external population 6.8 times our size. Quite comparable really.
Currently the Leave campaign are suggesting we could keep freedom of movement so its not that odd either.
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.
[snip]
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?
Either you have a free-for-all or you have admission criteria. If you have admission criteria then inevitably there will be at the minimum latent discrimination by some groups being more affected than others.
I have no problem with this. The government is elected to protect and promote the interests of the people of the UK, not to be some impartial international referee.
Annuity rates, like most insurance rates, are bets. If you don't like the odds you don't have to bet but you wouldn't expect your bookmaker to have a different attitude to yours when setting the odds would you?
Until Osborne's recent changes most people did have to bet. But it's true that now you have other options.
Mr. Isam, blimey. Lucky we're in, or I'd be hugely in debt.
As a thought experiment, what would actually happen if everyone in the country was £480m in debt ?
Easily done. Borrow £50 from Wonga and if you don't repay in full within 30 days the debt works out at £500million. Fortunately they have an easy repayment scheme. Just £1 a month for the rest of time (or at least until you evolve into a less gullible lifeform.)
But that's not actually true as they freeze the interest accumulation at 60 days. It's the compound APR they are obliged to report that looks silly.
I'm not a huge fan of Wonga but if they're going to be attacked it's better to use facts - like their fake legal letters demanding repayment.
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
Comparing a neighbour of 5m with one of 500m is odd.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
Well we're quite a bit bigger than either NZ or Aus. If you compare us to NZ then NZ has freedom of movement with an external population 5.2 times their size whereas we have freedom of movement with an external population 6.8 times our size. Quite comparable really.
Currently the Leave campaign are suggesting we could keep freedom of movement so its not that odd either.
Are you absolutely certain LEAVE wants to keep freedom of movement?
Either you have a free-for-all or you have admission criteria. If you have admission criteria then inevitably there will be at the minimum latent discrimination by some groups being more affected than others.
I have no problem with this. The government is elected to protect and promote the interests of the people of the UK, not to be some impartial international referee.
I agree completely. It is a very bizarre argument to suggest we should leave the EU and abolish freedom of movement because it is discriminatory and that we should be like another nation that discriminates because it isn't as much discrimination.
All governments discriminate in international relations as they should. It is a part of having negotiations and international relations.
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
Comparing a neighbour of 5m with one of 500m is odd.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
Well we're quite a bit bigger than either NZ or Aus. If you compare us to NZ then NZ has freedom of movement with an external population 5.2 times their size whereas we have freedom of movement with an external population 6.8 times our size. Quite comparable really.
Currently the Leave campaign are suggesting we could keep freedom of movement so its not that odd either.
Are you absolutely certain LEAVE wants to keep freedom of movement?
If so I'd be grateful for you reference it.
No I'm not so absolutely certain because there is no single answer from Leave. Many leavers are suggesting we should leave the EU and join the EEA which keeps freedom of movement.
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.
What a typically leftie view. You get a much better quality of regulation in the EU, like we are incapable of making appropriate decisions here. In mitigation he is a leftie.
No, the argument seems to be that regulations must be standard to ensure the proper working of free markets.
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.
If you feel that fair enough. I felt that about Scotland remaining part of the UK and spent a lot of time and shoe leather to do my bit to make it happen. I can confidently predict that there is absolutely no chance of me doing that for either side in this referendum. It is just not that big a deal for me.
I always vote so I will. I genuinely don't know which way yet.
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.
What a typically leftie view. You get a much better quality of regulation in the EU, like we are incapable of making appropriate decisions here. In mitigation he is a leftie.
That's unfair. Nick's not saying that you get a 'better' standard of regulation at EU level, simply that EU agreements prevent a race to the bottom within the Union.
I don't particularly agree with him. Global pressures will work on the EU just as much as on individual states, and - on the other side of the equation - mobile workers will gravitate to places with higher pay and better conditions, so market pressures do have an effect both ways.
But it is a practical rather than ideological debate.
What amazes me is that Cameron is so pro-EU notwithstanding that.
TBF the British government get a lot of what they want in European negotiations, the problem is that: 1) A lot of it's dull and technical 2) It's mixed up with compromises and things they don't want, and that's what the media are inevitably going to run those 3) It's mostly done in boring, largely consensual discussions, rather than through entertaining us-vs-them stand-offs.
The result is that despite doing all the dull compromising day-to-day stuff, he feels the need to put on a grand, spectacular save-the-British-sausage display every now and then.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
Is that strictly true with annuities, don't you need to use at least half (Previously all?!) your pension pot to buy them. Seeing as most employers match contributions on a DC scheme its worth buying in on. But can the terrible annuities be avoided completely ?.
You no longer have to buy an annuity at all. Thanks to Osborne's changes, you can buy an annuity, or take out the whole lot (25% tax-free, the rest taxable as income), or stay invested without taking an income, or stay invested and live off the (taxed) income from the investments, or any combination thereof.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
It's a very odd situation.
No-one has explained what problem this renegotiation/referendum trying to solve, yet has the potential to be hugely disruptive both to the country and the government.
All risk and no up side for the govt. Either IN wins and nothing happens or OUT wins and everything is up in the air and govt looks foolish.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
It's a very odd situation.
No-one has explained what problem this renegotiation/referendum trying to solve, yet has the potential to be hugely disruptive both to the country and the government.
All risk and no up side for the govt. Either IN wins and nothing happens or OUT wins and everything is up in the air and govt looks foolish.
Of course the problem has been explained. It's crass to suggest otherwise and to do so suggests you are dissembling or stupid. The eurozone is inevitably moving to closer monetary, fiscal and thus political union. This is the fundamental issue.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
Hague was a terrible leader and even worse Foreign Secretary. He's decent stand-up comic and competent after dinner speaker. His political influence is near zero.
George Osborne going into the annuity business is quite a smart way of getting cash into the government coffers in the short term.
If this is a good deal for the purchaser, does it not increase structural deficit due to the future payouts though ? Unless a bunch of overweight heavy smokers and drinkers buy em I suppose...
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
It's a very odd situation.
No-one has explained what problem this renegotiation/referendum trying to solve, yet has the potential to be hugely disruptive both to the country and the government.
All risk and no up side for the govt. Either IN wins and nothing happens or OUT wins and everything is up in the air and govt looks foolish.
Of course the problem has been explained. It's crass to suggest otherwise and to do so suggests you are dissembling or stupid. The eurozone is inevitably moving to closer monetary, fiscal and thus political union. This is the fundamental issue.
In this case this vote is irrelevant. On the fiscal point, The UK has no obligation to join the Euro nor power to stop others doing what they want. No need for a referendum or renegotiation on the political point either.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
Anti-Euro (the currency).
Yes, I expect he will be on the Remain side. And he will be quite influential, because no-one can accuse him of being one of those who was wrong on the Euro.
Conversely, if he were to come down on the Leave side, he could shift a chunk of votes the other way.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
The Euro is a currency, he still is anti-Euro. Everyone is now, Hague has won that argument well and truly.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
George Osborne going into the annuity business is quite a smart way of getting cash into the government coffers in the short term.
If this is a good deal for the purchaser, does it not increase structural deficit due to the future payouts though ? Unless a bunch of overweight heavy smokers and drinkers buy em I suppose...
I can't think why a Conservative Chancellor might wish to give disguised longterm subsidies to modestly well-off pensioners. Perhaps someone could help me out with this problem.
I love the EU for some aspects, Community Trade Marks and other IP covering the entire EU are very useful for my business. There are many good bits.
Democratically it is a pickle. The interests of Nations will always override the interest of the EU causing friction. I don't relish the position of a permanent outsider as the Euro zone have common interest (?!) and the few countries with sovereign currencies are a pest to be ignored. If I could see a way in which we were committed and involved, harmonious and pulling in the same direction I would vote in.
Problem is, I see issues and conflict with our culture and interest.
I am leaning on the Leave side, and the position of Cameron will have little bearing on my view. The deal he gets may influence me, but I will make my assessment and base my decision on my judgement not his recommendation.
In or out will make very little difference for employment and daily lives for the majority in the medium term.
Election Data made a good point on twitter the other day about the EU referendum:
@election_data @election_data · Oct 9 There is no path to a Leave vote that doesn't pass through the Labour heartlands.
Those voters are going to be hard to reach for the Leave campaign because so few prominent Labour figures are Leavers.
Doesn't the fact that heartland Labour constituencies are trending UKIP tell us something?
I think that's where UKIP could be very useful to the Leave campaign, in places like the Black Country, Durham, Tyneside, South Yorkshire, South Wales, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire.
Clearly, UKIP would be no use to Leave in core cities.
"He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade. "
WE....WANT....TO.....BE....IN....EUROPE.....NOT......RUN......BY......EUROPE ....in a flat Yorkshire accent isn't an easy line to deliver optimistically!
"He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade. "
WE....WANT....TO.....BE....IN....EUROPE.....NOT......RUN......BY......EUROPE ....in a flat Yorkshire accent isn't an easy line to deliver optimistically!
One of my friends reckons 'Bratislav Ivanovic' are the perfect words to use to do an impression of Hague
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.
What a typically leftie view. You get a much better quality of regulation in the EU, like we are incapable of making appropriate decisions here. In mitigation he is a leftie.
That's unfair. Nick's not saying that you get a 'better' standard of regulation at EU level, simply that EU agreements prevent a race to the bottom within the Union.
I don't particularly agree with him. Global pressures will work on the EU just as much as on individual states, and - on the other side of the equation - mobile workers will gravitate to places with higher pay and better conditions, so market pressures do have an effect both ways.
But it is a practical rather than ideological debate.
Correct. There may be an argument to be had about the quality of regulation, whether it is needed or not and what can be left locally, but in a wider European context related to free and common markets then the principle of fair competition and preventing as you say a race to the bottom is fair enough. If were were in the EEA we would be involved in the same regulations.
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.
Yes I'm very familiar with the fact that the Australians discriminate quite readily where they're happy to and are very happy to have a free movement agreement with their neighbour. As am I.
Comparing a neighbour of 5m with one of 500m is odd.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
Well we're quite a bit bigger than either NZ or Aus. If you compare us to NZ then NZ has freedom of movement with an external population 5.2 times their size whereas we have freedom of movement with an external population 6.8 times our size. Quite comparable really.
Currently the Leave campaign are suggesting we could keep freedom of movement so its not that odd either.
Are you absolutely certain LEAVE wants to keep freedom of movement?
If so I'd be grateful for you reference it.
No I'm not so absolutely certain because there is no single answer from Leave. Many leavers are suggesting we should leave the EU and join the EEA which keeps freedom of movement.
You reiterate my own point. What do leavers want? If we do leave then the same arguments would start all over again.
George Osborne going into the annuity business is quite a smart way of getting cash into the government coffers in the short term.
If this is a good deal for the purchaser, does it not increase structural deficit due to the future payouts though ? Unless a bunch of overweight heavy smokers and drinkers buy em I suppose...
I can't think why a Conservative Chancellor might wish to give disguised longterm subsidies to modestly well-off pensioners. Perhaps someone could help me out with this problem.
I stayed out of the Post Office share offer as some finance bod came on the radio and said "It might go down as well as up."
I'm totally signed up to the great Lloyds giveaway.
Election Data made a good point on twitter the other day about the EU referendum:
@election_data @election_data · Oct 9 There is no path to a Leave vote that doesn't pass through the Labour heartlands.
Those voters are going to be hard to reach for the Leave campaign because so few prominent Labour figures are Leavers.
Doesn't the fact that heartland Labour constituencies are trending UKIP tell us something?
I think that's where UKIP could be very useful to the Leave campaign, in places like the Black Country, Durham, Tyneside, South Yorkshire, South Wales, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire.
Clearly, UKIP would be no use to Leave in core cities.
Once the real campaign starts things will be boiled down pretty rapidly IMHO. The 'Stays' will be arguing that 'its a leap in the dark, economic disaster, will knacker people with respect to jobs, holidays, sick pay etc etc. On the other, the 'Out' argument will boil down to 'allow UK to control and thereby halt immigration'. I can't see any of the other 'Out' stuff about general sovereignty, freedom of our parliament, fisheries policy etc etc getting any traction.
In that respect UKIP are probably right to be jumping up and down and saying they need to have a major role.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
The Euro is a currency, he still is anti-Euro. Everyone is now, Hague has won that argument well and truly.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
That's not my recollection. He was skewered because he only promised to stay out of the euro for the lifetime of the next parliament and he looked shifty, especially when Thatcher intervened and said she would never go into it. It was pointless (even more so as it turned out) equivocation, and made him going around in a truck waving a pound coin around look silly.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
It's a very odd situation.
No-one has explained what problem this renegotiation/referendum trying to solve, yet has the potential to be hugely disruptive both to the country and the government.
All risk and no up side for the govt. Either IN wins and nothing happens or OUT wins and everything is up in the air and govt looks foolish.
The vote will be decided on immigration. That's why Leave look favourites to me.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
"He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade. "
WE....WANT....TO.....BE....IN....EUROPE.....NOT......RUN......BY......EUROPE ....in a flat Yorkshire accent isn't an easy line to deliver optimistically!
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
The Euro is a currency, he still is anti-Euro. Everyone is now, Hague has won that argument well and truly.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
That's not my recollection. He was skewered because he only promised to stay out of the euro for the lifetime of the next parliament and he looked shifty, especially when Thatcher intervened and said she would never go into it. It was pointless (even more so as it turned out) equivocation, and made him going around in a truck waving a pound coin around look silly.
But yes, you are right, I was confusing the two.
It was not pointless equivocation. We would have a new election before the next Parliament at which stage the government can and should come up with a new manifesto. Any pledge for outside of the next Parliament is gesture politics.
The Euro could have been a tremendous success and we could have been worse off without it. In which case it would make sense to change policy and have a referendum but only after a general election. The Euro was not a tremendous success and so now opinion is settled on the matter.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
"He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade. "
WE....WANT....TO.....BE....IN....EUROPE.....NOT......RUN......BY......EUROPE ....in a flat Yorkshire accent isn't an easy line to deliver optimistically!
Just saw a Dennis Pennie sketch where he asks Emma Thompson if she s going to do a tampon advert because she's good at period stuff!
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
Do you want me to do regular threads on AV/electoral reform ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
Your statement lacks internal logic. If they are tribal as you claim then Cameron *is* what they believe in, surely.
Russia and Syria seem to be making very good headway over the past week against the various Islamist groups including ISIS. This (Lebanese) site seems to have daily blow by blow accounts from one reporter, so is one I follow. http://www.almasdarnews.com/ It's wholly government supporting, so don't look for neutrality, but still lists their defeats and losses, unlike the state media that is more pravda-esque.
The major difference appears to be the use of Russian helicopters in assisting the advance of the troops. When they don't have this, the army's attacks are often stalled, when they do, they seem irresistable. This makes me think there will soon be Russian casualties - helicopters are famously vulnerable to surface to air missiles, and it seems likely that a retaliation on the part of the jihadist's regional backers will be to supply these asap.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
Your statement lacks internal logic. If they are tribal as you claim then Cameron *is* what they believe in, surely.
Yes and no, they want to leave the EU but the party always comes first.
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
Do you want me to do regular threads on AV/electoral reform ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
The Scottish Indy ref angle being that the next one will be held under AV, with everyone having two votes?
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
The Euro is a currency, he still is anti-Euro. Everyone is now, Hague has won that argument well and truly.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
That's not my recollection. He was skewered because he only promised to stay out of the euro for the lifetime of the next parliament and he looked shifty, especially when Thatcher intervened and said she would never go into it. It was pointless (even more so as it turned out) equivocation, and made him going around in a truck waving a pound coin around look silly.
But yes, you are right, I was confusing the two.
It was not pointless equivocation. We would have a new election before the next Parliament at which stage the government can and should come up with a new manifesto. Any pledge for outside of the next Parliament is gesture politics.
The Euro could have been a tremendous success and we could have been worse off without it. In which case it would make sense to change policy and have a referendum but only after a general election. The Euro was not a tremendous success and so now opinion is settled on the matter.
Whether a country should have its own currency has nothing to do with whether another currency is a 'success' when viewed within a limited timeframe or not. It's about the fundamental levers of sovereignty. The dollar is seen as very successful - God forbid we should ever join that. Hence his line was rubbish and seen as such.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
Your statement lacks internal logic. If they are tribal as you claim then Cameron *is* what they believe in, surely.
Yes and no, they want to leave the EU but the party always comes first.
Who do you know like that? I don't know anyone like that.
He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade.
He is influential amongst Conservative party members and voters, and because of his impeccable anti-Euro history has a lot of credibility. I think he could have quite a big effect.
He had an impeccable anti-Euro history right up until Cameron had him neutered some years hence. I don't wish to speculate how. He then 'grew up' (his words) on the issue. Most Tory members I know are fully aware of that, and there would be zero surprises in his support for an in vote.
The Euro is a currency, he still is anti-Euro. Everyone is now, Hague has won that argument well and truly.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
That's not my recollection. He was skewered because he only promised to stay out of the euro for the lifetime of the next parliament and he looked shifty, especially when Thatcher intervened and said she would never go into it. It was pointless (even more so as it turned out) equivocation, and made him going around in a truck waving a pound coin around look silly.
But yes, you are right, I was confusing the two.
It was not pointless equivocation. We would have a new election before the next Parliament at which stage the government can and should come up with a new manifesto. Any pledge for outside of the next Parliament is gesture politics.
The Euro could have been a tremendous success and we could have been worse off without it. In which case it would make sense to change policy and have a referendum but only after a general election. The Euro was not a tremendous success and so now opinion is settled on the matter.
Whether a country should have its own currency has nothing to do with whether another currency is a 'success' when viewed within a limited timeframe or not. It's about the fundamental levers of sovereignty. The dollar is seen as very successful - God forbid we should ever join that. Hence his line was rubbish and seen as such.
Except he wasn't saying that, his was very much a sceptical "wait and see" rather than a "never under any circumstances" line - in which case ruling it out for one Parliament makes sense.
F1: Raikkonen's demotion means Sauber are only 11 points off Lotus. Considering the pace the Lotus has (at certain tracks), that's really quite surprising. Nasr has more points than Maldonado. Not impossible for Lotus to be passed by Sauber.
Mr D, I noticed that every team except Manor scored points on Sunday, with only Ferrari getting both cars in the top ten. When was the last time that happened?
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
Your statement lacks internal logic. If they are tribal as you claim then Cameron *is* what they believe in, surely.
Yes and no, they want to leave the EU but the party always comes first.
Who do you know like that? I don't know anyone like that.
I spoke to 4 of them yesterday, conservative members who want to vote OUT but are waiting to see what happens with negotiations. That's tory speak for doing what's best for the party and the biggest obstacle facing OUT.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a PB poll on 'IN' and 'OUT'? I suspect ifor many Pb Tories it's the ultimate political dilemma;
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
Absolutely spot on. Tories who want OUT know it effectively finishes Cameron's tenure, I'm interested to see their stance as the day draws nearer.
Cameron's tenure is coming to an end come what may, there is little dilemma. If anything Cameron pre-announcing his retirement has neutralised this as an issue.
Yes but they want him to go out waving at his adoring crowds not with his tail between his legs.
If voters back whichever side Cameron backs it will be because they respect and trust his judgement and not because they care about crowds.
Yep, tribal sheep waiting to be told what they think, clinging on to their hero's imaginary renegotiation. They're in a lose/lose, vote OUT and they ruin Cameron's legacy, vote IN and go against what they believe in.
Your statement lacks internal logic. If they are tribal as you claim then Cameron *is* what they believe in, surely.
Yes and no, they want to leave the EU but the party always comes first.
Who do you know like that? I don't know anyone like that.
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
Do you want me to do regular threads on AV/electoral reform ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
The Scottish Indy ref angle being that the next one will be held under AV, with everyone having two votes?
I always thought the Indy referendum should have had two electoral colleges, one representing Scotland and the other representing rUK. Independence would be granted if 'Yes' won both colleges.
On a similar theme I have a German colleague who is genuinely confused why we will have a FPTP system in the EU referendum. He believes that a 70% mandate should be required for such an 'important' decision.
Except he wasn't saying that, his was very much a sceptical "wait and see" rather than a "never under any circumstances" line - in which case ruling it out for one Parliament makes sense.
I agree with you. And it didn't work, or carry any conviction, for that reason. Hard to see what he could have done though to be fair - Britain at that time was (appeared to be) the land of milk and honey where you could have money and prosperity AND feel all warm and fuzzy with a Labour Government.
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
Do you want me to do regular threads on AV/electoral reform ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
The Scottish Indy ref angle being that the next one will be held under AV, with everyone having two votes?
I always thought the Indy referendum should have had two electoral colleges, one representing Scotland and the other representing rUK. Independence would be granted if 'Yes' won both colleges.
On a similar theme I have a German colleague who is genuinely confused why we will have a FPTP system in the EU referendum. He believes that a 70% mandate should be required for such an 'important' decision.
On the first paragraph the reason that wasn't done is the potential embarrassment of Scotland voting to stay and everyone else voting for them to leave.
On the second - do you mean if Remain was not get 70% of the vote we'd be out? I'd be happy with that...
I suspect in six months' time we'll all be looking back fondly to the constructive threads we used to have during the AV referendum about what constitutes a majority.
Do you want me to do regular threads on AV/electoral reform ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
The Scottish Indy ref angle being that the next one will be held under AV, with everyone having two votes?
I always thought the Indy referendum should have had two electoral colleges, one representing Scotland and the other representing rUK. Independence would be granted if 'Yes' won both colleges.
On a similar theme I have a German colleague who is genuinely confused why we will have a FPTP system in the EU referendum. He believes that a 70% mandate should be required for such an 'important' decision.
On the first paragraph the reason that wasn't done is the potential embarrassment of Scotland voting to stay and everyone else voting for them to leave.
On the second - do you mean if Remain was not get 70% of the vote we'd be out? I'd be happy with that...
That's not what he meant, but I think he realised he'd made an error of judgement when he started talking about 'the British constitution'!
Just seen Cumberbachs interview on Sky TV re the immigrants..what an arrogant person he is.. who the F4ck cares what an overindulged actor thinks..
Our starstruck media seem to think that the views of artists, singers, comedians and actors are of great importance to the public.
They probably think that tacitly going along with the cult of celebrity is what passes for being in touch with the common people. It would, of course, be completely remiss of me to point out that they live with and socialise in similar circles to them.
Comments
Both mad. Both left. Both single.
Brand 4 Church.
Reduce the anxiety for both women and men in the population at a stroke.
I think any administration tacks towards less freedom of information, increased authoritarianism, and sympathises more with other friendly adminstriations overseas as time goes on.
Its perceptions become ever more divorced from the electorate, and it makes the day-to-day job of governing easier.
If the IN campaign is based around the importance of freedom of movement OUT will win comfortable.
Personally I'd rather have as much as my pot on retirement as possible. I'd spend £20k on this though as beating 5.39% annuity risk free is tricky.
https://twitter.com/ShakeelHashim/status/653174241605627904
We're going to need a bigger shed.
And on that note, I must be off for a bit.
1) A lot of it's dull and technical
2) It's mixed up with compromises and things they don't want, and that's what the media are inevitably going to run those
3) It's mostly done in boring, largely consensual discussions, rather than through entertaining us-vs-them stand-offs.
The result is that despite doing all the dull compromising day-to-day stuff, he feels the need to put on a grand, spectacular save-the-British-sausage display every now and then.
Currently the Leave campaign are suggesting we could keep freedom of movement so its not that odd either.
I have no problem with this. The government is elected to protect and promote the interests of the people of the UK, not to be some impartial international referee.
I'm not a huge fan of Wonga but if they're going to be attacked it's better to use facts - like their fake legal letters demanding repayment.
If so I'd be grateful for you reference it.
All governments discriminate in international relations as they should. It is a part of having negotiations and international relations.
I always vote so I will. I genuinely don't know which way yet.
I don't particularly agree with him. Global pressures will work on the EU just as much as on individual states, and - on the other side of the equation - mobile workers will gravitate to places with higher pay and better conditions, so market pressures do have an effect both ways.
But it is a practical rather than ideological debate.
'OUT' ticks all their chauvanistic boxes 'IN' is supported by their Leader.
@election_data @election_data · Oct 9
There is no path to a Leave vote that doesn't pass through the Labour heartlands.
Those voters are going to be hard to reach for the Leave campaign because so few prominent Labour figures are Leavers.
No-one has explained what problem this renegotiation/referendum trying to solve, yet has the potential to be hugely disruptive both to the country and the government.
All risk and no up side for the govt. Either IN wins and nothing happens or OUT wins and everything is up in the air and govt looks foolish.
The eurozone is inevitably moving to closer monetary, fiscal and thus political union. This is the fundamental issue.
Yes, I expect he will be on the Remain side. And he will be quite influential, because no-one can accuse him of being one of those who was wrong on the Euro.
Conversely, if he were to come down on the Leave side, he could shift a chunk of votes the other way.
He was not saying we should leave the EU. Don't confuse the Euro for the EU.
I love the EU for some aspects, Community Trade Marks and other IP covering the entire EU are very useful for my business. There are many good bits.
Democratically it is a pickle. The interests of Nations will always override the interest of the EU causing friction. I don't relish the position of a permanent outsider as the Euro zone have common interest (?!) and the few countries with sovereign currencies are a pest to be ignored. If I could see a way in which we were committed and involved, harmonious and pulling in the same direction I would vote in.
Problem is, I see issues and conflict with our culture and interest.
I am leaning on the Leave side, and the position of Cameron will have little bearing on my view. The deal he gets may influence me, but I will make my assessment and base my decision on my judgement not his recommendation.
In or out will make very little difference for employment and daily lives for the majority in the medium term.
Clearly, UKIP would be no use to Leave in core cities.
"He'd be miserable and unconvincing - incidentally pretty much how he's seemed for the past decade. "
WE....WANT....TO.....BE....IN....EUROPE.....NOT......RUN......BY......EUROPE ....in a flat Yorkshire accent isn't an easy line to deliver optimistically!
If were were in the EEA we would be involved in the same regulations.
I'm totally signed up to the great Lloyds giveaway.
In that respect UKIP are probably right to be jumping up and down and saying they need to have a major role.
But yes, you are right, I was confusing the two.
The Euro could have been a tremendous success and we could have been worse off without it. In which case it would make sense to change policy and have a referendum but only after a general election. The Euro was not a tremendous success and so now opinion is settled on the matter.
A certain vote-winner.
Is that what you're saying ?
Edit: Also remember the Scottish independence angle to this referendum
The major difference appears to be the use of Russian helicopters in assisting the advance of the troops. When they don't have this, the army's attacks are often stalled, when they do, they seem irresistable. This makes me think there will soon be Russian casualties - helicopters are famously vulnerable to surface to air missiles, and it seems likely that a retaliation on the part of the jihadist's regional backers will be to supply these asap.
On a similar theme I have a German colleague who is genuinely confused why we will have a FPTP system in the EU referendum. He believes that a 70% mandate should be required for such an 'important' decision.
New Thread New Thread
On the second - do you mean if Remain was not get 70% of the vote we'd be out? I'd be happy with that...
They probably think that tacitly going along with the cult of celebrity is what passes for being in touch with the common people. It would, of course, be completely remiss of me to point out that they live with and socialise in similar circles to them.