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 guess then it depends on whether the European Movement spent that money in 2014, or whether it was left over in 2015 to found the Remain campaign. Certainly the EU seems to have a record of financing pro-EU messaging through various shadowy channels.
On your broader question, I think it is very reasonable to for the EU to have a press office that presents its views, and for the media to cover that. What I don't think is right is when the EU uses taxpayer funds to create pro-EU artwork, media and children's comics.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
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.
'Doing a Rose' by insulting those who side with Out. How's that supposed to win them over to your cause?
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.
I think that should be added to the Labour uncut list of meanings
"Sadly for him, circumstances conspired against him" = utterly useless and an oxygen thief.
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.
But when the message was refined to "get Brown" - the voters ran for the hills.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Nope. Completely wrong. I have already posted the information on this yet you persist in making statements which are completely false. It really does utterly undermine your credibility.
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 Leave campaign could probably unite around a bilateral trade deal similar to one that the EU has already signed, that covers both trade and services, like South Korea, Mexico or Ecuador. That would blunt most of the criticism of the Remains while also mean they can maintain arguments about controlling borders.
Whichever picture they unite around, I would really like to see from them a credible position of what we'd replace the EU with. If we are to leave the single market, I want to see we have plans in place to maintain our position as a global trading power. People float around the idea of trade deals with the USA, Australia, India etc, but I have concerns about how viable those ideas are. If they could show that other similar nations have agreed X and Z deal, and that if we combined various ones we could have an export of Y million customers and W billion more trade, that would help me feel a lot more secure in voting out.
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.
We will see, but while the Vote Leave campaign does seem less extreme it hasn't exactly swept everything before it yet. I hate people using social media as a way to judge things but so far it has 2,661 Likes on Facebook (170,314 for Leave.EU). It could overtake Leave.EU and is of course much newer but we'll see.
However browsing the rather ugly http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org website I can't see any answer to the question of "would Britain out of the EU be in the EEA", yes or no? It has potential but so far does not have a clear prospectus.
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.
As listed out by someone the other day one of the items in the negotiations was a red card ie a parliamentary veto. But I agree with your point but frankly there are limts to that in that the ripost would be for the EU to withdraw concessions from its side. In other words a continuation of disputes.
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. 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?
We don't know what the leaving process will look like, how long it will take and where we will be once it has happened. That needs to be set out, otherwise it will feel as if we would be jumping into a void.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Nope. Completely wrong. I have already posted the information on this yet you persist in making statements which are completely false. It really does utterly undermine your credibility.
You have a strange and extremely unpleasant habit of accusing people of lying. I shan't stoop to your level, but merely point out that, just because you have posted something, that does not make it true, no matter how often you repeat your mistake.
I do find the scaremongering from both sides rather unhelpful and unedifying.
Although I strongly (strongly, strongly, strongly) want to remain in the EU I certainly don't believe that the UK couldn't survive outside of it. Of course it could. We'd be OK.
This debate ought to be about each side stating the positive reasons for their respective positions and not going around claiming that it's the end of the world if the other side wins. We're in the EU now and the world isn't ending - and nor did it end when we weren't in it either.
Whatever choice is made I feel pretty certain that it's going to be made on a very close vote - and we'll all still have to live with each other after it's all over.
I think both campaigns have got off to a very poor start - at least from an ethical standpoint.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Nope. Completely wrong. I have already posted the information on this yet you persist in making statements which are completely false. It really does utterly undermine your credibility.
In 2011 David Cameron vetoed a proposed EU Treaty Change, could that have been done in the EEA?
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Didn't the Eurozone states agree a new fiscal compact treaty without us when we vetoed last time? It doesn't seem like we have veto rights right now.
According to Richard_Tyndall, the EEA route means new legislation requires unanimity.
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.
Not so distant I'd say. Will the EU join TTIP, and what effect will that have? What will happen to the eurozone? Will tax be harmonised, and what will that mean? Will we be asked to stump up for more bailouts? Will we join the EU army? How will the EU deal with current levels of migration? Can 'Remain' tell us the answers to these questions? Can they show us what they believe the future within the EU to look like? The world is an uncertain place - we're hurtling at speed down a rocky road. In the EU we're doing as the passenger of a bus; as the UK we're doing it as the driver of a car. I know which I prefer.
The whole European Movement question seems pretty much like a red herring to me at the moment. As I understand it the government had already said that non UK organisations will be banned from funding the campaigns or getting involved and has also said that this will include organisations which receive funds from the EU. The Electoral Commission will be monitoring this.
And to be honest I can think of nothing better for the Leave campaign than to be able to show that significant elements of the BSE campaign are funded by the EU. I doubt Remain would be that stupid
I know it's human nature to set up scapegoats, but this Farage hate is bordering on the ridiculous. Tyndall in particular should try remembering the glory days of 3% and no referendum
No referendum is irrelevant the referendum is happening. It is happening despite Farage not thanks to him as the Conservatives won a majority.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Nope. Completely wrong. I have already posted the information on this yet you persist in making statements which are completely false. It really does utterly undermine your credibility.
In 2011 David Cameron vetoed a proposed EU Treaty Change, could that have been done in the EEA?
If it had had any impact on the UK via the Single Market then yes absolutely. More over if we were not in the EU then we would not be subject to the treaty in the first place.
I wonder if this prediction will be as accurate as the one about disgruntled teachers voting the Tories out? or the Lib Dems massively outperforming their poll ratings? Or any of the 5 tips from below? Never wise to let emotions affect judgement on these matters....
I was travelling today and was reading posts as I went. I was most interested in the exchange of opinions regarding the open boarders policy and if BOO had clarified the position on this.
To be honest if we are out then I think nothing will change. At the moment we are outside Schengen so to get off this island or return too it we have to identify ourselves normally be use of a passport. In the event we come out then nothing in that order will change. When travelling Within Europe we also cannot do so without showing a passport when for example flying. We will cross borders as before as how are they going to identify us ( think illegal immigrants running across Europe)
In regard to work yes they could impose a visa system and make life difficult but so could we. It is a negative response and would seem as the EU had picked up their football and gone home to sulk. If they do then this shows that the views of those in charge are not democratic.
Finally if we should vote to stay in and we may well do just that. The immediate after effects would be demands for Schengen acceptance and the Euro currency. To be fair the EU would be correct to demand this as we had just voted to stay in with the project, abide by its rules and follow their regulations.
I am a "Quitter" and the more they try to frighten me on the repercussions the more I am determined to get out. As one poster earlier observed it's is Merkel that makes policies on the hoof and the rest are expected to follow or as normal .....pull her out of the whole she has dug herself.
Just for the record I work in UK but I am always travelling across Europe every week. Presently in Amsterdam on business.
I don't have a problem with any of the Europeans I have a serious problem with the EU management.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Didn't the Eurozone states agree a new fiscal compact treaty without us when we vetoed last time? It doesn't seem like we have veto rights right now.
According to Richard_Tyndall, the EEA route means new legislation requires unanimity.
We will see, but while the Vote Leave campaign does seem less extreme it hasn't exactly swept everything before it yet. I hate people using social media as a way to judge things but so far it has 2,661 Likes on Facebook (170,314 for Leave.EU). It could overtake Leave.EU and is of course much newer but we'll see.
However browsing the rather ugly http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org website I can't see any answer to the question of "would Britain out of the EU be in the EEA", yes or no? It has potential but so far does not have a clear prospectus.
I think the Vote Leave campaign is more realistic than Leave.EU. The fact that they don't highlight immigration suggests that they are looking to something similar to the EEA agreement. That's certainly a defensible view, and an attainable aim.
Whether it's worth it or not is a matter of opinion. As I've said, personally I don't think so, and obviously anyone who is motivated primarily by the immigration question would also be dischuffed if we end up signing straight back into to the free movement which he thought he'd voted to get out of.
Off topic, my dad, a teacher in Barking and Dagenham, heard they plan to build 3,000 pupil schools in the borough to cope with the influx of migrants and the overspill from the schools that can't cope in Kent
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
Nope. Completely wrong. I have already posted the information on this yet you persist in making statements which are completely false. It really does utterly undermine your credibility.
You have a strange and extremely unpleasant habit of accusing people of lying. I shan't stoop to your level, but merely point out that, just because you have posted something, that does not make it true, no matter how often you repeat your mistake.
Given that what I have quoted comes directly from the EEA rules and the Norwegian government I do wonder at your arrogance at thinking you know better.
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.
Not so distant I'd say. Will the EU join TTIP, and what effect will that have? What will happen to the eurozone? Will tax be harmonised, and what will that mean? Will we be asked to stump up for more bailouts? Will we join the EU army? How will the EU deal with current levels of migration? Can 'Remain' tell us the answers to these questions? Can they show us what they believe the future within the EU to look like? The world is an uncertain place - we're hurtling at speed down a rocky road. In the EU we're doing as the passenger of a bus; as the UK we're doing it as the driver of a car. I know which I prefer.
As I said it is nebulous and the world is always uncertain however the public is short sighted will address the question before them and not hypothetical worlds of the future. Remain is (like it or not) the status quo and will be defending as such.
To answer your questions as I expect it: 1: The UK is the biggest driving force behind TTIP. I sure hope we join it and were we to leave the EU we would still join it. 2: Eurozone will likely muddle along as it is doing. 3: No taxes will not harmonise. We have veto powers over tax as do other nations vehemently opposed to tax harmonisation (see Ireland and Corporation Tax). 4: We are out of the Eurozone bailouts and haven't been asked to contribute them since Brown was kicked out. I see no reason for that to change. 5: The EU will muddle along. But again this is an area where we are not under EU QMV rules and have a veto/opt out.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
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. 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?
We don't know what the leaving process will look like, how long it will take and where we will be once it has happened. That needs to be set out, otherwise it will feel as if we would be jumping into a void.
As long as we stick to the rules we know exactly what the process will look like even if we don't know what the final outcome will be. It us all set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
I know it's human nature to set up scapegoats, but this Farage hate is bordering on the ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with hatred - Farage is a turn off for a great many people and his egocentric buffoonery is likely to damage the ‘leave’ campaign.
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.
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 Leave campaign could probably unite around a bilateral trade deal similar to one that the EU has already signed, that covers both trade and services, like South Korea, Mexico or Ecuador. That would blunt most of the criticism of the Remains while also mean they can maintain arguments about controlling borders.
Whichever picture they unite around, I would really like to see from them a credible position of what we'd replace the EU with. If we are to leave the single market, I want to see we have plans in place to maintain our position as a global trading power. People float around the idea of trade deals with the USA, Australia, India etc, but I have concerns about how viable those ideas are. If they could show that other similar nations have agreed X and Z deal, and that if we combined various ones we could have an export of Y million customers and W billion more trade, that would help me feel a lot more secure in voting out.
As long as you have been living abroad for less than 15 years then UK citizen will be able to vote in the referendum. All these people many hundreds of thousands will have benefited from free movement. I have no idea how they will vote, but I would have thought that the last thing they would want is an end to free movement and the single market. You would also have to think that even as we speak many more have clear ambitions to live work and play in the EU in exctly the same way.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
I think it is remarkable how hard Richard N has been spinning on the EEA option in recent months. His argument is complete moonshine and he knows it, and yet this obviously intelligent man persists.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
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.
As listed out by someone the other day one of the items in the negotiations was a red card ie a parliamentary veto. But I agree with your point but frankly there are limts to that in that the ripost would be for the EU to withdraw concessions from its side. In other words a continuation of disputes.
To be fair, if Cameron achieved the parliamentary veto (although it has to be several parliaments in concert, not just ours) and structural protection for non-eurozone countries that would go a long way to addressing my concerns about the EU.
Ipsos Mori have published a very dated poll on EU membership (done on 2nd July).
The finding is that the public expect the Prime Minister to push for restrictions on the free movement of people throughout the EU.
As at 2nd July, 52% wanted to remain in the EU, and 31% wished to leave. (the previous poll had 66% remain, 22% leave). But, if restrictions on free movement were not achieved, the numbers would shift to 36%/43%.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
He doesn't argue convincingly. He states it, repeatedly, but I'm baffled as to how he comes up with that conclusion, and I've given up engaging with him because he just calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar.
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. 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?
We don't know what the leaving process will look like, how long it will take and where we will be once it has happened. That needs to be set out, otherwise it will feel as if we would be jumping into a void.
As long as we stick to the rules we know exactly what the process will look like even if we don't know what the final outcome will be. It us all set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Thanks - I had not seen that before. It actually looks like it could be pretty messy potentially: * After a Leave vote we would have to notify the European Council of our intention to leave. That would be a government decision, presumably, so could take a fair bit of time to put in place - especially if a Leave vote triggered the resignations of Cameron and Osborne and a Tory battle to succeed them. If it had to be ratified by the Commons via legislation, that could take a while too. * More realistically, there is a two year deadline for withdrawal after notification, unless the member state and the European Council agree to extend it. You could certainly see a few extensions occurring.
"If we vote to leave, we will not really leave. A bargain will be brokered that preserves some British access to the European market in exchange for some duty to observe European laws — a version of the Swiss and Norwegian compromises. Over time, this diminished form of membership will start thickening out again as exporters ask for access to new sectors of the single market and regulations are borne as the price. Meanwhile, European Court of Justice rulings on Britain’s status will pile up, and they will tend to bind us in to the club making it harder for us to stand apart. One day, we will wake up and realise we have something tantamount to EU membership. Then we will get on with our lives.
...
And if we vote to stay, we will never become a truly European nation anyway. Even if David Cameron achieves the square root of nought in his renegotiation of membership, Britain is already estranged from the EU core by its currency.
...
The Remainers should not overstate their case: a vote to stay is a vote for decades of loveless, defensive diplomacy on Europe’s sidelines. If that is the burden that comes with participation in the world’s largest single market, voters will grudgingly live with it.
...
Fudge is how Britain ended up with the best but not the worst of the European project. And fudge is what will emerge at the end of Mr Cameron’s great democratic exercise, whenever it comes and whatever the official result. The referendum is not a fork in the road. It is a roundabout with no exits."
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
Mr. Antifrank, if we vote Out, and basically stay In (the Boris Idiocy), the Conservatives will implode with fury. It would probably bring down Cameron.
I see Watson remains a creature of slime and filth.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
I expect we will sign up for free movement of labour, but not free movement of job seekers, free movement of welfare recipients or an obligation to advertise jobs to all EU citizens in preference to any non-EU citizen.
Very OT. There are few words to describe Tom Watson's behaviour today.
Politically it's surely Corbyn's first big test. He surely must speak out even if he doesn't have the authority to fire him
I doubt Corbyn has any problem at all with Watson, who has framed his argument as taking on the Murdoch press and the Daily Mail, and speaking up for victims that the establishment wanted to ignore. It's the perfect Corbyn Labour song book tune.
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.
As listed out by someone the other day one of the items in the negotiations was a red card ie a parliamentary veto. But I agree with your point but frankly there are limts to that in that the ripost would be for the EU to withdraw concessions from its side. In other words a continuation of disputes.
To be fair, if Cameron achieved the parliamentary veto (although it has to be several parliaments in concert, not just ours) and structural protection for non-eurozone countries that would go a long way to addressing my concerns about the EU.
I agree with that. The ever closer union of the eurozone is the main issue,not that there are not others. Will there be a willingness by the EZ to reform the structure of the EU? We see lots of howling from Outers, but there is no indication yet, with months and years to go, what the answer will be. It strikes me as inevitable that there will be some movement . Labour opponents of Cameron and the usual Outer suspects have already begun dissembling on the significance of this.
What I perceive to be your concerns are the issues which Cameron raised back in 2013. They are mine as well.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
Which gets us nowhere. As I said before, I think he's wrong about automatic EEA membership kicking in, but, even if I'm wrong about that, that isn't the main point: it's what we'd be trying to negotiate, not the interim arrangement, which is the key point.
Yes, it will. It will mean that we can't be forced into compromises that don't suit us by majority vote.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The EEA route would force us into compromises with no vote at all. We'd also have given up veto rights to treaty changes which could affect us very significantly.
He doesn't argue convincingly. He states it, repeatedly, but I'm baffled as to how he comes up with that conclusion, and I've given up engaging with him because he just calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar.
You are baffled by actually referencing the EEA rules and the government's of the EFTA members? It's a view I suppose but not one I think many people would support.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I expect we will sign up for free movement of labour, but not free movement of job seekers, free movement of welfare recipients or an obligation to advertise jobs to all EU citizens in preference to any non-EU citizen.
I'm reasonably confident that Cameron will get much of that as part of his renegotiation - obviously that's one of the things where we'll need to wait and see.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care. They don't even care if immigration would be the same as now.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
Mr. Dodd, also famous for having the best ever videogame version of a film. It's probably awful now, but back then it was fantastic.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Watson "The police have a duty to investigate no matter who it's is"
Well yes, I would agree with that absolutely.
I would not agree that they are investigated in the private office of one Mr Watson and I would not agree that the only ones to be investigated under said statement are the Tories. When is he going to demand a certain Labour Lord is pursued then?
That would be never.....
We should follow up all such allegations but this has to be done carefully and in camera until such time those involved are proved guilty. If they can do this in family courts they can do it here. There are just too many reputations being destroyed by the alleged smell of smoke rather than the actual observation of a raging fire.
To send an innocent and honourable man to his grave with such an allegation unresolved is unforgivable. ( he has not been proved guilty and by the sounds of it the police have no evidence)
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
What Richard is looking for is a cast iron exit strategy agreed before the referendum takes place. Every last detail needs to be agreed, anything less is simply not good enough.
The same is not require for remaining in the EU as Dave will definitely be able to safeguard the UK's interests and there is nothing to worry about.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
What an utter twunt. He has abused his position as an MP to interfere with the administration of justice with regards to political interference with the CPS and the Police. He has abused the right of Parliamentary Privilege.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
What Richard is looking for is a cast iron exit strategy agreed before the referendum takes place. Every last detail needs to be agreed, anything less is simply not good enough.
The same is not require for remaining in the EU as Dave will definitely be able to safeguard the UK's interests and there is nothing to worry about.
Well it's two days in to the campaign and the positions have hardened already. This could be as much fun as Indyref.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
According to some Remain PR man on the beeb this is the biggest decision we'll ever take.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
I thought Farage came over pretty well there, and not his usual inflammatory self (although I thought the ISIS infiltrators is way overblown). He also made it clear that he only sees the EEA as stage 1 of the divorce process and that he would not stay in it permanently, so that's cleared up the accusations of inconsistency there.
However, simply saying "bespoke deal for the UK" isn't good enough. I want the Leave campaign to make clear what exactly the bespoke deal would look like, which aspects would it cover, and what other trade deals it would look like.
PS. I find it amazing that Isabel Oakeshott is still being taken seriously as a journalist. She published a scandalous allegation about the Prime Minister, based on one source she admits was possibly deranged. She put her professionalism to one side in order to rake in the book sales money.
What a truly despicable character Tom Watson is. What on earth were those Labour MPs' sitting behind thinking, when they appeared to support him. Of course, the police should investigate child abuse but this was about an apology to Leon Brittan's family and he completely ignored that fact.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I just want to know what the Leave side would be aiming at (and if it's plausible, of course).
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
So in summary we are expected to debate an unknown deal for in vs an unknown deal for out.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
Not for me, mate. I will vote to stay on what we have got at the moment. I don't need to see the results of any renegotiation. Particularly, I do not want to see any changes to the free movement of people.
Perhaps they can talk about this at the next UN Human Rights Committee meeting they chair.
Admittedly, it was back in the early 90's, but there used to be lots of Kalashnikovs on show at Yemeni weddings.... They would often be out near the Rock Palace, outside Sana'a.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
Charles, like me, is an on the fence voter here. It is amazing the number of people who think they can win a debate by insulting those who don't already agree with them.
Mr. Brooke, well, it's not long until the next Tomb Raider game. Xbox timed exclusive, alas, but I may well wait and get the PS4 version when that arrives. I like Lara rather more than Nathan Drake.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
I don't want to know precisely. I want to know roughly, just as I will know roughly what the EU will be like over the next four or five years.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
You have a position that it is impossible for anyone to honestly answer, as you know damn well - given that we have spoken about it before. The Out side cannot possibly say what the future relationship will be. That will be a decision for HMG in negotiation with the EU.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
Of course it will be decided in negotiations. But we can damn well have a plausible plan for what it could look like. Leave needs to provide that. Just as Remain needs to show what staying in looks like in the medium term future.
Mr. Dodd, also famous for having the best ever videogame version of a film. It's probably awful now, but back then it was fantastic.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Your unwillingness to engage in any sensible way with Mr Nabavi points just shows you up. The whole issue revolves around leaping into the dark.
What a truly despicable character Tom Watson is. What on earth were those Labour MPs' sitting behind thinking, when they appeared to support him. Of course, the police should investigate child abuse but this was about an apology to Leon Brittan's family and he completely ignored that fact.
Despicable sums it up. A man whose word is not to be trusted.. We all recall his stories about buying presents for Brown's kids.. Why he thought anyone would believe him is beyond belief.. If he had any honour he would apologise.. and I guess that's why he hasn't.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Here is Farage yesterday from about 7:50 in this clip talking about what would happen if we voted LEAVE
Charles, like me, is an on the fence voter here. It is amazing the number of people who think they can win a debate by insulting those who don't already agree with them.
I wasn't insulting him! I posted a video relevant to (in fact what started the) whole discussion, and he said he refused to watch it... Lighten up
I think the EU is heading towards greater integration, and the eurozone bloc has a critical mass for QMV which is only to our disadvantage. The EU has also shown in recent history to renege upon deals and be heavy-handed. Given that, voting Out is a perfectly rational perspective.
Shown up, indeed. You tinker.
Mr. Surbiton, Miliband was neck-and-neck, lest we forget.
Mr. Dodd, also famous for having the best ever videogame version of a film. It's probably awful now, but back then it was fantastic.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Your unwillingness to engage in any sensible way with Mr Nabavi points just shows you up. The whole issue revolves around leaping into the dark.
Only if you're stupid enough to push dumb PR lines.
Comments
On your broader question, I think it is very reasonable to for the EU to have a press office that presents its views, and for the media to cover that. What I don't think is right is when the EU uses taxpayer funds to create pro-EU artwork, media and children's comics.
"Sadly for him, circumstances conspired against him" = utterly useless and an oxygen thief.
Whichever picture they unite around, I would really like to see from them a credible position of what we'd replace the EU with. If we are to leave the single market, I want to see we have plans in place to maintain our position as a global trading power. People float around the idea of trade deals with the USA, Australia, India etc, but I have concerns about how viable those ideas are. If they could show that other similar nations have agreed X and Z deal, and that if we combined various ones we could have an export of Y million customers and W billion more trade, that would help me feel a lot more secure in voting out.
However browsing the rather ugly http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org website I can't see any answer to the question of "would Britain out of the EU be in the EEA", yes or no? It has potential but so far does not have a clear prospectus.
But I agree with your point but frankly there are limts to that in that the ripost would be for the EU to withdraw concessions from its side. In other words a continuation of disputes.
Although I strongly (strongly, strongly, strongly) want to remain in the EU I certainly don't believe that the UK couldn't survive outside of it. Of course it could. We'd be OK.
This debate ought to be about each side stating the positive reasons for their respective positions and not going around claiming that it's the end of the world if the other side wins. We're in the EU now and the world isn't ending - and nor did it end when we weren't in it either.
Whatever choice is made I feel pretty certain that it's going to be made on a very close vote - and we'll all still have to live with each other after it's all over.
I think both campaigns have got off to a very poor start - at least from an ethical standpoint.
According to Richard_Tyndall, the EEA route means new legislation requires unanimity.
And to be honest I can think of nothing better for the Leave campaign than to be able to show that significant elements of the BSE campaign are funded by the EU. I doubt Remain would be that stupid
I know it's human nature to set up scapegoats, but this Farage hate is bordering on the ridiculous.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-beat-the-bookies-and-clean-up-from-the-meltdowns-on-the-big-day-10144790.html
Were they the wrong sort of Jihadist?
Anyway, the invasion is still continuing:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/12/shots-fired-illegal-immigrants-shot-member-public-hours-emerging-hungarian-lorry/
To be honest if we are out then I think nothing will change. At the moment we are outside Schengen so to get off this island or return too it we have to identify ourselves normally be use of a passport. In the event we come out then nothing in that order will change. When travelling Within Europe we also cannot do so without showing a passport when for example flying. We will cross borders as before as how are they going to identify us ( think illegal immigrants running across Europe)
In regard to work yes they could impose a visa system and make life difficult but so could we. It is a negative response and would seem as the EU had picked up their football and gone home to sulk. If they do then this shows that the views of those in charge are not democratic.
Finally if we should vote to stay in and we may well do just that. The immediate after effects would be demands for Schengen acceptance and the Euro currency. To be fair the EU would be correct to demand this as we had just voted to stay in with the project, abide by its rules and follow their regulations.
I am a "Quitter" and the more they try to frighten me on the repercussions the more I am determined to get out. As one poster earlier observed it's is Merkel that makes policies on the hoof and the rest are expected to follow or as normal .....pull her out of the whole she has dug herself.
Just for the record I work in UK but I am always travelling across Europe every week. Presently in Amsterdam on business.
I don't have a problem with any of the Europeans I have a serious problem with the EU management.
Whether it's worth it or not is a matter of opinion. As I've said, personally I don't think so, and obviously anyone who is motivated primarily by the immigration question would also be dischuffed if we end up signing straight back into to the free movement which he thought he'd voted to get out of.
To answer your questions as I expect it:
1: The UK is the biggest driving force behind TTIP. I sure hope we join it and were we to leave the EU we would still join it.
2: Eurozone will likely muddle along as it is doing.
3: No taxes will not harmonise. We have veto powers over tax as do other nations vehemently opposed to tax harmonisation (see Ireland and Corporation Tax).
4: We are out of the Eurozone bailouts and haven't been asked to contribute them since Brown was kicked out. I see no reason for that to change.
5: The EU will muddle along. But again this is an area where we are not under EU QMV rules and have a veto/opt out.
None of these are a major issue.
Your request to know precisely the relationship is a mendacious argument.
If there is a vote to leave there will be a negotiation period, during which there will also be a democratic debate to determine what the plurality of British voters want.
I might as well ask you to tell me exactly what the EU will look like in 20 years time. You don't know, and I don't know. We only know that it won't be the same as EU 2015. But that's what "remain" is asking us to vote for.
Politically it's surely Corbyn's first big test. He surely must speak out even if he doesn't have the authority to fire him
I have no idea how they will vote, but I would have thought that the last thing they would want is an end to free movement and the single market. You would also have to think that even as we speak many more have clear ambitions to live work and play in the EU in exctly the same way.
In particular, and sorry to repeat myself, but I'd like to know whether we'd be signing up to free movement of labour or not. Given that that is one of the most significant issues for the public, and one which UKIP in particular have been extremely vociferous about, it's surely not an unreasonable request?
Following on from that, if the answer is Yes, because we'd sign up to the EEA or similar, then my vote is clear: I'll vote to stay in, for the reasons I've already given. I don't think the difference between the EEA and the EU is worth the hassle and the loss of influence and veto power (even allowing for the fact that Blair and Brown gave away so much of the latter).
If the answer is No, then I might be persuadable to vote to Leave, provided there's a reasonable prospect of defending our trade interests. I was hoping that the Leave side would address this point, and maybe they will. We shall see.
As you can see, I've got a logical and clearly articulated position. Others may disagree with it, that's fine.
Ipsos Mori have published a very dated poll on EU membership (done on 2nd July).
The finding is that the public expect the Prime Minister to push for restrictions on the free movement of people throughout the EU.
As at 2nd July, 52% wanted to remain in the EU, and 31% wished to leave. (the previous poll had 66% remain, 22% leave). But, if restrictions on free movement were not achieved, the numbers would shift to 36%/43%.
As for invasion, what vile language.
* After a Leave vote we would have to notify the European Council of our intention to leave. That would be a government decision, presumably, so could take a fair bit of time to put in place - especially if a Leave vote triggered the resignations of Cameron and Osborne and a Tory battle to succeed them. If it had to be ratified by the Commons via legislation, that could take a while too.
* More realistically, there is a two year deadline for withdrawal after notification, unless the member state and the European Council agree to extend it. You could certainly see a few extensions occurring.
http://order-order.com/2015/10/12/tories-cry-shame-as-watson-refuses-to-apologise/#:VdmfJVBWWH7w_Q
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2e843d8e-70ed-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3oN3VnRo2
"If we vote to leave, we will not really leave. A bargain will be brokered that preserves some British access to the European market in exchange for some duty to observe European laws — a version of the Swiss and Norwegian compromises. Over time, this diminished form of membership will start thickening out again as exporters ask for access to new sectors of the single market and regulations are borne as the price. Meanwhile, European Court of Justice rulings on Britain’s status will pile up, and they will tend to bind us in to the club making it harder for us to stand apart. One day, we will wake up and realise we have something tantamount to EU membership. Then we will get on with our lives.
...
And if we vote to stay, we will never become a truly European nation anyway. Even if David Cameron achieves the square root of nought in his renegotiation of membership, Britain is already estranged from the EU core by its currency.
...
The Remainers should not overstate their case: a vote to stay is a vote for decades of loveless, defensive diplomacy on Europe’s sidelines. If that is the burden that comes with participation in the world’s largest single market, voters will grudgingly live with it.
...
Fudge is how Britain ended up with the best but not the worst of the European project. And fudge is what will emerge at the end of Mr Cameron’s great democratic exercise, whenever it comes and whatever the official result. The referendum is not a fork in the road. It is a roundabout with no exits."
I don't agree with him but he argues it well.
http://youtu.be/NrdZiHAUoUQ
I see Watson remains a creature of slime and filth.
What I perceive to be your concerns are the issues which Cameron raised back in 2013. They are mine as well.
So bleats about "I'd like to know ..." are disingenuous and, to be frank, beneath you,
I don't trust his judgement and I don't trust his motives.
If the answer is 'Haven't a clue, guv', or 'Who cares?' then that's fine. I'll vote to stay in, as will nearly everyone else.
What's extraordinary about those arguing against me and even accusing me of being disingenuous is that these are issues which the Leave side absolutely has to address if it is to have any hope of winning. The Remain side's strongest card is the 'leap in the dark' issue. From what the Outers here are saying, it really is a leap in the dark, and they don't care. They don't even care if immigration would be the same as now.
Fair enough, but don't expect to win a referendum that way.
Mr. Nabavi, I take the opposite view. If I'm on the second floor of a burning building, I'd sooner leap into the dark than hope I'll be miraculously rescued. The EU is in a bad place now and heading in a direction diametrically opposed to our own interests. If In doesn't have a good argument, and it doesn't (aside from the £480m I may receive), I'll vote Out.
Well yes, I would agree with that absolutely.
I would not agree that they are investigated in the private office of one Mr Watson and I would not agree that the only ones to be investigated under said statement are the Tories.
When is he going to demand a certain Labour Lord is pursued then?
That would be never.....
We should follow up all such allegations but this has to be done carefully and in camera until such time those involved are proved guilty. If they can do this in family courts they can do it here. There are just too many reputations being destroyed by the alleged smell of smoke rather than the actual observation of a raging fire.
To send an innocent and honourable man to his grave with such an allegation unresolved is unforgivable. ( he has not been proved guilty and by the sounds of it the police have no evidence)
Watson is a cockroach.
The same is not require for remaining in the EU as Dave will definitely be able to safeguard the UK's interests and there is nothing to worry about.
http://kids-wholesale-dropship.doba.com/la_la_la_i_m_not_listening_headband_case_pack_6_distributor_106425831.php
The criticism is that he publicly smeared someone who turned out to be innocent.
His argument is that child abuse claims should be investigated. It's strawmantastic from the Witchsmeller Pursuivant.
A twunt of the highest order.
His weasel words today make it worse.
I can't think why the nation at large isn't gripped by this topic..
I think he needs to get a life frankly.
However, simply saying "bespoke deal for the UK" isn't good enough. I want the Leave campaign to make clear what exactly the bespoke deal would look like, which aspects would it cover, and what other trade deals it would look like.
PS. I find it amazing that Isabel Oakeshott is still being taken seriously as a journalist. She published a scandalous allegation about the Prime Minister, based on one source she admits was possibly deranged. She put her professionalism to one side in order to rake in the book sales money.
I am with Adam Smith on this one.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/specials/next-guardian-political-editor/221096526/
I think the EU is heading towards greater integration, and the eurozone bloc has a critical mass for QMV which is only to our disadvantage. The EU has also shown in recent history to renege upon deals and be heavy-handed. Given that, voting Out is a perfectly rational perspective.
Shown up, indeed. You tinker.
Mr. Surbiton, Miliband was neck-and-neck, lest we forget.