It's hard to get away from the last line of the thread header, I despair that people are waiting to be told how to vote, and not because it's Cameron. The idea of a democracy is to decide how you would like to be governed and vote accordingly for the group of people that most closely represents your views. Now it's the reverse.
For too long we've had X Factor politics, people cheering on the person they like the most, irrespective of what they stand for. Everything the Tories goaded the Blairites about is repeating itself, I find it genuinely puzzling that hitherto rational people can behave in such a fawning manner.
It's entirely rational to take the lead from someone whose judgement you trust on a subject and who you consider better informed than you. Many people feel that way about David Cameron. I can understand that. He has a professional and steady air, and comes across as intelligent, decent, pragmatic and open-minded to many. Why wouldn't Joe Public who feels that way, isn't that interested in or informed about the EU but wants to do his civic duty take the advice of a leader he trusts?
That's an interesting discussion. Blackburn is clealry right that it'd be better if people took the trouble to study the issue and came up with their own view, but for those who can't or won't, following advice from somone they respect isn't a bad substitute.
But there is a danger here. Cameron's polling isn't wonderful (yes, it's better than Corbyn's, but that's not the issue here), and I've seen it said (not sure how strong the evidence is) that referendums tend to morph into votes on the government of the day. If people with no strong preference about Europe either way decide that this is a chance to say if they really like David Cameron or they want to give him a kick, then Remain is in serious trouble.
Against that, the office of PM carries a certain weight, and so do the party leaderships generally. The fact that Remain will be backed by EVERY party leader except Farage is probably going to swing it. The current negotiations are following a standard pattern - there will be hurdles and crises and rows and then there will be a deal. All the party leaders except Farage will say well, it's just about OK. I think it'll be enough. And posibly it'll give Cameron a bit of an Indian summer in his ratings, and he'll decide to leave soon afterwards.
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Only near, and actual five figure pb.com posting obsessives will read such self interested guff though, Mr @Antifrank
An informed audience is the only worthwhile audience!
I like your point that the Blairites were not without social-democratic principles. Indeed, if I were poor or disadvantaged then it's the Blair/Brown years of quiet but substantial redistribution that I would want back.
Not sure about the "until Labour proposes Corbyn as PM" thing. They are proposing him as that right now, no. If, for some weird reason, the Conservatives split in half some time later this morning then Corbyn would be the leader of the largest party in the Commons and, following a vote of no confidence, could find himself trying to form a government before Christmas. Of course that's not going to happen but still, as Leader of the Opposition, he is at all times his party's proposed alternative Prime Minister.
These polls significantly strengthen Cameron's hand. If he supports Brexit, we are gone.
Shame his ambitions are such thin gruel. He could have rolled his sleeves up and said "Right. Let's face up to some hard truths. The EU is badly broken. Let's start with books that haven't been signed off for twenty years.... And the cost of these crazy rotating venues. And the mess of our borders. I'm ready to talk about an EU fit for the twenty first century. That's what Britain is interested in. But if you want to keep something frozen in the 1950's, then my people are ready to walk away from this mess. Now, if you are serious about ever greater integration, that needs a common language. So, in thirty years time, there will only be one official language across the EU. English....Next...."
Now THAT would be a renegotiation.
Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.
He can then expedite the referendum and spend the last couple of years doing some pet legacy projects.
Someone has sent me a Facebook posting with a map of N America dividied into the Native Nations, with a slogan about "Illegal Immigration". It set me wondering. Some tens of millions left Europe for N. America 1600-1950 or so. What if they all stayed in Europe? How would the continent have coped?
I can't decide if this is a pragmatic or really crap idea since they're most likely to move elsewhere in the EU.
Police are allowing known extremists to leave the UK and their watch because they pose more of a risk by staying here, it can be disclosed. Officers and MI5 call it the “home and away debate” and have to continually decide whether it is safer to let someone go.
A senior counter-terrorism officer said no one have ever been knowingly allowed to leave for Syria or other warzones but signalled some have gone to other countries. The dilemma emerged after an Islamist became the first to be convicted of plotting an attack in the UK after being prevented from travelling to Syria.
King Cole, people remaining where they are represents the status quo. As a rule, coping with the status quo is easier than coping with change. You're also comparing the absence of emigration with the presence of immigration, and those are two entirely different monkeys.
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
Part of the reason I'm pessimistic about the outcome is that one meets so many people who are edging towards leave (even I am, slightly) and no-one going the other way. I don't mean just on here but in real life. Just anecdotal, of course.
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Ignoring your irrelevant snipe, the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. That applies especially if they have doubts about the opposition - ah good, they think, I don't actually have to vote the government out yet, but at least I can send a shot across their bows. If they feel strongly about EU membership, that won't apply, but the referendum won't be won with people who feel strongly (they already know how they'll vote).
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
I'd really like to believe that, but....
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
King Cole, people remaining where they are represents the status quo. As a rule, coping with the status quo is easier than coping with change. You're also comparing the absence of emigration with the presence of immigration, and those are two entirely different monkeys.
Au contraire. If no-one had gone to N America from Europe, then what? In Europe.
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. n.
Not much of a mid term slump yet for this government - due to the awfulness of the opposition leader.
It contains the line "There are two types of people in the world, those who think AV is superior to first past the post, and those who are wrong"
.. but who have used their AV in support.
Anyway there is no 100% guaranteed 'best' voting system. FPTP works best in a duopoly (Republicans/ Democrats) or (until recently) (Conservative/ Labour).
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Ignoring your irrelevant snipe, the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. That applies especially if they have doubts about the opposition - ah good, they think, I don't actually have to vote the government out yet, but at least I can send a shot across their bows. If they feel strongly about EU membership, that won't apply, but the referendum won't be won with people who feel strongly (they already know how they'll vote).
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
Indeed. Relatedly, Cameron knows he's doing in seeking to have the vote early. By 2017 the factor you describe will be at its height and potentially decisive.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
I'd really like to believe that, but....
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Ignoring your irrelevant snipe, the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. That applies especially if they have doubts about the opposition - ah good, they think, I don't actually have to vote the government out yet, but at least I can send a shot across their bows. If they feel strongly about EU membership, that won't apply, but the referendum won't be won with people who feel strongly (they already know how they'll vote).
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
Couldn't resist the snipe.
But if you look at the potential hotspots - and of course there might be any number of different ones by then - who is uniting around what great iniquity? Junior doctors - off the radar and the perception that Hunt backed down; tax credits - sorted; bedroom tax - old news; education - nope.
So whilst agreeing with your proposition that the answer to what are you rebelling against is "what have you got?" - there doesn't seem to be fire in peoples' belly right now. In fact with our renewed "war on terror" the govt is in quite a well-supported place.
Plus, and oh how I wish they would protest about this, household balance sheets are expanding at the moment which apart from being dangerous, nevertheless gives everyone an ok sense of well-being.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
I'd really like to believe that, but....
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
Remember those same leavers said Cameron would never hold a referendum.
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Ignoring your irrelevant snipe, the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. That applies especially if they have doubts about the opposition - ah good, they think, I don't actually have to vote the government out yet, but at least I can send a shot across their bows. If they feel strongly about EU membership, that won't apply, but the referendum won't be won with people who feel strongly (they already know how they'll vote).
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
Half a dozen threads ago we were reading a lot of (understandable) whinging about the difficulties smaller businesses were facing underthis Government and how much worse it was going to get. By the time the next round of elections is on us we'll have had at least 2% rises in Council Tax across the board and despite the fact that people will be told that it's for social care, they won't like it. Petrol may be falling in price, but I don't really think that'll make much difference to people. I suspect there's a suspicion that it's all to do with the shenanigans in Iraq and Syria and as soon as that's over it'll be back up again.
@David_Ross86: That SNP tactic of telling Scots to get back in their box & stop complaining about the #FRB didn't work out so well. https://t.co/1qrszyAIFn
I can't decide if this is a pragmatic or really crap idea since they're most likely to move elsewhere in the EU.
Police are allowing known extremists to leave the UK and their watch because they pose more of a risk by staying here, it can be disclosed. Officers and MI5 call it the “home and away debate” and have to continually decide whether it is safer to let someone go.
A senior counter-terrorism officer said no one have ever been knowingly allowed to leave for Syria or other warzones but signalled some have gone to other countries. The dilemma emerged after an Islamist became the first to be convicted of plotting an attack in the UK after being prevented from travelling to Syria.
Also presumably other countries could be doing the same and their terrorists / extremists end up here. Best to let them leave Europe altogether for a place where they can be crushed into bits of sand......
Aside from general nastiness, which of course your Labour Party is teaching us whole new dimensions of, what in particular is exercising voters so as to want to give Cameron a kick?
Ignoring your irrelevant snipe, the fact that it'll be mid-term and people ALWAYS want to give mid-term govenments a kick. That applies especially if they have doubts about the opposition - ah good, they think, I don't actually have to vote the government out yet, but at least I can send a shot across their bows. If they feel strongly about EU membership, that won't apply, but the referendum won't be won with people who feel strongly (they already know how they'll vote).
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
Yes but apart from the Kippers it will be the Tories going for out.
The mid term kicking may be one where the voters kick the BOOers!
Sensible people are thinking about Christmas and Football, not about Europe at the moment. If you believe Twitter and BTL comments then Scotland would be independent and Milliband PM. The Great British Public think differently though.
King Cole, people remaining where they are represents the status quo. As a rule, coping with the status quo is easier than coping with change. You're also comparing the absence of emigration with the presence of immigration, and those are two entirely different monkeys.
If we vote Remain, the one thing we won't be getting is the status quo. We'll be getting whole new levels of Europe, into something akin to the one country Mr Palmer is keen on.
That seems to me the best argument Leave has - not the rubbish about migrant benefits.
Do you want independence - with all the costs and uncertainties that involves - or do you want union into one state, where pretty much everything is decided at the EU level?
(Incidentally, for @NickPalmer, I responded to your question to me yesterday on the last thread but one. I hope you saw it.)
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
I'd really like to believe that, but....
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
If it looks like Remain is doomed than I don't think Cameron will want to fight to the last for it. That's not his style. However, it would take a manoeuvre of great skill to change sides and retain his own credibility. Saying "I tried to negotiate and failed" is a hard message to sell (obviously he wouldn't put it like that but his opponents and a large part of the media would).
Also, if Leave is ahead in the polls and Cameron switches sides (the only circumstances in which he would switch) then that is going to effectively make Leave a certain winner, so if there were any economic jitters around leave they would immediately be triggered.
I would love to know what Cameron's and Osborne's thinking is on these matters. Clearly their goal is for Remain to win convincingly, PM vindicated, retires, Georgius Imperator. But if Remain starts to tank, then what? They must have thought about it and would want to manage that outcome as best they could and try to retain some level of control.
It would be fascinating. I almost hope it happens.
Miss Cyclefree, I agree, both on the United States of Europe nonsense and on its importance for the Leave campaign. We'll see how much they make of it.
I think there is an interesting question as to how Cameron will behave if Leave really gets traction and (say) opens up a ten-point lead in the polls.
I remain convinced that Cameron, as a 'court' Tory still wants to be in the EU for all the rather vacuous and narcissistic reasons previously outlined; 'sitting at the top table','hob-nobbing with the big cheeses', even (God help us) 'leading Europe'.
But he's also a politician to his fingertips, with the appropriate survival instinct. So I can see a few possible options:
1. Delay the referendum 2. Try to get more substantive concessions from the EU 3. Try even harder to dress up an essentially status quo (i.e. more integration) deal as something else inc. by renaming Britain's membership and choreographing a sacred-looking (but meaningless) oath from other EU leaders to be nice to the UK 4. Adopt a neutral stance in the referendum 5. Lead 'Leave'
I leave it up to readers how likely these various options are
Petrol may be falling in price, but I don't really think that'll make much difference to people. I suspect there's a suspicion that it's all to do with the shenanigans in Iraq and Syria and as soon as that's over it'll be back up again.
I think the fall in the price of oil was quite a big bonus for the Tories. It was like a big tax giveaway just before the election.
I think if the PM sticks with a losing Remain campaign - it damages his credibility more TBH. Whatever happens, we'll get fall-out and jitters all reported with breathless hyperbole.
I could quite easily cobble together a convincing set of positioning statements for him to swap sides along the Will of the British People blah blah, more in sorrow, we wanted to make it work but clearly our national interests wouldn't be served by XYZ.
If Number Ten hasn't wargamed Plan B, I'd be astonished. And bang their heads together like conkers.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
'Cameron is being smart by not asking for too much - when he fails - and he will because the EU is spectacularly crap, nobody is going to complain that he was too ambitious and asked for too much. He can say well we tried for a modest re modernising change and the EU said no - so on balance we tried, we failed, lets leave.'
I'd really like to believe that, but....
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
If it looks like Remain is doomed than I don't think Cameron will want to fight to the last for it. That's not his style. However, it would take a manoeuvre of great skill to change sides and retain his own credibility. Saying "I tried to negotiate and failed" is a hard message to sell (obviously he wouldn't put it like that but his opponents and a large part of the media would).
Also, if Leave is ahead in the polls and Cameron switches sides (the only circumstances in which he would switch) then that is going to effectively make Leave a certain winner, so if there were any economic jitters around leave they would immediately be triggered.
I would love to know what Cameron's and Osborne's thinking is on these matters. Clearly their goal is for Remain to win convincingly, PM vindicated, retires, Georgius Imperator. But if Remain starts to tank, then what? They must have thought about it and would want to manage that outcome as best they could and try to retain some level of control.
It would be fascinating. I almost hope it happens.
Mr. Runnymede, delay may be even less likely than Cameron leading the Leave campaign.
He already has a sell-by date, and that would cause ructions within the PCP. Plus, he'd risk a successor taking office before the referendum, which would only heighten the EU dimension of a leadership campaign.
Runnymede - I expect the Remain campaign to run another Project Fear.
Plato - The timing of these things is beginning to look constrained. Support for a Govt typically declines as time goes on therefore 2017 looks to be a worse time for the Govt than summer 2016. Osborne for various reasons wants it over in 2016. Asking for such a shallow range of changes also indicates that Cameron/Osborne wanted it wrapped up quickly, so they watered down the original requests. Germany apparently wanted it done before 2017. It would therefore be best for LEAVE to have the vote in 2017!
I think there is an interesting question as to how Cameron will behave if Leave really gets traction and (say) opens up a ten-point lead in the polls.
I remain convinced that Cameron, as a 'court' Tory still wants to be in the EU for all the rather vacuous and narcissistic reasons previously outlined; 'sitting at the top table','hob-nobbing with the big cheeses', even (God help us) 'leading Europe'.
But he's also a politician to his fingertips, with the appropriate survival instinct. So I can see a few possible options:
1. Delay the referendum 2. Try to get more substantive concessions from the EU 3. Try even harder to dress up an essentially status quo (i.e. more integration) deal as something else inc. by renaming Britain's membership and choreographing a sacred-looking (but meaningless) oath from other EU leaders to be nice to the UK 4. Adopt a neutral stance in the referendum 5. Lead 'Leave'
I leave it up to readers how likely these various options are
There is of course one other possibility which the FO and its chums in the EU would be pressing for - cancelling the referendum
Good morning all. In an EU riven by internal divisions, facing numerous external threats, tradition demands that the EU leadership declare war on someone, so as to take the population's mind off the problems. Who can we invade?
We will be like the Irish.. if we vote to leave, we will keep on voting till we vote to remain.
No we won't.
If we vote to leave, then leave we shall.
And depending on how much we leave the Irish would have some very big decisions to make. I had an interesting chat with some Irish friends about this recently. Their view was that it was inevitable that if the UK left Ireland would end up leaving too. Our market is just too important to their economy, more important than the rest of the EU put together. They could not afford any kind of trade barriers or other impediments to trade with us or even the risk of such barriers.
This last sentence highlights the idiocy of the whole EU proposition, and in many ways its biggest downside. If the UK is Ireland's biggest trading partner then an Ireland in the EU should be able to sign a Free Trade Agreement with a UK outside the EU, but the EU wont allow member states to sign their own FTAs they have to be done by Brussels. Hence the EU doesn't have an FTA with China, but Thailand, Peru and New Zealand (and others) do.
Once goods are inside the EU, they are subject to no further tariffs.
For that reason, if we signed - for example - a Free Trade Agreement with China, so that Chinese goods could be imported to the UK without tariffs, then that would mean that Chinese goods could be imported to any EU country without tariff, simply by the expedient of landing them at Felxistowe.
I have never managed to work out how this works with the EEA countries. The EEA countries already have FTA with a number of countries that do not have FTA with the EU. This means in principle that a country like Canada which has had a FTA with the EEA since 2009 should be able to export into the EU free of tariffs by the simple expedient of exporting into a non EU EEA country first. I have spent no small amount of time over the years trying to find the way in which this loophole is closed but without success.
I think if the PM sticks with a losing Remain campaign - it damages his credibility more TBH. Whatever happens, we'll get fall-out and jitters all reported with breathless hyperbole.
I could quite easily cobble together a convincing set of positioning statements for him to swap sides along the Will of the British People blah blah, more in sorrow, we wanted to make it work but clearly our national interests wouldn't be served by XYZ.
If Number Ten hasn't wargamed Plan B, I'd be astonished. And bang their heads together like conkers.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
If it looks like Remain is doomed than I don't think Cameron will want to fight to the last for it. That's not his style. However, it would take a manoeuvre of great skill to change sides and retain his own credibility. Saying "I tried to negotiate and failed" is a hard message to sell (obviously he wouldn't put it like that but his opponents and a large part of the media would).
Also, if Leave is ahead in the polls and Cameron switches sides (the only circumstances in which he would switch) then that is going to effectively make Leave a certain winner, so if there were any economic jitters around leave they would immediately be triggered.
I would love to know what Cameron's and Osborne's thinking is on these matters. Clearly their goal is for Remain to win convincingly, PM vindicated, retires, Georgius Imperator. But if Remain starts to tank, then what? They must have thought about it and would want to manage that outcome as best they could and try to retain some level of control.
It would be fascinating. I almost hope it happens.
I think switching would be tricky because:
1. When he called the referendum he seemed to think a satisfactory renegotiation was possible. Now, suddenly, it's not. What happened? Was his judgement flawed all along or has he mishandled the negotiations?
2. It appears he's only changing sides because he's losing.
I think these themes would be pounded out by the media. In particular, existing Leave leaders would not willingly let him steal their clothes and would impugn his motives.
I think it probably is possible though. Just difficult.
Someone has sent me a Facebook posting with a map of N America dividied into the Native Nations, with a slogan about "Illegal Immigration". It set me wondering. Some tens of millions left Europe for N. America 1600-1950 or so. What if they all stayed in Europe? How would the continent have coped?
I have seen that map before (if it is the one I think you are referring to) Unfortunately whilst the sentiment is correct, the map itself is pretty much a fiction as far as the Indian nations are concerned.
I think there is an interesting question as to how Cameron will behave if Leave really gets traction and (say) opens up a ten-point lead in the polls.
I remain convinced that Cameron, as a 'court' Tory still wants to be in the EU for all the rather vacuous and narcissistic reasons previously outlined; 'sitting at the top table','hob-nobbing with the big cheeses', even (God help us) 'leading Europe'.
But he's also a politician to his fingertips, with the appropriate survival instinct. So I can see a few possible options:
1. Delay the referendum 2. Try to get more substantive concessions from the EU 3. Try even harder to dress up an essentially status quo (i.e. more integration) deal as something else inc. by renaming Britain's membership and choreographing a sacred-looking (but meaningless) oath from other EU leaders to be nice to the UK 4. Adopt a neutral stance in the referendum 5. Lead 'Leave'
I leave it up to readers how likely these various options are
A bit of 2 followed by 4 I would guess.
I think 4 is impossible. He can't not have a view. That position wouldn't last five minutes. I think his switching to Leave would be hard but much easier for him than trying to be neutral.
I think if the PM sticks with a losing Remain campaign - it damages his credibility more TBH. Whatever happens, we'll get fall-out and jitters all reported with breathless hyperbole.
I could quite easily cobble together a convincing set of positioning statements for him to swap sides along the Will of the British People blah blah, more in sorrow, we wanted to make it work but clearly our national interests wouldn't be served by XYZ.
If Number Ten hasn't wargamed Plan B, I'd be astonished. And bang their heads together like conkers.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
Also, if Leave is ahead in the polls and Cameron switches sides (the only circumstances in which he would switch) then that is going to effectively make Leave a certain winner, so if there were any economic jitters around leave they would immediately be triggered.
It would be fascinating. I almost hope it happens.
I think switching would be tricky because:
1. When he called the referendum he seemed to think a satisfactory renegotiation was possible. Now, suddenly, it's not. What happened? Was his judgement flawed all along or has he mishandled the negotiations?
2. It appears he's only changing sides because he's losing.
I think these themes would be pounded out by the media. In particular, existing Leave leaders would not willingly let him steal their clothes and would impugn his motives.
I think it probably is possible though. Just difficult.
I think it would be easy to point at the squabbling inside the EZ and the issues around immigration to show that the EU just isn't willing to take Britain's demands seriously. Tusk and Juncker provide plenty of ammunition.
As others have said, the only solution for the EU (and particularly the EZ) is more and more and more Europe. I don't think we collectively want that, simply on the basis that it's not in our national interest to be part of a federal Europe.
I don't agree that Cameron's recommendation is the crucial factor. In any case his recommendation is already in the price: he'll be advocating staying In on whatever slightly improved terms he's been able to get from the weak negotiating position he inherited from Blair and Brown.
Instead, the crucial factor is going to be whether the fear of the unknown - especially on jobs - is trumped by concern over immigration. Punters are, I believe, hugely underestimating the wall of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt which the Remain camp will deploy as the referendum approaches; the combined forces of the BBC, unions, the CBI, other business groups, and politicians from most parties, will be pushing the line that leaving puts millions of jobs at risk. They'll be backed up by international opinion, from Europe and from the US. This process has hardly started yet, and it will be extremely effective; voters don't need to believe the whole story, just have enough doubt placed in their minds that it's a risk too far to leave.
On the other side, there seems to be some disarray as to whether the immigration card should be played, but I think it will be crucial as well. Immigration is one of the top concerns of voters, and eliding 'control of our bordes' with leaving the EU will be a key message for at least part of the Leave campaign. It will have some success as a message.
Of course, both of these arguments are largely nonsense. On any plausible scenario, we'll enter straight back into a trade agreement with the EU, so that leaving the EU won't lead to massive job losses (although there will be some short-term effect from the uncertainty) but neither will it make much difference to immigration. But no-one ever claimed that political messages have to be true to have an effect, and my judgement remains that the jobs nonsense will be more potent than the immigration nonsense.
Mr. Quidder, if you're both living here, it's hard to see much danger, surely? We don't deport spouses who just happen to come from overseas [that said, I'm not in your boat so I don't have even the slight fear of such a thing affecting me personally].
We entered into the negotiations in the belief we could come to a mutally positive outcome...that hasn't been possible...the competing needs of 27 nations has made it impossible to reach agreement...
It'd be a bit awkward and lot of jumping up and down from those who hate him anyway/wanted him to fail - but that'd be the same whatever the outcome 'it wasn't good enough'. No one would remember it bar axe grinders.
Playing the National Interest Card is a universal get-out. Not ideal - but politics is the art of the possible. And Cameron has survived this long *being lucky* by following this strategy.
I agree - I don't think he's so wedded to the EU that he won't shift over to the other side. He's a patriot first and if he can't do a meaningful deal - why die in a ditch over it?
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
I think its his plan B - he wants to try plan A but is rightly not confident of success.
If it looks like Remain is doomed than I don't think Cameron will want to fight to the last for it. That's not his style. However, it would take a manoeuvre of great skill to change sides and retain his own credibility. Saying "I tried to negotiate and failed" is a hard message to sell (obviously he wouldn't put it like that but his opponents and a large part of the media would).
snip
I think switching would be tricky because:
1. When he called the referendum he seemed to think a satisfactory renegotiation was possible. Now, suddenly, it's not. What happened? Was his judgement flawed all along or has he mishandled the negotiations?
2. It appears he's only changing sides because he's losing.
I think these themes would be pounded out by the media. In particular, existing Leave leaders would not willingly let him steal their clothes and would impugn his motives.
I think it probably is possible though. Just difficult.
Mr. Quidder, if you're both living here, it's hard to see much danger, surely? We don't deport spouses who just happen to come from overseas [that said, I'm not in your boat so I don't have even the slight fear of such a thing affecting me personally].
You should fear deportation of people who have a poor grasp of history.
''Punters are, I believe, hugely underestimating the wall of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt which the Remain camp will deploy as the referendum approaches''
On the other hand the OUT campaign is in the lead with zero marketing and zero leadership.
''Punters are, I believe, hugely underestimating the wall of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt which the Remain camp will deploy as the referendum approaches''
On the other hand the OUT campaign is in the lead with zero marketing and zero leadership.
Anyone can tell a pollster that they are disgruntled, without risk. Don't be misled into thinking that that is the same as voting.
Mr. Pulpstar, were the other British astronauts rapscallions? :P
I was interested to hear that Peake is the first official British astronaut. Nothing to do with gender etc, just the fact that neither Foale (NASA) nor Sharman (ESA) had any monetary or practical support from the British government for their trips. I was very sad to hear that Thatcher had thought that British involvement in any sort of space programme was a complete waste of time and money. I would have hoped for better from someone with a scientific background.
Petrol may be falling in price, but I don't really think that'll make much difference to people. I suspect there's a suspicion that it's all to do with the shenanigans in Iraq and Syria and as soon as that's over it'll be back up again.
If they think that they'd be wrong and ignorant given the real causes are widely publicised.
Price is a function of supply and demand. Iraq and Syria are supply nations and the conflict there is not flooding the market with extra sales, if anything it is reducing what ought to be the global supply. The conflict is providing an upwards pressure on prices not a downwards one.
On the supply side the real increase in supply has come from the USA and that isn't likely to change any time soon.
On the demand side China is slowing while much of Europe etc remains weak.
Mr. Eagles, just been reading about him, actually, as part of the William Marshal biography by Thomas Asbridge.
You and Mr. Llama are seeking to impose modern borders on ancient lands. By that definition, you'd consider Normans to be French, Alexander to be Greek, and Hannibal to be Tunisian.
To weightier matters - has anybody come across a Christmas jumper that is in the so-bad-it's-good category? Going to such a themed party on Saturday night - and so far finding plenty that are so bad, but none that tip over into good.....
Mr. Eagles, just been reading about him, actually, as part of the William Marshal biography by Thomas Asbridge.
You and Mr. Llama are seeking to impose modern borders on ancient lands. By that definition, you'd consider Normans to be French, Alexander to be Greek, and Hannibal to be Tunisian.
I would never consider the Normans to be French.
That would mean that we were conquered by the French in 1066, and that would not be acceptable.
The more widely disseminated the fact that Leave is there or thereabouts, the more people will be attracted to it. The proposition is that the UK might be out on a limb. If everyone realises that plenty of Brits want out also then it becomes a collective action and no longer taboo. Like all jumping off the high board together.
(Edit: into a pool that _hasn't_ been drained, as my analogies get still more tortured)
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, on Monday said that “multiculturalism is a lie” as she pledged to reduce the number of migrants entering Germany.
“Whoever seeks refuge with us, must respect our laws and traditions and must learn German,” she said. “Multiculturalism creates parallel societies, multiculturalism is a lie.”
To weightier matters - has anybody come across a Christmas jumper that is in the so-bad-it's-good category? Going to such a themed party on Saturday night - and so far finding plenty that are so bad, but none that tip over into good.....
Primark have an excellent range! Fox jr got his for £9. Even plays music.
To weightier matters - has anybody come across a Christmas jumper that is in the so-bad-it's-good category? Going to such a themed party on Saturday night - and so far finding plenty that are so bad, but none that tip over into good.....
Primark have an excellent range! Fox jr got his for £9. Even plays music.
To weightier matters - has anybody come across a Christmas jumper that is in the so-bad-it's-good category? Going to such a themed party on Saturday night - and so far finding plenty that are so bad, but none that tip over into good.....
Primark have an excellent range! Fox jr got his for £9. Even plays music.
His is Father Christmas, though they have an excellent elf and snowman range.
The risk for REMAIN is that Cameron comes back with a damp squib yet has to pretend that it is something wonderful. This will make him the object of scorn and mockery by LEAVE. It's always difficult to take seriously a politician who is both laughed at and thought to be disingenuous.
I still find it hard to imagine that LEAVE can win, but I find myself moving from reluctant REMAIN to probable LEAVE. It looks like others are doing the same.
Now worried TSE will see the new Star Wars film before me and give it a good review.
He also liked the 2nd Star Trek movie, which was nearly as bad as SPECTRE
I'd like to point out the writer/director of the second Star Trek movie is the writer/director of The Force Awakens.
That fills me to the brim with girlish glee.
The new star treks are great, I don't understand why some dislike the second one so much (if it's due to stupid plotting, that's no deal breaker, most trek had stupid, illogical plotting). I'm worried though. The new star wars, all the elements seem great, so I'm concerned not that it will be crap, but that it will just be mediocre instead. That'd be disappointing, not to be amazing or amazingly terrible.
As I'm just a casual fan though at least I can survive more bad movies, unlike some people I fear for.
Mr. Pulpstar, were the other British astronauts rapscallions? :P
I was interested to hear that Peake is the first official British astronaut. Nothing to do with gender etc, just the fact that neither Foale (NASA) nor Sharman (ESA) had any monetary or practical support from the British government for their trips. I was very sad to hear that Thatcher had thought that British involvement in any sort of space programme was a complete waste of time and money. I would have hoped for better from someone with a scientific background.
On the other hand, we are a world leader on satellites and associated technology, with a turnover of just under £12 billion per year employing 37,000 people.
Manned spaceflight is cool, but expensive and the value is relatively low. Rocketry is sexy, but massively expensive and fiscally dangerous. Building satellites is cheaper and very much value-added.
If we could do all three (manned launchers and satellites), cool. If we can only do one, then satellites is the sane one to do. Launchers are big ego-trips for countries. Until private space ala Musk becomes more common ...
Comments
Not sure about the "until Labour proposes Corbyn as PM" thing. They are proposing him as that right now, no. If, for some weird reason, the Conservatives split in half some time later this morning then Corbyn would be the leader of the largest party in the Commons and, following a vote of no confidence, could find himself trying to form a government before Christmas. Of course that's not going to happen but still, as Leader of the Opposition, he is at all times his party's proposed alternative Prime Minister.
He can then expedite the referendum and spend the last couple of years doing some pet legacy projects.
Miss Plato, BTL?
I'd really like to believe that, but....
Part of the reason I'm pessimistic about the outcome is that one meets so many people who are edging towards leave (even I am, slightly) and no-one going the other way. I don't mean just on here but in real life. Just anecdotal, of course.
Mr. Runnymede, quite. I'll believe that when I see it.
I don't want it to happen - to be honest I like the EU exactly as it is, and if develops to be closer to one country, so much the better. But I try to discuss trends here, not personal preferences, and I think there's a risk for Remain in this phenomenon.
Anyway there is no 100% guaranteed 'best' voting system. FPTP works best in a duopoly (Republicans/ Democrats) or (until recently) (Conservative/ Labour).
Many voluble Leavers will disagree with me - but then they use any pretext to bash him, so I don't think they're worth engaging with on this. They've made up their minds. I don't understand why they get so infuriated about the supposed crapness of his negotiations - I'd be delighted if I were in their shoes
Until now...
But if you look at the potential hotspots - and of course there might be any number of different ones by then - who is uniting around what great iniquity? Junior doctors - off the radar and the perception that Hunt backed down; tax credits - sorted; bedroom tax - old news; education - nope.
So whilst agreeing with your proposition that the answer to what are you rebelling against is "what have you got?" - there doesn't seem to be fire in peoples' belly right now. In fact with our renewed "war on terror" the govt is in quite a well-supported place.
Plus, and oh how I wish they would protest about this, household balance sheets are expanding at the moment which apart from being dangerous, nevertheless gives everyone an ok sense of well-being.
By the time the next round of elections is on us we'll have had at least 2% rises in Council Tax across the board and despite the fact that people will be told that it's for social care, they won't like it.
Petrol may be falling in price, but I don't really think that'll make much difference to people. I suspect there's a suspicion that it's all to do with the shenanigans in Iraq and Syria and as soon as that's over it'll be back up again.
Also presumably other countries could be doing the same and their terrorists / extremists end up here. Best to let them leave Europe altogether for a place where they can be crushed into bits of sand......
The mid term kicking may be one where the voters kick the BOOers!
Sensible people are thinking about Christmas and Football, not about Europe at the moment. If you believe Twitter and BTL comments then Scotland would be independent and Milliband PM. The Great British Public think differently though.
That seems to me the best argument Leave has - not the rubbish about migrant benefits.
Do you want independence - with all the costs and uncertainties that involves - or do you want union into one state, where pretty much everything is decided at the EU level?
(Incidentally, for @NickPalmer, I responded to your question to me yesterday on the last thread but one. I hope you saw it.)
Also, if Leave is ahead in the polls and Cameron switches sides (the only circumstances in which he would switch) then that is going to effectively make Leave a certain winner, so if there were any economic jitters around leave they would immediately be triggered.
I would love to know what Cameron's and Osborne's thinking is on these matters. Clearly their goal is for Remain to win convincingly, PM vindicated, retires, Georgius Imperator. But if Remain starts to tank, then what? They must have thought about it and would want to manage that outcome as best they could and try to retain some level of control.
It would be fascinating. I almost hope it happens.
I think there is an interesting question as to how Cameron will behave if Leave really gets traction and (say) opens up a ten-point lead in the polls.
I remain convinced that Cameron, as a 'court' Tory still wants to be in the EU for all the rather vacuous and narcissistic reasons previously outlined; 'sitting at the top table','hob-nobbing with the big cheeses', even (God help us) 'leading Europe'.
But he's also a politician to his fingertips, with the appropriate survival instinct. So I can see a few possible options:
1. Delay the referendum
2. Try to get more substantive concessions from the EU
3. Try even harder to dress up an essentially status quo (i.e. more integration) deal as something else inc. by renaming Britain's membership and choreographing a sacred-looking (but meaningless) oath from other EU leaders to be nice to the UK
4. Adopt a neutral stance in the referendum
5. Lead 'Leave'
I leave it up to readers how likely these various options are
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ #Timpeake
I could quite easily cobble together a convincing set of positioning statements for him to swap sides along the Will of the British People blah blah, more in sorrow, we wanted to make it work but clearly our national interests wouldn't be served by XYZ.
If Number Ten hasn't wargamed Plan B, I'd be astonished. And bang their heads together like conkers.
He already has a sell-by date, and that would cause ructions within the PCP. Plus, he'd risk a successor taking office before the referendum, which would only heighten the EU dimension of a leadership campaign.
Did you read what I wrote or are you just an ignoramus
Plato - The timing of these things is beginning to look constrained. Support for a Govt typically declines as time goes on therefore 2017 looks to be a worse time for the Govt than summer 2016. Osborne for various reasons wants it over in 2016. Asking for such a shallow range of changes also indicates that Cameron/Osborne wanted it wrapped up quickly, so they watered down the original requests. Germany apparently wanted it done before 2017. It would therefore be best for LEAVE to have the vote in 2017!
She came to my school to give a talk.
How very dare you.
[I didn't click the link. Still trying to be productive].
1. When he called the referendum he seemed to think a satisfactory renegotiation was possible. Now, suddenly, it's not. What happened? Was his judgement flawed all along or has he mishandled the negotiations?
2. It appears he's only changing sides because he's losing.
I think these themes would be pounded out by the media. In particular, existing Leave leaders would not willingly let him steal their clothes and would impugn his motives.
I think it probably is possible though. Just difficult.
As others have said, the only solution for the EU (and particularly the EZ) is more and more and more Europe. I don't think we collectively want that, simply on the basis that it's not in our national interest to be part of a federal Europe.
Instead, the crucial factor is going to be whether the fear of the unknown - especially on jobs - is trumped by concern over immigration. Punters are, I believe, hugely underestimating the wall of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt which the Remain camp will deploy as the referendum approaches; the combined forces of the BBC, unions, the CBI, other business groups, and politicians from most parties, will be pushing the line that leaving puts millions of jobs at risk. They'll be backed up by international opinion, from Europe and from the US. This process has hardly started yet, and it will be extremely effective; voters don't need to believe the whole story, just have enough doubt placed in their minds that it's a risk too far to leave.
On the other side, there seems to be some disarray as to whether the immigration card should be played, but I think it will be crucial as well. Immigration is one of the top concerns of voters, and eliding 'control of our bordes' with leaving the EU will be a key message for at least part of the Leave campaign. It will have some success as a message.
Of course, both of these arguments are largely nonsense. On any plausible scenario, we'll enter straight back into a trade agreement with the EU, so that leaving the EU won't lead to massive job losses (although there will be some short-term effect from the uncertainty) but neither will it make much difference to immigration. But no-one ever claimed that political messages have to be true to have an effect, and my judgement remains that the jobs nonsense will be more potent than the immigration nonsense.
That fills me to the brim with girlish glee.
It'd be a bit awkward and lot of jumping up and down from those who hate him anyway/wanted him to fail - but that'd be the same whatever the outcome 'it wasn't good enough'. No one would remember it bar axe grinders.
Playing the National Interest Card is a universal get-out. Not ideal - but politics is the art of the possible. And Cameron has survived this long *being lucky* by following this strategy.
I always wondered whether Gagarin piddled on his own Zil on the way to work.
You'd be on the first boat to France.
On the other hand the OUT campaign is in the lead with zero marketing and zero leadership.
If deportation for failing to understand history were British policy, you'd be flat-sharing with the Soup Dragon.
Price is a function of supply and demand. Iraq and Syria are supply nations and the conflict there is not flooding the market with extra sales, if anything it is reducing what ought to be the global supply. The conflict is providing an upwards pressure on prices not a downwards one.
On the supply side the real increase in supply has come from the USA and that isn't likely to change any time soon.
On the demand side China is slowing while much of Europe etc remains weak.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12050824/EU-referendum-UK-exit-nears-with-latest-ICM-poll-tracker-live.html
You and Mr. Llama are seeking to impose modern borders on ancient lands. By that definition, you'd consider Normans to be French, Alexander to be Greek, and Hannibal to be Tunisian.
Perhaps what voters are aiming for is what happened in Scotland. Saying no until the establishment panics at the last moment and offers a better deal.
That would mean that we were conquered by the French in 1066, and that would not be acceptable.
(Edit: into a pool that _hasn't_ been drained, as my analogies get still more tortured)
Angela is having a Homeland plot crisis
* Astérix en Normandie
Vote Leave to get rid of Scotland.
It gives me a warm glow that my taxes help subsidise Scotland.
It is the duty of us all to help those less fortunate than us.
#CompassionateConservatism
I still find it hard to imagine that LEAVE can win, but I find myself moving from reluctant REMAIN to probable LEAVE. It looks like others are doing the same.
Stock up on Scotch now.
As I'm just a casual fan though at least I can survive more bad movies, unlike some people I fear for.
Young white men the most negatively regarded group: Peter Kellner of @YouGov https://t.co/05AtwVpYVo
Though God is clearly a Leicester fan.
Manned spaceflight is cool, but expensive and the value is relatively low. Rocketry is sexy, but massively expensive and fiscally dangerous. Building satellites is cheaper and very much value-added.
If we could do all three (manned launchers and satellites), cool. If we can only do one, then satellites is the sane one to do. Launchers are big ego-trips for countries. Until private space ala Musk becomes more common ...