Mr. Llama, I've been posting a little less frequently recently (partly because I feel awkward reviewing fantasy stuff [don't want to stray into back-scratching]).
Some of what the Byzantines did was tremendously cruel, especially after Phocas became emperor, but it's also worth noting that was partly due to the Zeitgeist. Both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart (who fought within a century of Basil's death) accepted surrenders on condition of mercy, and then killed their prisoners.
The ultimate argument for EFTA/EEA to me is that in Norway, there are majorities (60%+) against joining the EU, and 85+% for remaining a part of EFTA/EEA. In other words, they seem pretty f*cking happy with their arrangement.
@isam: Nigel Farage has come out saying that while he would prefer EFTA/EEA, his preferred option would be neither EU or EFTA/EEA. So long as the major voice in favour of Brexit does not have EFTA/EEA as his main objective, he is likely to "scare the horses". My view is that there is a good 20% of the population (including most businesses) who have their preferences in the order of (1) EFTA/EEA, (2) EU, and (3) total "independence". This group of people will vote "In" if they think the real choice is between (2) and (3).
Farage discusses this w Andrew Neil on yesterday's show
Yes: but he has also said on numerous occasions that EFTA/EEA is just a path to complete independence.
I didn't see the interview, but isn't this just a simple case of Farage being economical with the actualité? He wants to claim both that leaving wouldn't damage trade (hence we'd join the EEA) and that we'd be able to be able to 'regain control of our borders' (so we wouldn't join the EEA or sign any similar trade treaty with the EU)?
It's Alex Salmond Mk II.
'I didn't see the interview but I am going to jump to a conclusion that suits my agenda'
Why don't you watch it? It's on iplayer etc
He said if we leave we would still be in the EEA while we negotiate a deal that suits us for the future
Voting to stay in the EU is basically voting to be ruled by Germany and France..just like all the other member states..
You have a very poor opinion of your elected, and non-elected representatives. Understandably, of course, at the moment, but one day we’ll get back to a body of reps who are determined to a) be there and b) participate sensibly.
If Remain are going to go into bat on the competence and ability of our politicians, they're doomed to defeat.
About this £480m: if we vote to leave, is that my bill, or if we stay in, do I get a cheque for that amount?
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, that's a bit like Darth Vader telling the construction team of the second Death Star how merciful he was [compared to the Emperor].
Julian Assange: Scotland Yard ends 24-hour guard on Ecuadorian embassy Police officers have stopped guarding the embassy in London where the Wikileaks founder took refuge, saying it is no longer "proportionate"
FLT antifrank said: George Osborne going into the annuity business is quite a smart way of getting cash into the government coffers in the short term.
We did something similar in 1976 (I think) when it was made mandatory for larger export credits to be denominated in USD. This was for largely a cash flow benefit. I agree that GO's pension changes might well be beneficial for HMG finances (I don't recall ever seeing a cost evaluation) but I think the benefit you seem to refer to largely accrues from the "cash in" change by generating an up font tax charge where non might exist from later pension drawings. I cannot see where dispensing of the requirement to purchase an annuity would generate a tax benefit for HMG. I'm sure you'll enlighten me if I'm wrong.
There were however other tax changes in pension regulations which I think cost the Exchequer. I confess to being a beneficiary so that the lefties can throw bricks at me or perhaps more likely these days, spit at me - metaphorically of course.
He said if we leave we would still be in the EEA while we negotiate a deal that suits us for the future
No, we wouldn't be. We are not members of the EEA, except as part of our EU membership. We're on the other side of the agreement from Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.
About this £480m: if we vote to leave, is that my bill, or if we stay in, do I get a cheque for that amount?
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, that's a bit like Darth Vader telling the construction team of the second Death Star how merciful he was [compared to the Emperor].
"The Emperor is not so forgiving of failure" always makes me smile.
Miss Plato, Nick 'Britain is a pygmy without the EU' Clegg claimed some years ago that without euroland's membership we'd make it easier for child abusers.
It'll be interesting to see what proportion of sensible arguments we get versus the easy-scaremongering.
About this £480m: if we vote to leave, is that my bill, or if we stay in, do I get a cheque for that amount?
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, that's a bit like Darth Vader telling the construction team of the second Death Star how merciful he was [compared to the Emperor].
Just imagine the reaction of the construction workers had they known the destruction of the first Death Star was an inside job by Darth Vader and his kids.
About this £480m: if we vote to leave, is that my bill, or if we stay in, do I get a cheque for that amount?
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, that's a bit like Darth Vader telling the construction team of the second Death Star how merciful he was [compared to the Emperor].
"The Emperor is not so forgiving of failure" always makes me smile.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
@MichaelLCrick: I've had it confirmed Tom Watson will try & respond to points of order due from Tory MPs demanding he apologise to Commons over Leon Brittan
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.
I suppose my response is that practicalities are subject to ideological interpretation. Do you dispute that, in general terms, the left likes a regulation much more than reasonable people do.
Just watching the debate in the HOC...why did Skinner bother to turn up...
What is sensible about a man who thinks each household would be £480 million a year better off? Or who was quoted yesterday as saying each household gets a £3,000 return from a £340 investment per annum to the EU, a tenfold return? Since when did £340 times ten make £3,000? Even £340 times nine isn't £3,000.
If this idiot is all they have to offer, together with the likes of Mandelson, Clarke and Heseltine who all told us we would go to hell in a handcart if we didn't join the Euro, then I think leave has a chance.
I know it is very early days but this is a piss poor beginning from the EU vested interests, sorry I meant Europhiles.
@MichaelLCrick: I've had it confirmed Tom Watson will try & respond to points of order due from Tory MPs demanding he apologise to Commons over Leon Brittan
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
So it's going to be not what Labour votees for but what the Shadow Cabinet votes for? Interesting swith of language.
Afternoon all. A good debate on both this thread and the last. It's certainly clear that both campaigns need to be very clever about who they involve and the messages that are put out, especially at this early stage. There are huge potential downsides in failing to ensure that certain older politicians or non-politicians don't inadvertently advantage the wrong side with their messages - see Mr M&S and his message that (to paraphrase only slightly) the EU is great because cheap foreign labour in the UK, for today's example.
In 2017 if Cameron and Osborne strongly recommend to remain, but will resign if the vote goes to leave.
Many Labour supporters , Greens , Nationalist and others might be tempted to vote to leave.
Even ones who prefer to stay, might vote to leave , bagging the resignations , but believing that they will get another referndum anyways as the EU , normally has another one just to make sure.
Referndums are not always about the question asked.
No wonder some politicans , prefer not to use them, and use parliament if they can. As the vast majority will not have a clue,how to make a considered judgement on the question asked.
@MichaelLCrick: I've had it confirmed Tom Watson will try & respond to points of order due from Tory MPs demanding he apologise to Commons over Leon Brittan
Now that's more like it - come on Tom - come out swinging.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
22 more months of this referendumzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........
And gross abuse of abbreviations - most of which I never use or read in everyday life..
I think we should charge for more than one abbreviation in a paragraph... I have to stop reading and look it up when I find one I don't understand or remember. (which at my advanced years is frequently)
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
See, that I don't believe. The Shadow Cabinet is clearly not capable of thinking - otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to serve under Corbyn...
In 2017 if Cameron and Osborne strongly recommend to remain, but will resign if the vote goes to leave.
Many Labour supporters , Greens , Nationalist and others might be tempted to vote to leave.
Even ones who prefer to stay, might vote to leave , bagging the resignations , but believing that they will get another referndum anyways as the EU , normally has another one just to make sure.
Referndums are not always about the question asked.
No wonder some politicans , prefer not to use them, and use parliament if they can. As the vast majority will not have a clue,how to make a considered judgement on the question asked.
I think Cameron will hedge his bets in case it's Leave - he might say the deal was best possible and good enough for him to recommend Remain but not the best thing since sliced bread.
I really wouldn't recommend he goes "all in" on it.
In 2017 if Cameron and Osborne strongly recommend to remain, but will resign if the vote goes to leave.
Many Labour supporters , Greens , Nationalist and others might be tempted to vote to leave.
Even ones who prefer to stay, might vote to leave , bagging the resignations , but believing that they will get another referndum anyways as the EU , normally has another one just to make sure.
Referndums are not always about the question asked.
No wonder some politicans , prefer not to use them, and use parliament if they can. As the vast majority will not have a clue,how to make a considered judgement on the question asked.
I think Cameron will hedge his bets in case it's Leave - he might say the deal was best possible and good enough for him to recommend Remain but not the best thing since sliced bread.
I really wouldn't recommend he goes "all in" on it.
I agree Casino
If he goes" all in" on it, like a true gambler on a poker table with his last chips. It will certainly tempt others to call his bluff.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
See, that I don't believe. The Shadow Cabinet is clearly not capable of thinking - otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to serve under Corbyn...
Not so. Half of them are taking the chance of a lifetime and the other half are positioning themselves for the next leadership election.
So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
No, they wanted something unattainable which in theory was called 'Labour' - a cuddly world where no difficult decisions had to be taken - but which in reality was embodied in Ed Miliband.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
Two points You are correct about European hegemony. The EU will still be there if we leave. A massive continental wide country on our doorstep understadably pursuing what it thinks is best for it. However what extra benefit we get from staying in as opposed to the EEA depends on what comes out in time for referendum.
If we do not want to be involved in the political Europe then we would have to leave and the best place would be the EEA. However if we stumble then onto Schengen then that would be pointless. I am guessing that the civil service are more exercised about limiting European hegemony than anything else.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
If we do not want to be involved in the political Europe then we would have to leave and the beat place would be the EEA. However if we stumble then onto Schengen then that would be pointless. I am guessing that the civil service are more exercised about limiting European hegemony than anything else.
I don't think we'd stumble into Schengen whatever happens.
Roger "The country wanted Labour" hehehe.. still in denial then..That buffoon they rejected was Labour.. to his very core..the rest of the country didn't want him or his crap party either..
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
So now they want Labour but can't stand Corbyn ?
And previously they wanted Labour but not Brown. Before that they liked Labour but hated Blair.
If only Labour had chosen, err, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or, err...
Prediction..Anyone in Corbyns Cabinet will never become Leader of the Labour Party...being tainted by Brown is one thing but being tainted by Corbyn will quite another..
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
See, that I don't believe. The Shadow Cabinet is clearly not capable of thinking - otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to serve under Corbyn...
Not so. Half of them are taking the chance of a lifetime and the other half are positioning themselves for the next leadership election.
I agree. They know that the next leadership , will not be 13 years away. As was the case in 1994. There will be a great oppurtunity for some one to be a possible PM.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
So now they want Labour but can't stand Corbyn ?
And previously they wanted Labour but not Brown. Before that they liked Labour but hated Blair.
If only Labour had chosen, err, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or, err...
No - they loved Blair - or at least as equally as they loved Labour.
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.
I suppose my response is that practicalities are subject to ideological interpretation. Do you dispute that, in general terms, the left likes a regulation much more than reasonable people do.
Ignoring the pejorative end, yes, they do. It's part of the state-as-solution belief. That doesn't necessarily make the EU a regulator'a paradise, any more than it's a free marketeer's paradise but it does make it more efficient to pursue either end.
Prediction..Anyone in Corbyns Cabinet will never become Leader of the Labour Party...being tainted by Brown is one thing but being tainted by Corbyn will quite another..
Oh, God! Please don't say that. HYUFD will start rambling about the inevitability of Hilary Benn again
If we do not want to be involved in the political Europe then we would have to leave and the beat place would be the EEA. However if we stumble then onto Schengen then that would be pointless. I am guessing that the civil service are more exercised about limiting European hegemony than anything else.
I don't think we'd stumble into Schengen whatever happens.
If we are not to stumble into Schengen then just what alternative link can we be elected to negotiate?
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
The dates quoted in the tweet for EU funding were 07/14, ie before the referendum. It seems reasonable enough to me for the EU to fund a body dedicated to more European co-operation. Or are you of the view that the EU can't have its perspective expressed to the British public? That seems a little extreme.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Britain was in EFTA from 1960 to 1973. If it didn't work it wouldn't still exist, all its members would be part of the EU.
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Uh oh - I hear that Corbyn/McDonnell are about to 'fess up at PLP to a series of U-turns. They will now vote AGAINST Tories' fiscal charter
Julian Assange: Scotland Yard ends 24-hour guard on Ecuadorian embassy Police officers have stopped guarding the embassy in London where the Wikileaks founder took refuge, saying it is no longer "proportionate"
It was no longer proportionate after the first 24 hours.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
So now they want Labour but can't stand Corbyn ?
And previously they wanted Labour but not Brown. Before that they liked Labour but hated Blair.
If only Labour had chosen, err, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or, err...
No - they loved Blair - or at least as equally as they loved Labour.
I think Blair was popular until the Iraq War.Certainly with Labour voters. The Ecclestone row was damaging, but didn't really affect his overall status. And he won in 2005, and if Brown hadn't insisted on his turn in No 10, he'd quite probably have won in 2009 or so as well. Iraq War detritus notwithstanding.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
According to the twitter image it looks like remain have not taken money. The European Movement has received funding between 2007 and 2014. We are in 2015, and this Remain group has just been founded. What funding has it had? My thoughts are that the majority of the country are going to be pretty fed up by 2017. I'm sure the media will want to make some easy viewing and circulation figures out of it, but that might well make things worse.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Britain was in EFTA from 1960 to 1973. If it didn't work it wouldn't still exist, all its members would be part of the EU.
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
It's all De Gaulle's fault. If he hadn't said Non way back we'd have been in the ground floor and with a much bigger share in getting the thing going!
If we do not want to be involved in the political Europe then we would have to leave and the beat place would be the EEA. However if we stumble then onto Schengen then that would be pointless. I am guessing that the civil service are more exercised about limiting European hegemony than anything else.
I don't think we'd stumble into Schengen whatever happens.
If we are not to stumble into Schengen then just what alternative link can we be elected to negotiate?
We cannot stumble into Schengen because there is no requirement for us to join. We have an opt out at present and if we joined the EFTA and the EEA there is no requirement for us to joke Schengen
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Surprisingly David you are completely wrong there.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
How can you know what the future relationship will be since it can only be negotiated after a vote to leave?
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Labour MPs suspect that McDonnell has come under pressure from the Left / Momentum. The question they're asking is 'who's in charge?'
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
The dates quoted in the tweet for EU funding were 07/14, ie before the referendum. It seems reasonable enough to me for the EU to fund a body dedicated to more European co-operation. Or are you of the view that the EU can't have its perspective expressed to the British public? That seems a little extreme.
I think the point is that in a purely British referendum about the future of Britain, it's British taxpayers only that should contribute to both sides.
The EU can continue to promote itself and its work independently of those campaigns using its own money.
The ultimate argument for EFTA/EEA to me is that in Norway, there are majorities (60%+) against joining the EU, and 85+% for remaining a part of EFTA/EEA. In other words, they seem pretty f*cking happy with their arrangement.
@isam: Nigel Farage has come out saying that while he would prefer EFTA/EEA, his preferred option would be neither EU or EFTA/EEA. So long as the major voice in favour of Brexit does not have EFTA/EEA as his main objective, he is likely to "scare the horses". My view is that there is a good 20% of the population (including most businesses) who have their preferences in the order of (1) EFTA/EEA, (2) EU, and (3) total "independence". This group of people will vote "In" if they think the real choice is between (2) and (3).
Farage discusses this w Andrew Neil on yesterday's show
Yes: but he has also said on numerous occasions that EFTA/EEA is just a path to complete independence.
I didn't see the interview, but isn't this just a simple case of Farage being economical with the actualité? He wants to claim both that leaving wouldn't damage trade (hence we'd join the EEA) and that we'd be able to be able to 'regain control of our borders' (so we wouldn't join the EEA or sign any similar trade treaty with the EU)?
It's Alex Salmond Mk II.
It is classic "have your cake and eat it". We can't simultaneously be in the EEA and have control of our borders, so it already looks like this is going to be the equivalent of the currency question in the Sindyref.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. EFTA members of the EEA have more influence over Single Market regulation than the UK does. They also have a veto on the final regulation. I linked to this yesterday and as I remember RCS also pointed out that in many ways Norway has more control over Single Market regulations than we do.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Britain was in EFTA from 1960 to 1973. If it didn't work it wouldn't still exist, all its members would be part of the EU.
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
It's all De Gaulle's fault. If he hadn't said Non way back we'd have been in the ground floor and with a much bigger share in getting the thing going!
That old canard dates back almost 60 years. I'm afraid there's precious little evidence for it.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
How can you know what the future relationship will be since it can only be negotiated after a vote to leave?
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
That's the problem with being asked to leave without knowing what a future relationship is. If the future could be better or could be worse but the voter doesn't know in advance of the vote then what is a rational voter supposed to do?
As most people are risk averse I expect they'll opt for the devil they know.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Britain was in EFTA from 1960 to 1973. If it didn't work it wouldn't still exist, all its members would be part of the EU.
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
Sr Humphrey offered an alternative point of view. We tried to use EFTA to bugger up the EEC, as it was then, but that didn't work. So we joined instead; hoping to make it ineffective from the inside (see also the UK's strong support for enlargement - more players more arguments etc.). Sir Humphrey, is of course, a fictional character in an old TV comedy, yet the writers may have had a grain or two of truth to play with..
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
It's sad to see but stupidity and loss of rationality have already taken over those who have already professed a preference to vote 'Leave'. There are electoral funding rules and the question is have these been breached? I do not know. Have they? Has a decision on just which are to be the official bodies for either side yet? Why does the argument have to be so binary? The vote might be but why should the discussion be shunted into this totally blind deaf and useless dialogue?
According to what develops I can see a logic in us joining the EEA, but I am not fooled that leaving the EU will make a scrap of difference to our lives or the compromises our governments make in future.
The ultimate argument for EFTA/EEA to me is that in Norway, there are majorities (60%+) against joining the EU, and 85+% for remaining a part of EFTA/EEA. In other words, they seem pretty f*cking happy with their arrangement.
@isam: Nigel Farage has come out saying that while he would prefer EFTA/EEA, his preferred option would be neither EU or EFTA/EEA. So long as the major voice in favour of Brexit does not have EFTA/EEA as his main objective, he is likely to "scare the horses". My view is that there is a good 20% of the population (including most businesses) who have their preferences in the order of (1) EFTA/EEA, (2) EU, and (3) total "independence". This group of people will vote "In" if they think the real choice is between (2) and (3).
Farage discusses this w Andrew Neil on yesterday's show
Yes: but he has also said on numerous occasions that EFTA/EEA is just a path to complete independence.
I didn't see the interview, but isn't this just a simple case of Farage being economical with the actualité? He wants to claim both that leaving wouldn't damage trade (hence we'd join the EEA) and that we'd be able to be able to 'regain control of our borders' (so we wouldn't join the EEA or sign any similar trade treaty with the EU)?
It's Alex Salmond Mk II.
It is classic "have your cake and eat it". We can't simultaneously be in the EEA and have control of our borders, so it already looks like this is going to be the equivalent of the currency question in the Sindyref.
This is why Farage is going to cause so many problems for Leave. He wants to play both sides off against the middle and thinks the public are too stupid to notice. For someone who is always attacking the government and the EU for taking the public licence for granted and being dishonest about EU matters it is a really stupid position to take.
What the conversation (to use a polite term) shows so far is that this is still very much a debate on the right in which much of the left are fairly uninterested observers. So we have slightly obsessive comments about sovereignty against business and big business in particular.
None of this on either side is going to get those millions who voted Labour before they got a scum bag as leader to jump in or out. In the past Delors persuaded Labour that the EU was good for the left because it applied minimum standards to working time, maternity, sickness, holiday entitlement and other work related benefits that were better than the UK had or were frankly likely to have. Does that Faustian pact still hold or does the prevalence of centre right governments in the EU make a further tranche of rights unlikely?
For me, this is the key question as to how the vote is likely to go, much more important than the issues that obsess and divide the right which sail over the heads of most voters. And none of those who are currently active in this debate give a damn about these issues or even want to talk about them.
Yes, that's a good point. Skipping the comment on Corbyn in the interest of amicable discussion, I agree that leftish voters are generally left cold by all this stuff about renegotiation - insofar as we're looking at it at all, we don't think Cameron's package adds up to much so we don't really care if he gets it or not, but we're mildly pleased that he's not tried to repatriate things that we do care about. But if the battle comes down to Cameron and Rose vs Boris and Farage, I expect turnout from the left will be pretty low, which would be bad news for Remain. There's always a danger in referendums that anti-government people vote on the government instead of the issue.
Lots of people on the left don't (unlike me) feel very strongly one way or the other, and Remain really needs Corbyn and the unions to get involved, whether they like them or not. Which probably has a price tag - promising not to try to water down workers' rights in this Parliament, for instance.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
How can you know what the future relationship will be since it can only be negotiated after a vote to leave?
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
That's the problem with being asked to leave without knowing what a future relationship is. If the future could be better or could be worse but the voter doesn't know in advance of the vote then what is a rational voter supposed to do?
As most people are risk averse I expect they'll opt for the devil they know.
As I said yesterday, what's the future relationship if we stay in? We don't know. It's a false sense of security and certainty that the leave campaign have to puncture.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Labour MPs suspect that McDonnell has come under pressure from the Left / Momentum. The question they're asking is 'who's in charge?'
I don't think McDonnell has any pressure from the Left / Momentum. I think McDonnell is at heart the same as the Left / Momentum.
An understandable mistake, because we are listed as signatories to the EEA agreement. If you look at the text of the link I just posted, you'll see that there's a distinction between the 'EU Member States', which includes us, and the 'EFTA States' (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
Britain was of course in EFTA briefly and left, recognizing that it didn't work. The EEA is a different beast as EU-plus (or EU-minus, if you prefer) rather than EU-rival, but I don't really see it as a viable route now any more than it was in the 1960s.
Britain was in EFTA from 1960 to 1973. If it didn't work it wouldn't still exist, all its members would be part of the EU.
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
It's all De Gaulle's fault. If he hadn't said Non way back we'd have been in the ground floor and with a much bigger share in getting the thing going!
That old canard dates back almost 60 years. I'm afraid there's precious little evidence for it.
It was the received wisdom at the time, as I recall.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
So now they want Labour but can't stand Corbyn ?
And previously they wanted Labour but not Brown. Before that they liked Labour but hated Blair.
If only Labour had chosen, err, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or, err...
No - they loved Blair - or at least as equally as they loved Labour.
I think Blair was popular until the Iraq War.Certainly with Labour voters. The Ecclestone row was damaging, but didn't really affect his overall status. And he won in 2005, and if Brown hadn't insisted on his turn in No 10, he'd quite probably have won in 2009 or so as well. Iraq War detritus notwithstanding.
Blair won in 2005 but you could make a fair case for saying it was actually "vote Blair: get Brown" that won.
Funnily enough I will not be involved in the negotiations. Neither will Farage in all likelyhood, but maybe you could watch the interview that you have pronounced judgement upon and find out what he thinks?
If I get time, I will do so. As you say, it's not just Farage. When considering which side to vote for in the referendum, an extremely important consideration for me would be the nature of the trade treaty being proposed as an alternative to staying in. If its the EEA, I'd definitely vote to remain in - the EEA is the worst of all worlds IMO, retaining most of the disagreeable aspects of the EU without any vetos or influence on how they operate, and giving us no protection from Eurozone hegemony.
How can you know what the future relationship will be since it can only be negotiated after a vote to leave?
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
That's the problem with being asked to leave without knowing what a future relationship is. If the future could be better or could be worse but the voter doesn't know in advance of the vote then what is a rational voter supposed to do?
As most people are risk averse I expect they'll opt for the devil they know.
As I said yesterday, what's the future relationship if we stay in? We don't know. It's a false sense of security and certainty that the leave campaign have to puncture.
The immediate future if we stay in is the status quo plus any negotiated changes.
Yes in the distant or not so distant future there might or might not be some future other changes but that is so nebulous as to not factor in to most votes.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
It's sad to see but stupidity and loss of rationality have already taken over those who have already professed a preference to vote 'Leave'. There are electoral funding rules and the question is have these been breached? I do not know. Have they? Has a decision on just which are to be the official bodies for either side yet? Why does the argument have to be so binary? The vote might be but why should the discussion be shunted into this totally blind deaf and useless dialogue?
According to what develops I can see a logic in us joining the EEA, but I am not fooled that leaving the EU will make a scrap of difference to our lives or the compromises our governments make in future.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
I don't think Cameron was particularly popular. 39% was 13 less than Labour. I'd describe his popularity as mediocre at best.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
So now they want Labour but can't stand Corbyn ?
And previously they wanted Labour but not Brown. Before that they liked Labour but hated Blair.
If only Labour had chosen, err, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or, err...
No - they loved Blair - or at least as equally as they loved Labour.
I think Blair was popular until the Iraq War.Certainly with Labour voters. The Ecclestone row was damaging, but didn't really affect his overall status. And he won in 2005, and if Brown hadn't insisted on his turn in No 10, he'd quite probably have won in 2009 or so as well. Iraq War detritus notwithstanding.
Blair won in 2005 but you could make a fair case for saying it was actually "vote Blair: get Brown" that won.
As I recall, it was widely expected at the time that Brown would succeed before too long. I think Blair would have won anyway, had Brown decided to take up a Harvard professorship or something. He wouldn’t have of course because he wanted to be PM, and thought he’d be good at it. Sadly for him, circumstances conspired against him, which brought his personal faults to the fore.
This is why Farage is going to cause so many problems for Leave. He wants to play both sides off against the middle and thinks the public are too stupid to notice. For someone who is always attacking the government and the EU for taking the public licence for granted and being dishonest about EU matters it is a really stupid position to take.
Agreed completely. We need a clear alternative prospectus developed and to put that as the alternative, or else these doubts (like doubts over currency) will explode. The public won't be taken for mugs.
By being clear you might disappoint some people, but you at least make it plausible. The sensible option for those who want to leave in my eyes would be to unite behind the EEA - this neutralises a lot of the In side's arguments and gives a clear prospectus to get out of the EU. Once out and into the EEA, the sky won't fall in so those who want to exit the EEA altogether could continue that fight; since we've already taken one huge step the next would not be so difficult.
Being the same as Norway and Switzerland is equivalent to Scottish republicans uniting behind wanting to leave the UK but keep the monarchy (like Australia and Canada). Don't fight every front at once, unite and win the biggest battle then leave the other fight for another day.
The fact that nobody on the leave side so far is capable of uniting people behind a clear prospectus is a shame.
The European Movement is older than the EU. Given its aims, it would be bizarre if it didn't receive EU funding.
If it was funded itself by British taxpayers, sure. But is it really acceptable that the EU funds one side of a vote on the EU? This is the sort of shenanigans that puts me right off the EU in its current manifestation. They seem to have absolutely no conception of a free and fair vote. And shame on the Remains for taking the money.
It's sad to see but stupidity and loss of rationality have already taken over those who have already professed a preference to vote 'Leave'. ....
Nope, I am not stupid and I still have full rationality. Why do you persist with insults?
You are the one asking Mr Nabavi to 'come clean', in other words he is lying, dissembling, withholding the truth. Meantime... Are the claims that this Remain sporting group has received EU funding true? Was it some secret that the European Movement (a very old established organisation) set it up ?
How can you know what the future relationship will be since it can only be negotiated after a vote to leave?
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
Well, I'd like to know firstly what the aim would be. I'd then assess whether it's desirable and plausible.
Of course you are right in the sense that, in the absence of any such indication, most sensible people are likely to vote to stay in. The Leave side are asking us to take a risk, and there would definitely be a significant economic hit during the leaving process because of the uncertainty, which will damage investment, at least for the two years of the leaving process and until the new settlement becomes clear. That might be a cost worth paying to get to the sunny uplands ahead, but surely it's not unreasonable to ask for a glimpse of what those sunny uplands are, before signing up to the cost and risk?
This is why Farage is going to cause so many problems for Leave. He wants to play both sides off against the middle and thinks the public are too stupid to notice. For someone who is always attacking the government and the EU for taking the public licence for granted and being dishonest about EU matters it is a really stupid position to take.
Agreed completely. We need a clear alternative prospectus developed and to put that as the alternative, or else these doubts (like doubts over currency) will explode. The public won't be taken for mugs.
By being clear you might disappoint some people, but you at least make it plausible. The sensible option for those who want to leave in my eyes would be to unite behind the EEA - this neutralises a lot of the In side's arguments and gives a clear prospectus to get out of the EU. Once out and into the EEA, the sky won't fall in so those who want to exit the EEA altogether could continue that fight; since we've already taken one huge step the next would not be so difficult.
Being the same as Norway and Switzerland is equivalent to Scottish republicans uniting behind wanting to leave the UK but keep the monarchy (like Australia and Canada). Don't fight every front at once, unite and win the biggest battle then leave the other fight for another day.
The fact that nobody on the leave side so far is capable of uniting people behind a clear prospectus is a shame.
I think it is unfair to say that no one has been able to unite the Leave side. The Vote Leave campaign seems to be pretty much sweeping up everyone who is not Nigel Farage. If that does turn out to be the case then will anyone really be saying Leave is divided? Farage appears to be only interested in himself.
Comments
Why don't you watch it? It's on iplayer etc
He said if we leave we would still be in the EEA while we negotiate a deal that suits us for the future
https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/653569411593318401
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, that's a bit like Darth Vader telling the construction team of the second Death Star how merciful he was [compared to the Emperor].
antifrank said:
George Osborne going into the annuity business is quite a smart way of getting cash into the government coffers in the short term.
We did something similar in 1976 (I think) when it was made mandatory for larger export credits to be denominated in USD. This was for largely a cash flow benefit. I agree that GO's pension changes might well be beneficial for HMG finances (I don't recall ever seeing a cost evaluation) but I think the benefit you seem to refer to largely accrues from the "cash in" change by generating an up font tax charge where non might exist from later pension drawings. I cannot see where dispensing of the requirement to purchase an annuity would generate a tax benefit for HMG. I'm sure you'll enlighten me if I'm wrong.
There were however other tax changes in pension regulations which I think cost the Exchequer. I confess to being a beneficiary so that the lefties can throw bricks at me or perhaps more likely these days, spit at me - metaphorically of course.
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
It'll be interesting to see what proportion of sensible arguments we get versus the easy-scaremongering.
http://youtu.be/cEPazLTGceI
Be interesting to see how Star Wars works with the old cast but without Vader [assuming I get around to seeing it at some point].
Reports Labour shadow cabinet has thought some more and decided to vote against Osborne Budget surplus rule on Weds.
david_herdson said:
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.
I suppose my response is that practicalities are subject to ideological interpretation. Do you dispute that, in general terms, the left likes a regulation much more than reasonable people do.
"Bobby Terry, you screeeewed up!
It turned out, there were worse things than crucifixion.............there were teeth."
If this idiot is all they have to offer, together with the likes of Mandelson, Clarke and Heseltine who all told us we would go to hell in a handcart if we didn't join the Euro, then I think leave has a chance.
I know it is very early days but this is a piss poor beginning from the EU vested interests, sorry I meant Europhiles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
Thank god we've got you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkMU1mKdwPI
Edited extra bit: Mr. F, must admit I'm unfamiliar with that quote.
Many Labour supporters , Greens , Nationalist and others might be tempted to vote to leave.
Even ones who prefer to stay, might vote to leave , bagging the resignations , but believing that they will get another referndum anyways as the EU , normally has another one just to make sure.
Referndums are not always about the question asked.
No wonder some politicans , prefer not to use them, and use parliament if they can.
As the vast majority will not have a clue,how to make a considered judgement on the question asked.
In practice there would be nothing automatic. We'd need to negotiate what we wanted with the EU and the other EEA states, and of course get their agreement.
Anyway, the exact mechanism isn't the issue. The issue is: do we sign up to the EEA or something similar (including free movement of labour) or not? Simple question.
I think we should charge for more than one abbreviation in a paragraph... I have to stop reading and look it up when I find one I don't understand or remember. (which at my advanced years is frequently)
I must be a bad person, because I always far preferred Randall Flagg to his opponent, the saintly Mother Abigail.
I really wouldn't recommend he goes "all in" on it.
If he goes" all in" on it, like a true gambler on a poker table with his last chips.
It will certainly tempt others to call his bluff.
It was a binary choice and the alternative was a complete buffoon and an egocentric one. So what the polls tell us is that the county wanted Labour but they couldn't stand Ed. I felt the same
You are correct about European hegemony. The EU will still be there if we leave. A massive continental wide country on our doorstep understadably pursuing what it thinks is best for it.
However what extra benefit we get from staying in as opposed to the EEA depends on what comes out in time for referendum.
If we do not want to be involved in the political Europe then we would have to leave and the best place would be the EEA. However if we stumble then onto Schengen then that would be pointless.
I am guessing that the civil service are more exercised about limiting European hegemony than anything else.
If only Labour had chosen, err,
Andy BurnhamorYvette Cooperor, err...They know that the next leadership , will not be 13 years away.
As was the case in 1994.
There will be a great oppurtunity for some one to be a possible PM.
"One of my friends reckons 'Bratislav Ivanovic' are the perfect words to use to do an impression of Hague "
I thought it was " Reeta Chakrabarti'?
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/653486770894581760
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-defends-use-of-eu-funding-as-entirely-legitimate-9178705.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30486154
The reason Britain joined the EEC in 1973 wasn't because it didn't work it was because we thought the EEC was going to be the future and we wanted to be at the heart of it shaping it.
And he won in 2005, and if Brown hadn't insisted on his turn in No 10, he'd quite probably have won in 2009 or so as well. Iraq War detritus notwithstanding.
My thoughts are that the majority of the country are going to be pretty fed up by 2017. I'm sure the media will want to make some easy viewing and circulation figures out of it, but that might well make things worse.
Why not just come clean and say you prefer to stay in because you don't care to take a chance.
Perhaps they can talk about this at the next UN Human Rights Committee meeting they chair.
The EU can continue to promote itself and its work independently of those campaigns using its own money.
As most people are risk averse I expect they'll opt for the devil they know.
There are electoral funding rules and the question is have these been breached? I do not know. Have they? Has a decision on just which are to be the official bodies for either side yet?
Why does the argument have to be so binary? The vote might be but why should the discussion be shunted into this totally blind deaf and useless dialogue?
According to what develops I can see a logic in us joining the EEA, but I am not fooled that leaving the EU will make a scrap of difference to our lives or the compromises our governments make in future.
Lots of people on the left don't (unlike me) feel very strongly one way or the other, and Remain really needs Corbyn and the unions to get involved, whether they like them or not. Which probably has a price tag - promising not to try to water down workers' rights in this Parliament, for instance.
Yes in the distant or not so distant future there might or might not be some future other changes but that is so nebulous as to not factor in to most votes.
Sadly for him, circumstances conspired against him, which brought his personal faults to the fore.
By being clear you might disappoint some people, but you at least make it plausible. The sensible option for those who want to leave in my eyes would be to unite behind the EEA - this neutralises a lot of the In side's arguments and gives a clear prospectus to get out of the EU. Once out and into the EEA, the sky won't fall in so those who want to exit the EEA altogether could continue that fight; since we've already taken one huge step the next would not be so difficult.
Being the same as Norway and Switzerland is equivalent to Scottish republicans uniting behind wanting to leave the UK but keep the monarchy (like Australia and Canada). Don't fight every front at once, unite and win the biggest battle then leave the other fight for another day.
The fact that nobody on the leave side so far is capable of uniting people behind a clear prospectus is a shame.
Meantime... Are the claims that this Remain sporting group has received EU funding true? Was it some secret that the European Movement (a very old established organisation) set it up ?
Of course you are right in the sense that, in the absence of any such indication, most sensible people are likely to vote to stay in. The Leave side are asking us to take a risk, and there would definitely be a significant economic hit during the leaving process because of the uncertainty, which will damage investment, at least for the two years of the leaving process and until the new settlement becomes clear. That might be a cost worth paying to get to the sunny uplands ahead, but surely it's not unreasonable to ask for a glimpse of what those sunny uplands are, before signing up to the cost and risk?