The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
Dont make the Corbynista mistake. Hannan might tickle the Con membership and activist base, when it comes to those eleven million people who voted though, that might not be the case. The overwhelming vast majority would never have heard of him, and many of those that had would be hard pushed to remember him in any way.
Very few politicians break through to ordinary voters, good or bad, even when they cause fandom frenzy to the membership.
Just astonishing bowling from Broad and Anderson this morning after Cookie loses 3 from 3 in the test. We are really going to miss those 2 in a couple of years.
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.
And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.
OK, we're getting somewhere. You've at least admitted that one of your complaints is about something trivial.
The other two you are reduced to arguing are formally not quite right even if in practice they might very well be.
Happy to leave it there then.
'Formally not quite right' is a strange way to describe something as being false. Your attempts to change the subject rather than answer a question that would force you into an inconvenient answer is actually quite painful to read. I'm embarrassed on your behalf, to be honest.
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.
And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.
OK, we're getting somewhere. You've at least admitted that one of your complaints is about something trivial.
The other two you are reduced to arguing are formally not quite right even if in practice they might very well be.
Happy to leave it there then.
'Formally not quite right' is a strange way to describe something as being false. Your attempts to change the subject rather than answer a question that would force you into an inconvenient answer is actually quite painful to read. I'm embarrassed on your behalf, to be honest.
Just stick with being embarrassed and stay in your absurd formalistic world. The general public will understand very well what "no say" and "need to pay" mean in practice.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
Good morning Mr Dancer. I like your thinking with those two bets, Bottas especially could be in with a shout of moving up in what will be another race of attrition.
I had a thought that Lewis might (unusually) play the team game, allowing Nico run away in the lead while holding up Seb and the pack. The Merc-powered cars could be able to pass the Red Bulls.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
We have some. It probably would be more influential if we didn't have so many useless UKIP MEPs who rarely show up apart from picking up their salaries and being wantonly rude to people.
I view the EU as a pooling of sovereignty rather than a loss of sovereignty. We may not always like our neighbours but we have to get on with them and there are common needs.
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.
And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.
OK, we're getting somewhere. You've at least admitted that one of your complaints is about something trivial.
The other two you are reduced to arguing are formally not quite right even if in practice they might very well be.
Happy to leave it there then.
'Formally not quite right' is a strange way to describe something as being false. Your attempts to change the subject rather than answer a question that would force you into an inconvenient answer is actually quite painful to read. I'm embarrassed on your behalf, to be honest.
Just stick with being embarrassed and stay in your absurd formalistic world. The general public will understand very well what "no say" and "need to pay" mean in practice.
To consider the difference between truth and falsehood an absurd formality is bizarre. Have you considered changing career? Your view that truth is a flexible thing might be an asset as a lawyer or an estate agent. The result of an EU referendum will be quite illegitimate if one side wins based on lies, and the issue will certainly not be put to bed as Cameron hopes it will.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
We have some. It probably would be more influential if we didn't have so many useless UKIP MEPs who rarely show up apart from picking up their salaries and being wantonly rude to people.
I view the EU as a pooling of sovereignty rather than a loss of sovereignty. We may not always like our neighbours but we have to get on with them and there are common needs.
As I said downthread that only works if we are all in the same pool. With the EZ and non EZ groupings we are not and the risk is that our pool is not the one with the fish in it.
Mr. Foxinsox, fundamentally disagree on your pooling/loss of sovereignty line. Our ability to decide for ourselves has been eroded, although nowhere near as much as the likes of Greece or Italy (or possibly Portugal, depending how that situation develops).
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
We have some. It probably would be more influential if we didn't have so many useless UKIP MEPs who rarely show up apart from picking up their salaries and being wantonly rude to people.
I view the EU as a pooling of sovereignty rather than a loss of sovereignty. We may not always like our neighbours but we have to get on with them and there are common needs.
Good morning Dr Fox - if we leave then those useless Ukip MEPs will lose their jobs. More importantly, you need to make sure your passport is in date for next season!
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
We have some. It probably would be more influential if we didn't have so many useless UKIP MEPs who rarely show up apart from picking up their salaries and being wantonly rude to people.
I view the EU as a pooling of sovereignty rather than a loss of sovereignty. We may not always like our neighbours but we have to get on with them and there are common needs.
UKIP have no interest in trying to make a system that they totally disagree with work effectively.
1) I'm undecided. My decision will be made on how Britain's identity will develop. No one committed seems to believe this, but on this I suspect I will be quite typical of many. Neither the Remainers nor the Leavers are saying anything to attract my vote yet.
2) I have no interest in how much exactly Norway contributes to the EU. It has no relevance to how I will vote or, I suspect, to the vote of anyone who doesn't bay at full moons. So I can't comment either way on that point.
3) "No say" is a fair shorthand for "formal consultation only". Many Leavers argue that Britain has "no say" in the EU already. It's a fair view also, though that is still less legally formally accurate. It depends what you interpret "say" to mean. You are taking a highly formalistic view and then accusing anyone who is more purposive of being dishonest.
Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.
There you go again, insulting people that have different views to yourself as people that "bay at full moons". In the antifrank view of the word, describing false statements as 'untruths' is an unfair attack on people's integrity, but describing them as lunatics and assholes is something that can be done with abandon.
It does not need to matter to your vote for you to realise something untrue is untrue. Here's links you can use in 30 seconds to make your mind up.
Cameron's statement: "Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."
The pro-EU CBI: "Norway is thus the tenth highest contributor to the EU, despite not being a member, with per capita contributions of €100, well over half of the UK’s contributions (€180)."
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
Norway are currently being asked to double their contributions.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
If they didn't have them before, having them now makes no sense. Plus, Hamilton would (I think) ignore them.
Right now, Rosberg needs Mercedes a lot more than the other way around. Grosjean, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Verstappen, Sainz would, I imagine, all leap at the seat, even as Hamilton's team mate.
Mr. Foxinsox, fundamentally disagree on your pooling/loss of sovereignty line. Our ability to decide for ourselves has been eroded, although nowhere near as much as the likes of Greece or Italy (or possibly Portugal, depending how that situation develops).
MD , this was main plank of unionists during referendum, the crap pooling and sharing argument. Hopefully they are hoist by their own petard, fine to spout it to cling on to Scotland but BAD when applying to Europe. Hopefully they vote OUT and are left on their arses.
Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.
On the question of 'lies' and 'lying' AF, (and honestly not for a second accusing you of it);
If someone repeatedly make statement that they must know, through virtue of their position and the availability of information to them, to be false. Or if someone repeatedly makes a statement that has been shown previously to be false but they make anyway because it gives them an advantage in an argument. Would you not say in those circumstances that they are lying?
If not then under what circumstances could someone be accused of lying? Surely the stating of a known untruth is pretty much the definition of lying. This is not opinion. This is the conscious statement of a falsehood and does indeed reflect poorly on their integrity.
It seems to me that in some of these cases those objecting to the use of the word lie only do so because they have no other way to counter a factual statement that someone has knowingly made a false statement.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
Classic Tony denial. The Mail doesn't claim that Tony ordered anybody to do anything. It reports that somebody part of the Blair machine made the order.
Mr. Urquhart, I liked this line: ""This is nonsense as far as Tony Blair knows," his spokesman said of the Mail's allegations."
Good morning, Mr. Stodge.
Mr. G, and that's why I said I can see why some Scots want independence, but cannot fathom that belief held alongside those Scots desperate to remain in the EU. [I can also see why Scots, who feel British, want to leave the EU but remain within the union].
Mr. Foxinsox, fundamentally disagree on your pooling/loss of sovereignty line. Our ability to decide for ourselves has been eroded, although nowhere near as much as the likes of Greece or Italy (or possibly Portugal, depending how that situation develops).
MD , this was main plank of unionists during referendum, the crap pooling and sharing argument. Hopefully they are hoist by their own petard, fine to spout it to cling on to Scotland but BAD when applying to Europe. Hopefully they vote OUT and are left on their arses.
I hope so to MG. However they frightened scots to think they are unable to go independent. To scare the English to remain will be a lot easier.
The more this carries on the more ludicrous stuff is being found. This needs to finish with people behind bars to restore faith in the whole charity sector.
This discussion on Europe has a staggering omission. It simply ignores the recent history of the benighted continent: the Euro, austerity, Brussels/Frankfurt diktats, loss of sovereignty for transgressors, rejection of national democratic voting, the North-South economic imbalance, migration and Merkel's preposterous posturing, Schengen, judicial policy making in Strasbourg. And so on. Where's the good news?
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
No, I shan't be. But I still believe that senior politicians should not be telling untruths to campaign for something. The fact you can't even admit something that is obviously false is false shows you are not willing to criticise the Remain campaign at all.
And I'm not dropping any of my criticisms. I just try to avoid walls of texts so I've narrowed in on one.
OK, we're getting somewhere. You've at least admitted that one of your complaints is about something trivial.
The other two you are reduced to arguing are formally not quite right even if in practice they might very well be.
Happy to leave it there then.
'Formally not quite right' is a strange way to describe something as being false. Your attempts to change the subject rather than answer a question that would force you into an inconvenient answer is actually quite painful to read. I'm embarrassed on your behalf, to be honest.
Just stick with being embarrassed and stay in your absurd formalistic world. The general public will understand very well what "no say" and "need to pay" mean in practice.
To consider the difference between truth and falsehood an absurd formality is bizarre. Have you considered changing career? Your view that truth is a flexible thing might be an asset as a lawyer or an estate agent. The result of an EU referendum will be quite illegitimate if one side wins based on lies, and the issue will certainly not be put to bed as Cameron hopes it will.
You are being narrow-minded to the point of losing an entire dimension. Posters are not legal documents. They are to be interpreted practically and voters sensibly will do exactly that. Practically, Remain are putting forward an entirely defensible viewpoint. it is an outcome that in practice might well eventuate and arguably is pretty much inevitable in the event of Brexit. You may disagree with that argument but raging that it's a filthy lie just makes you look silly.
1) I'm undecided. My decision will be made on how Britain's identity will develop. No one committed seems to believe this, but on this I suspect I will be quite typical of many. Neither the Remainers nor the Leavers are saying anything to attract my vote yet.
2) I have no interest in how much exactly Norway contributes to the EU. It has no relevance to how I will vote or, I suspect, to the vote of anyone who doesn't bay at full moons. So I can't comment either way on that point.
3) "No say" is a fair shorthand for "formal consultation only". Many Leavers argue that Britain has "no say" in the EU already. It's a fair view also, though that is still less legally formally accurate. It depends what you interpret "say" to mean. You are taking a highly formalistic view and then accusing anyone who is more purposive of being dishonest.
Campaigns are not conducted at a forensic level but painted in bright primary colours. You bandy about words like "lie", "untruth", "fib" and "false" to describe entirely fair expressions of opinion. You disagree with them. Fine. But express your disagreement, don't immediately resort to attacks on the integrity of others.
There you go again, insulting people that have different views to yourself as people that "bay at full moons". In the antifrank view of the word, describing false statements as 'untruths' is an unfair attack on people's integrity, but describing them as lunatics and assholes is something that can be done with abandon.
It does not need to matter to your vote for you to realise something untrue is untrue. Here's links you can use in 30 seconds to make your mind up.
The pro-EU CBI: "Norway is thus the tenth highest contributor to the EU, despite not being a member, with per capita contributions of €100, well over half of the UK’s contributions (€180)."
Will you be casting your vote on the basis of the level of Norway's contribution to the EU? It would be a bizarre thing to do. Which is why I felt happy to describe it as such. Interesting that you assumed I was getting at Leavers when it was a point raised by Remainers. It's a complete red herring.
I see that you're quietly dropping your accusations of lies one by one.
Norway are currently being asked to double their contributions.
Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
On topic, the route to a LEAVE victory (assuming David Cameron supports REMAIN) comes from any senior Conservative effectively challenging him. That person would have to resign from the Cabinet and take de facto leadership of LEAVE and basically ask the Conservative Party where it wants to be. The risk of such a Heseltine-style action is huge - fail and it's eternity in the wilderness but succeed and the keys to No.10 would be there for the taking.
It was interesting to see the strength for Theresa May to lead the LEAVE campaign though I can't see it happening. A dramatic resignation on a key point of principle followed by an assertive campaign outlining the virtues of controlling our own borders outside the EU....
The more this carries on the more ludicrous stuff is being found. This needs to finish with people behind bars to restore faith in the whole charity sector.
But but but but think of the kids.....Yentob will be back out claiming government decisions killed kids.
But you are right, it just keeps coming, no wonder they couldn't pay their staff and actually run the core of the service without massive amount of cash from the government.
The other EU countries' attitude is why I think we need to leave. We'd be unhappy with the status quo even if we remain and so it is not healthy for us or them to let the bitterness fester, as they are already sick of our complaints and would be even more contemptuous afterward, and that's a scary thought.
Ultimately it is about the direction of travel. We'd rather it reversed a bit, or at least stayed still, but most of them do not. Even some kind of formal associate membership will not make that harmonious.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
Norway are currently being asked to double their contributions.
So? The UKs contribution to the EU has tripled since 2008.
The difference is that whilst the EU has asked for an increase in EEA contributions the EEA have been able to say... no. The EEA contribution is not something that can be imposed by the EU. It is something that is negotiated.
Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
Its a shame that so much of it will be about faces and personality rather than a reasoned discussion of Britains place in the world, but both sides seem to want it that way.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
On the rest of Europe clearly we will always have a semi-detached relationship with them, we are not in the Eurozone and on the outer fringe with non-eurozone Sweden and Denmark and Poland but northern Europe will want us to stay in to ensure the balance does not top towards the South. As the UK is forecast to be the largest population and economy in Europe by 2050 it would also be a blow to Europe to lose what could be the largest nation in the continent http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110 http://www.cityam.com/221125/population-growth-uk-become-biggest-country-european-union-2050
This is a very different beast to the Scottish referendum. Unlike that vote, this one comes with a massive dose of "no-one gives a shit".
Differential turnout will be key.
Eurosceptics certainly give a shit indeed just as much as independence campaigners in Scotland, the Establishment also backs the status quo in both Scotland and the EU
The public will believe what each side says about the other. If Remain are going to tell us that Leave are nutters and Leave are going to tell us that Remain are liars, the public will believe that Remain are liars and that Leave are nutters. The public is likely ultimately to decide that liars are a safer bet than nutters.
So I suggest that Leave need to find a better attack line on Remain and fast.
I get confused sometimes on what the public are expected to believe or not in response to party messages. Usually the opposing side claim the public will not fall for such nonsense, but if they lose suddenly it turns out the people were indeed fooled and didn't understand (this has been claimed several times re the Tories winning). I suspect it's partly down to luck and what people already believe about the dudes in the end. UKIP still have more of the nutters reputation than the others, as do the Tory awkward squad, while pro-Euers may get lumped in with the reputation of Euro bureaucrats, which is never a good thing.
I figure the fear of the Unknown may be enough to win it for remain in the end, I certainly used to make arguments like the Pieter above, but should be close now.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Do you support staying in the EEA with the 4 freedoms?
The Outers ambiguity and confusion over this is why the first poster works.
Of corse posters (even internet ones) are always going to be gross oversimplifications.
Latest poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos second to PP with PSOE in third and Podemos making a comeback. In terms of seats the top three are very close. Intriguingly, Ciudadanos might be in a position to be the senior party in a hook-up with PSOE. If C's does finish second it is unlikely to want to go into coalition with a PP thst eill have seen its support virtually halve.
Ciudadanos are basically Cleggite Liberals, they will almost certainly do a deal with the PP not the PSOE if the PP come top
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
It's also an astonishing argument that campaigns don't have to be technically true because they paint in 'bright primary colours'. We'll be in an awful place as a country if we allow politicians to say things that aren't true because they figure the falsehood more representative of the situation than the actual truth.
What do you mean 'if we allow'? Given direct lies are probably rare, the slight falsehood/misleading interpretation presented as more representative than the truth seems not uncommon I suspect.
I have not seen Spectre yet but I refuse to believe it is possible for it to be worse than Die Another Day. Indeed I would be surprised if it was any worse than Quantum of Solace
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Do you support staying in the EEA with the 4 freedoms?
The Outers ambiguity and confusion over this is why the first poster works.
Of corse posters (even internet ones) are always going to be gross oversimplifications.
Personally I do because the migration issue is not high on my list of issues. I realise that others don't share that view.
The overriding point though is that it can only be a decision made by the people of the UK if they have chosen to leave the EU. As long as they remain inside the EU it cannot be addressed by either side.
You are being narrow-minded to the point of losing an entire dimension. Posters are not legal documents. They are to be interpreted practically and voters sensibly will do exactly that. Practically, Remain are putting forward an entirely defensible viewpoint. it is an outcome that in practice might well eventuate and arguably is pretty much inevitable in the event of Brexit. You may disagree with that argument but raging that it's a filthy lie just makes you look silly.
I'm not being narrow minded at all. Saying that we pay the same as someone else when we pay almost twice as much is simply a falsehood. Saying that Norway has no say, when they have both extensive consultation and a vote on the EEA joint committee, is simply a falsehood. Saying nations that freely trade with the EU have to pay in to the EU budget, when several don't, is simply a falsehood.
These things are untrue formally, practically, technically, or whatever words you want to use. People seeing them printed will assume they are true. It is thus dishonest to campaign on such a basis. I would have thought expecting campaigns to be truthful is something everyone except the politicians themselves could agree on. Apparently there will be someone that disagrees on everything!
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
To help DavidL with his confusion over the Norwegian veto, this is taken directly from the Norwegian Government:
"According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto."
You will note there is no mention at all about the need to leave the Single Market as David claims.
It's also an astonishing argument that campaigns don't have to be technically true because they paint in 'bright primary colours'. We'll be in an awful place as a country if we allow politicians to say things that aren't true because they figure the falsehood more representative of the situation than the actual truth.
What do you mean 'if we allow'? Given direct lies are probably rare, the slight falsehood/misleading interpretation presented as more representative than the truth seems not uncommon I suspect.
They're not misleading interpretations. These things are all demonstrably, factually untrue.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
But, like Kate Hoey, he's not much known to the wider public. The one plausible name who would change the dynamics is Boris. I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
I would be surprised if it was any worse than Quantum of Solace
Substantially worse than Quantum of Solace
The critics have it above Quantum but below Casino Royale and Skyfall. On rotten tomatoes it has 77% which is above Quantum's 65% although is below Casino Royale's 95% and Skyfall's 93%. I also cannot believe it can be worse than Die Another Day which was one of the worst films I have ever seen!
It's also an astonishing argument that campaigns don't have to be technically true because they paint in 'bright primary colours'. We'll be in an awful place as a country if we allow politicians to say things that aren't true because they figure the falsehood more representative of the situation than the actual truth.
What do you mean 'if we allow'? Given direct lies are probably rare, the slight falsehood/misleading interpretation presented as more representative than the truth seems not uncommon I suspect.
They're not misleading interpretations. These things are all demonstrably, factually untrue.
There's no need to worry then. If something is so obviously and demonstrably untrue, the public will surely see it, the leave side will ensure it, and the lie will be counterproductive. If we fall for a lie as clear as you claim, we deserve what we get.
Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
Certainly the South is more Eurosceptic than 1975 although London is I think as pro EU as it was pro EEC
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
Britain - like any country - has always been divided. What's changing is where the dividing lines are drawn.
Yes, London's resident population is different to the rest of England. But's it's working population (of which I am part of), is not that different.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
Simply not true again. Between 2000 and 2013 Norway adopted 4,724 pieces of EU legislation. In the same period the UK and other EU members had to adopt 52,183 pieces of EU legislation. So Norway had to adopt just over 9%.
That is according to the figures from the EU and EFTA.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
It is the same in much of the developed world, for example Obama and Kerry won New York and Chicago overwhelmingly but rural America and small town America voted strongly for Bush and Romney, no-one is yet arguing for an independent New York. Suburban London also tends to mirror the national trend more than the inner city, for example Boris won London because of the suburbs, inner London backed Ken. I would expect the likes of Bromley and Enfield to have a bigger Out vote than Islington and Kensington. In the same way in the US it is the suburbs which determine elections
Wales is also not that different from England, for example In has a bigger lead in Yorkshire than Wales and UKIP came a strong second in Wales in the 2014 Euro elections. It is only Scotland and London where In is over 60%
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
Britain - like any country - has always been divided. What's changing is where the dividing lines are drawn.
Yes, London's resident population is different to the rest of England. But's it's working population (of which I am part of), is not that different.
A dig at "foreign types". Basically, they are all spongers, according to you.
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Richard this is really nonsense. Norway does not have a veto, it has the right to withdraw from the single market which is what it would do if it did not implement the directives in full which is why it always has. Claiming it has a veto is like we have a veto because we have the right to withdraw from the EU if we don't like something.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
I think it's actually more likely that being on the periphery of Europe means they find it easier to trade with others. If you're surrounded with European countries, you're going to be more interested in staying part of the EU. I don't think you could say Slovakia and Hungary are important countries.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
It is the same in much of the developed world, for example Obama and Kerry won New York and Chicago overwhelmingly but rural America and small town America voted strongly for Bush and Romney, no-one is yet arguing for an independent New York. Suburban London also tends to mirror the national trend more than the inner city, for example Boris won London because of the suburbs, inner London backed Ken. I would expect the likes of Bromley and Enfield to have a bigger Out vote than Islington and Kensington. In the same way in the US it is the suburbs which determine elections
Wales is also not that different from England, for example In has a bigger lead in Yorkshire than Wales and UKIP came a strong second in Wales in the 2014 Euro elections. It is only Scotland and London where In is over 60%
The suburbs of London will vote IN in a big way. That's where the City types live.
... Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
Doc, are you sure you have got a good grip on what the EEA actually is? From this post and some comments you made earlier I am not sure you do.
Let us for the moment forget sets of initials and so forth and just look at the basics. The UK is a huge market for countries on the continent, they sell to us far more things they than they buy from us. Whether we vote to stay or leave that trade will continue because it is their interests for it to continue.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
Britain - like any country - has always been divided. What's changing is where the dividing lines are drawn.
Yes, London's resident population is different to the rest of England. But's it's working population (of which I am part of), is not that different.
A dig at "foreign types". Basically, they are all spongers, according to you.
Not at all. Stodge was implying that London (unlike Scotland) would be a viable independent state. I think that's true - but I think we have to remember that a lot of London's workers - who are what make London what it is - don't live in Greater London. I'd suggest drawing a line from the Severn Estuary to the Humber Estuary!
I would much rather have a campaign that isn't about who is lying where. I would much prefer one where the public gets the best honest case from each side, without having to filter through everything.
The Times' report which discloses Corbyn's revolting comments at the time (at an event organised by the Morning Star) about commemorating the outbreak of WW1 shows how blinkered and ignorant the man is. He thought it all a waste of money and holds the usual communist view of WW1.
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
Quite right too !
Well quite. You cannot have a common market without common rules. It is why the complaint about UK law not being supreme on matters within EU competence is equally ridiculous. EEA members who want access to the Single Market must comply with the relevant regulations, just as we must and even the French must (at least in theory).
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
Not so. Indeed Norway has currently refused to agree to new legislation on both postal services and railways - both from several years ago. And yet it is still, as of today, in the EEA. You are wrong. Again the Norwegian Government and EFTA say you are wrong. Live with it.
You also ignore, as an aside, the fact that no individual country can be suspended from the EEA agreement since it is an agreement between two supra-national organisations and only those organisations individually can suspend their own members under their own rules. This is why if Norway or Iceland did not agree to something under the EEA agreement it prevents it becoming law for all the EFTA EEA members. There is a requirement for unanimity before the EEA Joint Committee of EFTA agrees to new EEA legislation with the EU.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulsteal and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
It is the same in much of the developed world, for example Obama and Kerry won New York and Chicago overwhelmingly but rural America and small town America voted strongly for Bush and Romney, no-one is yet arguing for an independent New York. Suburban London also tends to mirror the national trend more than the inner city, for example Boris won London because of the suburbs, inner London backed Ken. I would expect the likes of Bromley and Enfield to have a bigger Out vote than Islington and Kensington. In the same way in the US it is the suburbs which determine elections
Wales is also not that different from England, for example In has a bigger lead in Yorkshire than Wales and UKIP came a strong second in Wales in the 2014 Euro elections. It is only Scotland and London where In is over 60%
The suburbs of London will vote IN in a big way. That's where the City types live.
UKIP won 14% in Bromley and Chiselhurst at the election and Bromley has many City types, however it won only 4% in Islington North where Corbyn is MP
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
Quite right too !
Well quite. You cannot have a common market without common rules. It is why the complaint about UK law not being supreme on matters within EU competence is equally ridiculous. EEA members who want access to the Single Market must comply with the relevant regulations, just as we must and even the French must (at least in theory).
There are lots of countries that trade with the EU that do not feel it necessary to have EU law supreme. The UK does a lot of business with the USA yet we do not have to comply at home with US law.
Products and services must comply with local regulations wherever they are delivered but that is not the same thing as the EU requires of its members.
Interesting article by the PM of Norway about how the EEA works for them: http://bit.ly/115DBjn
But what would she know?
She says: "Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Not so. If you read the actual EEA agreement you will see there is no requirement for any EFTA country to withdraw from the single market EEA agreement. There is a specific set of rules on how Single market rules are adopted and they require unanimity by the EFTA members. If a member does not agree then the whole single market agreement does not collapse nor does any country have to withdraw. What happens is that that specific piece of legislation is not adopted and does not apply to the EFTA members of the EAA. There is no need for withdrawal.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
That is the original document setting up the EEA. It does not address the (non existent) need to adopt all future legislation without a right to decline. I have quoted the Norwegian Government and EFTA position on this.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
It is not materially different from the original. The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
Quite right too !
Well quite. You cannot have a common market without common rules. It is why the complaint about UK law not being supreme on matters within EU competence is equally ridiculous. EEA members who want access to the Single Market must comply with the relevant regulations, just as we must and even the French must (at least in theory).
The EEA members comply with a fraction of the EU legislation that applies to full EU members. And yet they still have full access to the single market. It is not necessary to be a member of the EU to have access to the single market no matter how much you might wish to make it seem that way.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulsteal and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
It is the same in much of the developed world, for example Obama and Kerry won New York and Chicago overwhelmingly but rural America and small town America voted strongly for Bush and Romney, no-one is yet arguing for an independent New York. Suburban London also tends to mirror the national trend more than the inner city, for example Boris won London because of the suburbs, inner London backed Ken. I would expect the likes of Bromley and Enfield to have a bigger Out vote than Islington and Kensington. In the same way in the US it is the suburbs which determine elections
Wales is also not that different from England, for example In has a bigger lead in Yorkshire than Wales and UKIP came a strong second in Wales in the 2014 Euro elections. It is only Scotland and London where In is over 60%
The suburbs of London will vote IN in a big way. That's where the City types live.
UKIP won 14% in Bromley and Chiselhurst at the election and Bromley has many City types, however it won only 4% in Islington North where Corbyn is MP
14% is not voting OUT. They are still 36% short. Most Tories living in Bromley will be voting IN. Ask Cameron how he will vote.
Once Cameron makes it clear that he is voting to stay IN, his backers will fall in line. THe more I think the result will be 60 - 40. UKIP can whistle in the wind.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We could not become influential again because we do not share their vision. As long as we remain on the outside of the Eurozone we will never be considered as leaders of the EU. Our vision for the EU and that of most of our partners are fundamentally different and will always remain so.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
The thing I worry about is that even with Tony Blair placing us at the 'heart of Europe', talking about joining the Euro etc, we still didn't have much influence. The CAP review he was promised for giving up much of our rebate never happened. Part of the problem is that France and Germany have joint summits before every EU summit where they agree a joint position. A good part of the renegotiation would be a commitment for that summit to include us.
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That is a different argument entirely and not the one I was addressing.
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulster would be. Once again we see the polarisation and divergence in the United Kingdom between Scotland, London, Wales and presumably some other cities on one side and the rest of suburban and rural England on the other.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
Britain - like any country - has always been divided. What's changing is where the dividing lines are drawn.
Yes, London's resident population is different to the rest of England. But's it's working population (of which I am part of), is not that different.
A dig at "foreign types". Basically, they are all spongers, according to you.
Not at all. Stodge was implying that London (unlike Scotland) would be a viable independent state. I think that's true - but I think we have to remember that a lot of London's workers - who are what make London what it is - don't live in Greater London. I'd suggest drawing a line from the Severn Estuary to the Humber Estuary!
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
And as many have pointed out before your view of the EEA is utterly wrong. It has just as much if not more influence over the drafting of legislation than the UK does from within the EU and if it really doesn't like the end result it has a veto - something not available to the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
OK,that is arguable, but are the Outers really saying that they want the same relationship with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
... Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
Doc, are you sure you have got a good grip on what the EEA actually is? From this post and some comments you made earlier I am not sure you do.
Let us for the moment forget sets of initials and so forth and just look at the basics. The UK is a huge market for countries on the continent, they sell to us far more things they than they buy from us. Whether we vote to stay or leave that trade will continue because it is their interests for it to continue.
This is silly. Of course a country of 64 million exports less to a country 400 million than 400 millions export to 64 millions. Their export capacity is greater than ours. But any tariff wall would block 400+ millions of consumers from us but only 64 millions from them. Unless we move to join the EEA. And then of course there would be little difference to now.
The key to the OUT campaign is the personalities involved, Dan Hannan is the trump card, I've never met a conservative that isn't in thrall to him, Cameron will do everything to keep him quiet.
I didn't include him in the article since I think he'll decide to go with In for pragmatic reasons, but if he rolled the dice with Out, it would certainly become interesting.
I agree. Boris is the only one who could put Nigel in the shade. I am not at all convinced by either his politics or his suitability for high office but he certainly would catch the eye of the media.
the UK.
The EEA encompasses the 4 freedoms including freedom of movement. That is something that I want to keep but most kippers want to stop.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
That .
with the EU as Norway and Switzerland? Including the 4 freedoms etc?
It is not arguable. It is a fact written into the treaties.
EEA lies on the periphery of Europe for a good reason. They are unimportant.
Suit the UK fine then.
By 2050 the UK will be the largest economy in Europe with the largest population
Yes and poorset and most divided as well I bet. The UK is crap and getting worse every day ( apart from the Tories crooked chums etc ) , yet to see a European country that is worse.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
ockquote class="Quote" rel="HYUFD">Excellent article Nick and a very good analysis. I agree with your overall assessment and think In will probably win but it will be tight, maybe something like 52% In 48% Out. Farage will, as you say, look to 'own' the No vote as Salmond and the SNP owned the 'Yes' vote in Scotland.
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50% http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum
What's interesting is that the pattern is almost the opposite to that in 1975. The areas that voted to stay in by the largest amount back in 1975 are the places most likely to vote to leave this time and vice versa.
As I recall it was only Orkney and Shetland that voted NO in 1975 ? I wonder what the figures for Ulsteal and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
It is the same in much of the developed world, for example Obama and Kerry won New York and Chicago overwh
The suburbs of London will vote IN in a big way. That's where the City types live.
UKIP won 14% in Bromley and Chiselhurst at the election and Bromley has many City types, however it won only 4% in Islington North where Corbyn is MP
14% is not voting OUT. They are still 36% short. Most Tories living in Bromley will be voting IN. Ask Cameron how he will vote.
Once Cameron makes it clear that he is voting to stay IN, his backers will fall in line. THe more I think the result will be 60 - 40. UKIP can whistle in the wind.
UKIP won 12% nationally remember, BMG had Out on 48% yesterday UK wide so on that basis Bromley could well vote Out. BMG had Tories voting to leave 55% to 45%. Everyone already knows Cameron will lead In it is how the level of renegotiation he has managed to achieve which will determine the victory margin. I cannot see Out falling below 45% and they will probably be around 47-49%
Is the big difference with EEA membership not that there is freedom of movement of *labour* as distinct from freedom of movement of *people*?
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
There are provisions under Article 29 of the agreement entitling workers from EEA countries to benefits. I don't know the details but it doesn't immediately look that different.
Interesting article by the PM of Norway about how the EEA works for them: http://bit.ly/115DBjn
But what would she know?
She says: "Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Fanatical Europhile PM you mean. That is like asking Ken Clarke - former chancellor, must be very important and all that - his opinion.
And as a Europhile she is being - not surprisingly - dishonest. Norway has not adopted 3/4 of all the EU legislative acts. They have adopted 3/4 of the EEA agreed legislation - which is only a small amount of the overall burden of EU legislation that the UK is subject to.
Indeed as of 2013 they were being threatened with action by the EU for failing to adopt more than 400 of the directives they had already agreed to under the EEA agreement. They don't even abide by the rules they agree to.
To me the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence. Being out of both would be the way to control population movements (though I am pretty happy with EU migration), but would make us the only country in Europe outside the EU and EEA apart from applicant countries, Belarus and Russia.
But how much influence do we have at the moment?
That's an interesting point which deserves more discussion than it gets. Potentially we are very influential - one of the largest countries in the EU with some very marked commercial and trading strengths and important connections all over the world. Much of the time of our membership has been spent with Britain, France and Germany jockeying for influence and shifting alliances for specific objectives.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
We have decided that we aren't, though, haven't we? I can't see the British people willingly joining the euro, let alone the federal superstate that lies at the end of the road of ever closer union.
Comments
Dont make the Corbynista mistake. Hannan might tickle the Con membership and activist base, when it comes to those eleven million people who voted though, that might not be the case. The overwhelming vast majority would never have heard of him, and many of those that had would be hard pushed to remember him in any way.
Very few politicians break through to ordinary voters, good or bad, even when they cause fandom frenzy to the membership.
I had a thought that Lewis might (unusually) play the team game, allowing Nico run away in the lead while holding up Seb and the pack. The Merc-powered cars could be able to pass the Red Bulls.
Not sure about your Hamilton view, though. He wants to rack up the wins and keep Rosberg under the cosh[sp].
Mr. Quidder, an immense amount. We got a title altered and a new font for the Constitution, you know.
I view the EU as a pooling of sovereignty rather than a loss of sovereignty. We may not always like our neighbours but we have to get on with them and there are common needs.
I wouldnt consider leaving the EU for the EEA a disaster. It will make it easier to rejoin when we want to do so.
If they didn't have them before, having them now makes no sense. Plus, Hamilton would (I think) ignore them.
Right now, Rosberg needs Mercedes a lot more than the other way around. Grosjean, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Verstappen, Sainz would, I imagine, all leap at the seat, even as Hamilton's team mate.
Trevor Silvester, a former police officer and a martial arts enthusiast, has no Government-recognised qualifications,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298621/Scandal-hit-Kids-Company-spent-tens-thousands-pounds-sending-staff-clients-240-hour-Harley-Street-hypnotherapist.html
Also who will fire up the in Labour voters to even bother.
If someone repeatedly make statement that they must know, through virtue of their position and the availability of information to them, to be false. Or if someone repeatedly makes a statement that has been shown previously to be false but they make anyway because it gives them an advantage in an argument. Would you not say in those circumstances that they are lying?
If not then under what circumstances could someone be accused of lying? Surely the stating of a known untruth is pretty much the definition of lying. This is not opinion. This is the conscious statement of a falsehood and does indeed reflect poorly on their integrity.
It seems to me that in some of these cases those objecting to the use of the word lie only do so because they have no other way to counter a factual statement that someone has knowingly made a false statement.
And the consistent evidence of EEA politicians is that the consultation with them is pretty meaningless. It is possible to argue that this is because they are minnows and it would be different for a country with the size of market that the UK has. I think there is some truth in that. But the current EEA countries have even less influence than small countries in the EU have and they have very, very little
You stated that "the EEA looks a lot like the EU without the influence".
I was pointing out that this view is incorrect as has been made clear on here many times before. It could be reasonably argued that with the veto the EEA countries have more influence over EU law making than the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34690947
Classic Tony denial. The Mail doesn't claim that Tony ordered anybody to do anything. It reports that somebody part of the Blair machine made the order.
""This is nonsense as far as Tony Blair knows," his spokesman said of the Mail's allegations."
Good morning, Mr. Stodge.
Mr. G, and that's why I said I can see why some Scots want independence, but cannot fathom that belief held alongside those Scots desperate to remain in the EU. [I can also see why Scots, who feel British, want to leave the EU but remain within the union].
However they frightened scots to think they are unable to go independent.
To scare the English to remain will be a lot easier.
Here's an effective anti-EU poster:
http://akira.ruc.dk/~bruno/04_billeder/3Aber/08_06_sIreland EU referendum.jpg
Full of filthy lies, I'm sure you'll agree.
"The EU? How many Divisions do they have?"
Interestingly the BMG poll on Friday had it 52%-48% In across the UK but England split 50%-50%. Scotland was strongly In by 69% to 31% and Wales was also a clear In by 54% to 46%. London was almost as overwhelmingly In as Scotland with In leading 64% to 36% in the Capital but every other English region bar Yorkshire and Humber was for Out with the North East split 50%-50%
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BMG-Research-Westminster-Voting-Intentions-and-the-EU-Referendum-Tables-291015.pdf (p 30)
On topic, the route to a LEAVE victory (assuming David Cameron supports REMAIN) comes from any senior Conservative effectively challenging him. That person would have to resign from the Cabinet and take de facto leadership of LEAVE and basically ask the Conservative Party where it wants to be. The risk of such a Heseltine-style action is huge - fail and it's eternity in the wilderness but succeed and the keys to No.10 would be there for the taking.
It was interesting to see the strength for Theresa May to lead the LEAVE campaign though I can't see it happening. A dramatic resignation on a key point of principle followed by an assertive campaign outlining the virtues of controlling our own borders outside the EU....
But you are right, it just keeps coming, no wonder they couldn't pay their staff and actually run the core of the service without massive amount of cash from the government.
Ultimately it is about the direction of travel. We'd rather it reversed a bit, or at least stayed still, but most of them do not. Even some kind of formal associate membership will not make that harmonious.
The difference is that whilst the EU has asked for an increase in EEA contributions the EEA have been able to say... no. The EEA contribution is not something that can be imposed by the EU. It is something that is negotiated.
More scare mongering from you as usual.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110
http://www.cityam.com/221125/population-growth-uk-become-biggest-country-european-union-2050
I figure the fear of the Unknown may be enough to win it for remain in the end, I certainly used to make arguments like the Pieter above, but should be close now.
The Outers ambiguity and confusion over this is why the first poster works.
Of corse posters (even internet ones) are always going to be gross oversimplifications.
Not sure where you get your wild ideas from but they are not informed by fact.
I worry how different and divergent England is becoming with such a difference in mindset between the cities (especially but not exclusively London) and the suburban/rural areas, I'm sure many people on here will be quick to come up with explanations and who to blame but it is for me a worrying development.
Last year, I argued that if the economic case for Scottish independence was flimsy, the economic case for an independent London was not. The social, cultural and political divergence may make that argument louder in the years to come.
The overriding point though is that it can only be a decision made by the people of the UK if they have chosen to leave the EU. As long as they remain inside the EU it cannot be addressed by either side.
These things are untrue formally, practically, technically, or whatever words you want to use. People seeing them printed will assume they are true. It is thus dishonest to campaign on such a basis. I would have thought expecting campaigns to be truthful is something everyone except the politicians themselves could agree on. Apparently there will be someone that disagrees on everything!
The one that binds all parties to apply all regulations to all of the 4 freedoms without any qualification? That agreement?
"According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto."
You will note there is no mention at all about the need to leave the Single Market as David claims.
Pretty much everything applies apart from fisheries and agriculture, including the 4 freedoms and large elements of social policy. I would welcome control over fisheries and agriculture being under our govt.
Us joining the EEA would treble the GDP of the EEA and more than treble the population as well as reducing both of these in the EU. Even if the rules governing the relationship were unchanged the practice of these would change. Assuming of course we were permitted to stay in the EEA following Brexit.
As I said, you are wrong. The Norwegian Government says you are wrong. Argue it with them.
Yes, London's resident population is different to the rest of England. But's it's working population (of which I am part of), is not that different.
That is according to the figures from the EU and EFTA.
Wales is also not that different from England, for example In has a bigger lead in Yorkshire than Wales and UKIP came a strong second in Wales in the 2014 Euro elections. It is only Scotland and London where In is over 60%
It is not materially different from the original.
The failure to implement is dealt with by article100 and following. Basically if a member of the EEA, such as Norway, does not implement the legislation it faces suspension from membership under the agreement.
Let us for the moment forget sets of initials and so forth and just look at the basics. The UK is a huge market for countries on the continent, they sell to us far more things they than they buy from us. Whether we vote to stay or leave that trade will continue because it is their interests for it to continue.
I would much rather have a campaign that isn't about who is lying where. I would much prefer one where the public gets the best honest case from each side, without having to filter through everything.
He thought it all a waste of money and holds the usual communist view of WW1.
You also ignore, as an aside, the fact that no individual country can be suspended from the EEA agreement since it is an agreement between two supra-national organisations and only those organisations individually can suspend their own members under their own rules. This is why if Norway or Iceland did not agree to something under the EEA agreement it prevents it becoming law for all the EFTA EEA members. There is a requirement for unanimity before the EEA Joint Committee of EFTA agrees to new EEA legislation with the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromley_and_Chislehurst_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Products and services must comply with local regulations wherever they are delivered but that is not the same thing as the EU requires of its members.
But what would she know?
She says:
"Our Parliament must consent to ratify all new EU agreements or legislative acts that entail significant new obligations for Norway. From 1992 to 2011, our Parliament voted on a total of 287 such EU matters, 265 of which were unanimously agreed to, and most of the remaining 22 were agreed to by a broad majority. We have implemented three-quarters of all of the EU’s legislative acts. The use of our right to enter a reservation has only been submitted once, with regards the third postal directive. So I guess it’s fair to say that we have been more compliant than many EU member countries."
Once Cameron makes it clear that he is voting to stay IN, his backers will fall in line. THe more I think the result will be 60 - 40. UKIP can whistle in the wind.
It's no longer the case - the EU leaders listen to us with lingering affection (nobody really hates the British) mixed with exasperation (cf. for instance the leaked recordings of the then Foreign Minister of one of our strongest allies: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/polish-mps-ridicule-cameron-stupid-propaganda-eurosceptics ). They see our involvement as predominantly a by-product of internal Conservative Party disputes. That's why they no longer care that much if we insist on leaving.
It would be possible to become very influential again. But we need to make up our minds whether we are in for the duration or not.
In other words as EEA members people would have the right to come to the UK for work, but not to claim benefits, tax credits, NHS treatment or other welfare, or to bring their extended families with them. Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
Blair was very pro-EU. He gave away half the rebate and got not a damned thing in return.
Brown reneged on the promised referendum and signed up to Lisbon anyway, giving away countless vetoes in return for nothing.
Cameron's not my cup of tea when it comes to the EU, but he's not nearly as bad as your two PMs.
But any tariff wall would block 400+ millions of consumers from us but only 64 millions from them.
Unless we move to join the EEA. And then of course there would be little difference to now.
Are the handful of rich bankers and crooks going to buy thousands of burgers a week to keep the minimum wage millions employed
And as a Europhile she is being - not surprisingly - dishonest. Norway has not adopted 3/4 of all the EU legislative acts. They have adopted 3/4 of the EEA agreed legislation - which is only a small amount of the overall burden of EU legislation that the UK is subject to.
Indeed as of 2013 they were being threatened with action by the EU for failing to adopt more than 400 of the directives they had already agreed to under the EEA agreement. They don't even abide by the rules they agree to.
Basically David you are talking rubbish.