It's a negative message but true nonetheless, that if we vote to Remain then we are committed for good, ever closer union, EU army, freedom of movement etc. The EU stance will understandably be:
Look, we had negotiations and the people voted IN, you are now fully fledged Europhiles.
I'm happy to say if that is the case I will immediately relinquish my interest in current affairs and roll over. That can be interpreted as pique or sulking, but I love living here and will disappointedly resign myself to the fact that our parliament will be an increasingly irrelevant organisation. And most importantly there won't be a thing we can do to change it.
You know I love you, but that's not a positive reason Mr Next Door would understand. He's never heard of Hannan, and it's all very abstract.
The EU doesn't touch his life much day to day as far as he's concerned. He uses Euros on his holidays and that's about it. He glazes over when people talk about federalism, United States of Europe and all that.
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
The Hannan point is the key one or should be, it points the lie that we have any influence at all in the EU:
Given how hard it has been to get the slightest movement or consideration from the other EU members when they are looking down the barrel of their second richest member leaving, how hard is it going to be to get any sort of accommodation for British interests the day after an IN referendum result?
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
It's noteworthy that pb's expats are among pb's most passionate posters on EU matters.
Self-interest is a powerful motivation to vote.
Perhaps. But it is a little odd to see a tussle over Britain's EU future being conducted from Spain and the Philippines.
Mr. 63, I agree that if we vote to remain then it will be taken by some as a newfound affirmation of our super-love for the EU.
However, the EU remains a meddling, grubby, bureaucratic monstrosity that will collapse sooner or later.
We'll leave. It's just a question of whether it's through the ballot box in a relatively civilised way, or staggering out of the smoking ruins when the decrepit edifice crumbles under its own weight.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
The expat vote is fools' gold - registration is now non-trivial in Britain but it's a real pain abroad, and I doubt if more than 10% bother.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
It's noteworthy that pb's expats are among pb's most passionate posters on EU matters.
Self-interest is a powerful motivation to vote.
Perhaps. But it is a little odd to see a tussle over Britain's EU future being conducted from Spain and the Philippines.
I was considering coming back next year, but I think I can wait a few months to see how things go
The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 that he refers to is an Act which introduces a framework directive, the Data Retention Directive, into UK law. There is absolutely nothing new or startling with the proposition that it is open for a party to argue that the Government has not done that correctly. The leading case in Scotland about that was to do with TUPE more than 30 years ago. I have not been able to find the case he refers to but it is very, very unlikely that the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms has anything to do with its reasoning. I can't see how it could be relevant except to the extent that the Data Retention Directive itself gives certain rights to privacy etc.
In particular, legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter (see, to this effect, judgment in Digital Rights Ireland and Others, C‑293/12 and C‑594/12, EU:C:2014:238, paragraph 39).
That case is one step back. It is not challenging the UK legislation, it is challenging the effect of the Data Directive and decisions of the Irish to allow data to be transferred from Eire to the US. The context of the dispute was an Commission ruling, in accordance with the Directive, that data stored in the EU could only be transferred out of the EU when they were satisfied that the country to which the data was going had adequate safeguards. In determining whether the safeguards were adequate the Commission would address the question of whether the right to privacy was met.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
It's noteworthy that pb's expats are among pb's most passionate posters on EU matters.
Self-interest is a powerful motivation to vote.
Perhaps. But it is a little odd to see a tussle over Britain's EU future being conducted from Spain and the Philippines.
It's a reflection of the modern world - with the notable exception of SeanF many of the Booers on here look back to a more simple time. I get that but they are really just modern day Cnuts
Mr. 63, I agree that if we vote to remain then it will be taken by some as a newfound affirmation of our super-love for the EU.
However, the EU remains a meddling, grubby, bureaucratic monstrosity that will collapse sooner or later.
We'll leave. It's just a question of whether it's through the ballot box in a relatively civilised way, or staggering out of the smoking ruins when the decrepit edifice crumbles under its own weight.
That's the raft I'm clinging to, that if we vote to remain we can watch from behind the settee as the whole ghastly, self indulgent project implodes.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
The expat vote is fools' gold - registration is now non-trivial in Britain but it's a real pain abroad, and I doubt if more than 10% bother.
Not true at all. The simplest process in the world. We even get 2 votes in the euros - one in the UK and one in or host, all perfectly legal.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
I think Mr Cummings point was given their views in the first case, it was unlikely that the ECJ would look with benevolence on the governments appeal in relation to the second case.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
It's noteworthy that pb's expats are among pb's most passionate posters on EU matters.
Self-interest is a powerful motivation to vote.
Perhaps. But it is a little odd to see a tussle over Britain's EU future being conducted from Spain and the Philippines.
The referendum is not a big issue for me. I suspect it won't make a big difference initially anyway.
But I'll vote Leave just because I'm still miffed about the big lies told in 1975 (I bear a grudge).
"No, no, it's nothing to do with political union at all, it's a trading bloc. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar." ... Tee-hee-hee, that's fooled them.
Mr. 63, I agree that if we vote to remain then it will be taken by some as a newfound affirmation of our super-love for the EU.
However, the EU remains a meddling, grubby, bureaucratic monstrosity that will collapse sooner or later.
We'll leave. It's just a question of whether it's through the ballot box in a relatively civilised way, or staggering out of the smoking ruins when the decrepit edifice crumbles under its own weight.
I think you may be right there - and it will clearly have to change in the next 10 years - but i suspect the core will hold.
The negative trade balance with Europe; the influx of people that places pressures on schooling, housing, healthcare, wages at the bottom etc; the likelihood of continued inward immigration with the potential for Turkey (and it's porous Syrian/Iraqi borders), among others, joining.
A fall in immigration, even a reversal, would improve the prospects of those at the bottom and in the middle when it comes to getting an affordable home, getting better pay for their labour, getting better access to schools and care etc.
London has far too many people in it who are only here because the lunacy of the welfare state and the EU makes it possible.
The EU was initially envisaged as a union among a group of nations that were similarly wealthy and similarly skilled. It has now allowed cheap labour to flood in. That provides the owners of capital with great advantage, but does very little to improve the lot of the less well off.
Honestly, I can't express how frustrated I am about this. The Leavers have been agitating for 20yrs or more and with potentially six months to go - there's nothing of substance. Just lots of deeply unattractive carping. And talking technical alphabet soup.
Quite a few on here have been moving into the Leave camp - but I'd be surprised if any of the discussions about the EU had much to do with it.
I hope Leave gets their act together - I want them to win. You want the opposite. You must be chuffed at how useless they are right now.
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
As ever you highlight the paucity of the Leave argument so well you may even end up an 'inner'
Serious question: is benefits really a big issue for either Remain or Leave? I'm struggling to see any great point of principle here; at best it seems an unconvincing proxy for either sovereignty or immigration.
That's a good point - more specifically, though, Cameron has made it a test of whether his renegotiation is successful or not. Up to now it's proceeded on standard negotiating lines - big defiant statements, newspapers full of stories about intractable opposition, and lo and behold, an agreement is heaving into sight. I think he'll declare victory and treat that as a beacon of successful negotiation.
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives. They have vague feelings for or against being linked up, but relatively scanty evidence will swing it for many either way. "Your job might be doomed if we leave" is probably at present the only real vote-decider in the room. "Something is being done about benefits and Cameron's made an effort" is second division but will also help Remain a bit.
This is why I'd strongly support a move to make everyone in the UK contribute for 3-5 years before becoming eligible for most benefits. The system which allows 18 yr olds to go straight onto benefits is ridiculous. On the broader point remember the thousands of expats who leave the UK to retire abroad - in many cases still paying UK taxes while no burden at all on UK public services.
This is the crux of the matter. I have respect for the view you put forward and I think there is a case for recasting the welfare system. The problem is that the Tory leadership is too busy trying to secure the centre ground of British politics.
On British emigrants, I doubt France and Spain will stop them moving there if we leave the EU. Ultimately such people provide foreign direct investment. And a lo
Yes some do return but many find the NHS is Spain , eg, rather better than in the UK ad basically don't want to leave. You may be right about France and Spain or not - expats want certainty not doubt.
Quite frankly I don't care about those Brits that leave this wonderful country to live it up on the Costa del Sol. Far be it from me to tell give advice to the Remain campaign, but I'd suggest they avoid this line of argument.
Quite frankly most of them couldn't give a flying **** what you think but half a million of us have a vote. Ironically given the attitude above there is little.
I don't doubt that Brits abroad will largely vote to stay in - as is their right. Given this, I don't think either campaign should focus their attention on this group of people.
There are as many Brits working/retired/studying in Europe as there are EU citizens in the UK. The vast majority will be for Remain. The Remain campaign should be one of registration and GOTV.
In a referendum every vote counts the same, there are no safe seats.
Also worth bearing in mind that for every Brit working/retiring/studying in the EU, there are a couple more dreaming of doing so. A new life in the sun is a very common dream in a damp British winter.
Somebody else painting a ridiculous picture of wealthy pensioners being evicted from Provence and Marbella after Brexit.
These Inners are the ones calling for honest discussions not scare stories. Tribalism turns rational people into fools.
I have not said they will be booted out, just pointed out that Brits resident in the EU or aspiring to do so are a core vote for Remain. It is for Leave to convince them that Brexit will not change their security. The staus quo is safe. It looks a tough sell for Leave.
Mr. 63, I agree that if we vote to remain then it will be taken by some as a newfound affirmation of our super-love for the EU.
However, the EU remains a meddling, grubby, bureaucratic monstrosity that will collapse sooner or later.
We'll leave. It's just a question of whether it's through the ballot box in a relatively civilised way, or staggering out of the smoking ruins when the decrepit edifice crumbles under its own weight.
That's the raft I'm clinging to, that if we vote to remain we can watch from behind the settee as the whole ghastly, self indulgent project implodes.
And we will still have Felix, Dr Fox, Mr Navabi et al sitting in the ruins telling us how it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, or that they actually don't care if it was great or not so long as their pension gets paid on time
I agree - I'm leaving to preserve our sovereignty. I know that argument doesn't seem to get much traction when I mention it to even my most politically engaged friends. They feel it's all a bit abstract - not that it's the basis of everything else.
Way back when Major was PM, I endured hours of the Today prog grilling Cash, Redwood et al about subsidiarity, federalism and the horrors of a United States of Europe. I didn't have a clue what they were talking about, and cared less. I still glaze over when these subjects come up.
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
For me, the reason to Leave is that our relationship with other EU member States isn't working out. If we vote Remain, we get more of the same; endless arguments over increased budgetary contributions; endless spats between our government, which doesn't want more political integration, and most other EU governments and EU institutions, which do; endless mission creep, as EU institutions seek to micro-manage the affairs of member States.
I think that leaving the EU at least gives the opportunity of negotiating a better relationship with the EU. Staying in, doesn't.
Serious question: is benefits really a big issue for either Remain or Leave? I'm struggling to see any great point of principle here; at best it seems an unconvincing proxy for either sovereignty or immigration.
I think its a complete non-issue, but it's one Cameron is shouting about as loudly as he can because either (depending on your preferred level of cynicism) it's already agreed, or he thinks it's easily achievable, and he hopes to make it the measure of his success. The hope presumably being that people don't remember the rather more substantial promises and commitments he has made over the last three years or so.
Serious question: is benefits really a big issue for either Remain or Leave? I'm struggling to see any great point of principle here; at best it seems an unconvincing proxy for either sovereignty or immigration.
That's a good point - more specifically, though, Cameron has made it a test of whether his renegotiation is successful or not. Up to now it's proceeded on standard negotiating lines - big defiant statements, newspapers full of stories about intractable opposition, and lo and behold, an agreement is heaving into sight. I think he'll declare victory and treat that as a beacon of successful negotiation.
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives. They have vague feelings for or against being linked up, but relatively scanty evidence will swing it for many either way. "Your job might be doomed if we leave" is probably at present the only real vote-decider in the room. "Something is being done about benefits and Cameron's made an effort" is second division but will also help Remain a bit.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
It's noteworthy that pb's expats are among pb's most passionate posters on EU matters.
Self-interest is a powerful motivation to vote.
Perhaps. But it is a little odd to see a tussle over Britain's EU future being conducted from Spain and the Philippines.
Honestly, I can't express how frustrated I am about this. The Leavers have been agitating for 20yrs or more and with potentially six months to go - there's
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
As ever you highlight the paucity of the Leave argument so well you may even end up an 'inner'
Certain sections of the Leave campaign hasn't been great, my understanding is they will soon be sidelined.
What has surprised me is how the debate has become about party allegiance and personality, I totally get that plenty don't like Farage and UKIP, it seems that some will vote IN just to wipe the smile off his face. IN seem to be keeping their divisive figures out of the way for now, it will be interested to see the undecided tribal Tories after a debate with Mandelson and Farage, I guess that will lead to lots of abstentions.
I understand party loyalty in GEs, party politics really must be cast aside on this occasion, some are finding that very difficult.
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
Not so - very easy to register and large numbers keep their UK vote - especially pensioners - we pay UK tax.
I am not doubting you but in which constituency do you have the right to vote when you are no longer resident? I am assuming the majority will have disposed of their UK residence, indeed are likely to be living on the proceeds. I would be interested to learn how that works.
Why do you pay UK tax when you are no longer domiciled in the UK? I can see you might have to account to the UK for a pension paid from here but if the ex pat gets a job in a bar, for example, surely he or she pays tax locally on the money earned there?
I think the timing of the referendum is fairly predictive of the result. Remain will have a much better chance in 2016 than 2017 and a better chance in summer than autumn. For that reason the Government's win over the voting age was one the more significant events of the last few weeks.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
Not so - very easy to register and large numbers keep their UK vote - especially pensioners - we pay UK tax.
I am not doubting you but in which constituency do you have the right to vote when you are no longer resident? I am assuming the majority will have disposed of their UK residence, indeed are likely to be living on the proceeds. I would be interested to learn how that works.
Why do you pay UK tax when you are no longer domiciled in the UK? I can see you might have to account to the UK for a pension paid from here but if the ex pat gets a job in a bar, for example, surely he or she pays tax locally on the money earned there?
OK, I'm not a pensioner and I don't pay UK tax. But, I could get a postal vote for the GE (although it arrived late) in the constituency where I was last registered (in 2006). Just had to fill in a form and post it. (In scotland, England may have different rules I guess)
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
Not so - very easy to register and large numbers keep their UK vote - especially pensioners - we pay UK tax.
I am not doubting you but in which constituency do you have the right to vote when you are no longer resident? I am assuming the majority will have disposed of their UK residence, indeed are likely to be living on the proceeds. I would be interested to learn how that works.
Why do you pay UK tax when you are no longer domiciled in the UK? I can see you might have to account to the UK for a pension paid from here but if the ex pat gets a job in a bar, for example, surely he or she pays tax locally on the money earned there?
OK, I'm not a pensioner and I don't pay UK tax. But, I could get a postal vote for the GE (although it arrived late) in the constituency where I was last registered (in 2006). Just had to fill in a form and post it. (In scotland, England may have different rules I guess)
I think the timing of the referendum is fairly predictive of the result. Remain will have a much better chance in 2016 than 2017 and a better chance in summer than autumn. For that reason the Government's win over the voting age was one the more significant events of the last few weeks.
It will be interesting to see how it chimes with the Electoral Commission ruling that the referendum cannot happen for ten months after the enabling legislation has gained royal assent, which would imply next October earliest. Cameron could ignore the EC, but it would be a brave thing to do if he didn't want the referendum to look like a stitch up.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
I think Mr Cummings point was given their views in the first case, it was unlikely that the ECJ would look with benevolence on the governments appeal in relation to the second case.
Either that or he just wanted a scare story about UK domestic courts cutting down UK Acts as illegal based, extremely loosely, a reference to the Charter which we are supposed to have an opt out of.
I agree - I'm leaving to preserve our sovereignty. I know that argument doesn't seem to get much traction when I mention it to even my most politically engaged friends. They feel it's all a bit abstract - not that it's the basis of everything else.
Way back when Major was PM, I endured hours of the Today prog grilling Cash, Redwood et al about subsidiarity, federalism and the horrors of a United States of Europe. I didn't have a clue what they were talking about, and cared less. I still glaze over when these subjects come up.
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
For me, the reason to Leave is that our relationship with other EU member States isn't working out. If we vote Remain, we get more of the same; endless arguments over increased budgetary contributions; endless spats between our government, which doesn't want more political integration, and most other EU governments and EU institutions, which do; endless mission creep, as EU institutions seek to micro-manage the affairs of member States.
I think that leaving the EU at least gives the opportunity of negotiating a better relationship with the EU. Staying in, doesn't.
With the uncommitted, I'd say treat the Referendum as a vote of confidence in the EU. Do you like the way it's run or not?
Serious question: is benefits really a big issue for either Remain or Leave? I'm struggling to see any great point of principle here; at best it seems an unconvincing proxy for either sovereignty or immigration.
I think its a complete non-issue, but it's one Cameron is shouting about as loudly as he can because either (depending on your preferred level of cynicism) it's already agreed, or he thinks it's easily achievable, and he hopes to make it the measure of his success. The hope presumably being that people don't remember the rather more substantial promises and commitments he has made over the last three years or so.
Correct, benefits are a non issue, it's the fact that our PM has to plead to reduce them that's key. It's about self governance, whether it be prisoners votes, migrant benefits or straight bananas.
That is the message we have to hammer home, that our PM is cap in hand to Brussels asking for permission to do something. It is an absolute nonsense.
I am a better of out person at the moment so I will declare that now.
I am fed up with hearing that what ever anyone wants its up to Merkel to decide as the most powerful leader etc etc. Thought there was meant to be equity here? Secondly fed up with money going in and most taking out... Ok not precisely correct but that's what it appears to be. Also fed up with us obeying every EU diktat to the letter while others just ignore them yet we end up constantly in the courts while others seem to get away with it. Ok these are perceptions perhaps but many people have them and you hear this day in and out in the supermarket, down the pub in the train etc etc. I always smile when europe talks about the UK joint the slow lane but compared to most we are in the outside lane here and the EU is the one in the slow lane.
Personally I think Cameron is a hostage to fortune here. He is never going to come back with an agreement that keeps everyone happy even in his own party. The main issue here is nothing is going to be the same after the referendum and how prepared are we really for that?
If we vote to leave then that will throw up any number of issues that will have to be dealt with and to my knowledge no one really knows what they all are as no country has to date left in this way. It won't be friendly I would have thought in fact I can see it being quite acrimonious. Remember nothing must get in the way of the dream, the project the union.
If we vote to stay then the flood gates are truly open because the other leaders around the table will hammer this government and those that come after with the killer fact. Your people voted in and for the European ideal. Expect lots of stuff to reappear on the table including changing to the euro. It is naive to think otherwise. It will start at the first summit after the remain vote is cast.
Of course there is I suppose a third option which has been used on a well travelled road.......
We vote leave, Europe declares the leave decision is not binding < insert crap reason here> ( never underestimate what they can do legal or otherwise) . The vote is taken again..... And again... Until we finally through balloting exhaustion give the correct answer remain. At which point they will all agree that that one vote is binding and cannot be voted on until the next century...... After next.
Cynical maybe? Well yes it is, but anything to do with Europe needs to have a cynical eye cast over it consistently. For example our huge employment being as a result of EU membership well ha! Just like massive unemployment is a result of membership. Oh wait no, .....that's always the fault of the right wing in this country nothing to do with the EU.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
I think Mr Cummings point was given their views in the first case, it was unlikely that the ECJ would look with benevolence on the governments appeal in relation to the second case.
Either that or he just wanted a scare story about UK domestic courts cutting down UK Acts as illegal based, extremely loosely, a reference to the Charter which we are supposed to have an opt out of.
Honestly, I can't express how frustrated I am about this. The Leavers have been agitating for 20yrs or more and with potentially six months to go - there's
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
As ever you highlight the paucity of the Leave argument so well you may even end up an 'inner'
Certain sections of the Leave campaign hasn't been great, my understanding is they will soon be sidelined.
What has surprised me is how the debate has become about party allegiance and personality, I totally get that plenty don't like Farage and UKIP, it seems that some will vote IN just to wipe the smile off his face. IN seem to be keeping their divisive figures out of the way for now, it will be interested to see the undecided tribal Tories after a debate with Mandelson and Farage, I guess that will lead to lots of abstentions.
I understand party loyalty in GEs, party politics really must be cast aside on this occasion, some are finding that very difficult.
If Leave wins it will greatly strengthen the voice of leavers, including Farage, domestically. If I think that's a bad thing it's perfectly rational for me to take it into account. You don't get to say that voters "must cast aside" any particular consideration.
I don't doubt that Brits abroad will largely vote to stay in - as is their right. Given this, I don't think either campaign should focus their attention on this group of people.
There are as many Brits working/retired/studying in Europe as there are EU citizens in the UK. The vast majority will be for Remain. The Remain campaign should be one of registration and GOTV.
In a referendum every vote counts the same, there are no safe seats.
Also worth bearing in mind that for every Brit working/retiring/studying in the EU, there are a couple more dreaming of doing so. A new life in the sun is a very common dream in a damp British winter.
Somebody else painting a ridiculous picture of wealthy pensioners being evicted from Provence and Marbella after Brexit.
These Inners are the ones calling for honest discussions not scare stories. Tribalism turns rational people into fools.
I have not said they will be booted out, just pointed out that Brits resident in the EU or aspiring to do so are a core vote for Remain. It is for Leave to convince them that Brexit will not change their security. The staus quo is safe. It looks a tough sell for Leave.
Plus everyone who has ambition to work in the EU. Plus everyone who worries their factory might be transported to Bulgaria. If benefits are the only issue holding up a deal then Cameron may be onto a good thing. The crucial issue is our relationship to the Eurozone and how we also work out how we deal with distancing ourselves from 'ever closer union'. It seems inevitable that we are going to be semi detached from the EU/Eurozone and we are not going to be part of Schengen, so how to we create that arrangement. There is likely to be no essential difference between Leaving and Staying. Leaving to move to the EEA will make very little difference. We may save some of our contributions but we will lose our votes. To me this is not a bad option, but it will make little difference to our position now.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
We vote leave, Europe declares the leave decision is not binding < insert crap reason here> ( never underestimate what they can do legal or otherwise) . The vote is taken again..... And again... Until we finally through balloting exhaustion give the correct answer remain. At which point they will all agree that that one vote is binding and cannot be voted on until the next century...... After next.
Cynical maybe? Well yes it is, but anything to do with Europe needs to have a cynical eye cast over it consistently. For example our huge employment being as a result of EU membership well ha! Just like massive unemployment is a result of membership. Oh wait no, .....that's always the fault of the right wing in this country nothing to do with the EU.
Ultimately, the way a country leaves the EU is set out in the Treaty of Lisbon. Any country can invoke the appropriate article and then there is a period during which the relationship is unwound.
Further: the UK could ignore its obligations under Lisbon at any time and simply repeal the various acts it passed to enter the EU. We would then cease - de jure and de facto - to be a part of the European Union.
The EU has no ability to say "vote again". The only people who can say vote again are our own politicians who would need to pass a law enacting another referendum. (It is also worth remembering that in the UK, referendum have no binding power; they are all legally only advisory. Although any government that failed to respect a referendum would fall.)
For this reason, I think you're last point is unnecessarily paranoid.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger. It obviously isn't Farage,
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
It should of course be hedged with the usual caveats, but it seems to broadly confirm the other polling data we've been getting - that Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's vote, particularly with older voters and those who do not live in major urban centres. In other words, his electoral appeal is similar to Miliband's but he lacks Miliband's experience, intelligence or rhetorical ability (and it's not as though Miliband was some sort of latter-day Cicero).
I have been doubtful about the value of polls up to now, due to both methodological problems and the fact that people would take time to adjust to Corbyn who was after all completely unknown until six months ago, but the evidence is starting to become too compelling to ignore. People do not like the government. However, they hate the Leader of the Opposition. People do not like the Conservatives, therefore they actually want to be able to trust Labour. However, while Corbyn is the leader they cannot. Therefore, although the opinion polls would under normal circumstances be showing consistent Labour leads, they are showing consistent Conservative ones. If this is happening even in Wales, which has been solidly Labour for nearly a century, I hate to think what will be happening in the Midlands and the suburban north.
It is all playing out exactly as was predicted here, including by those shrewder Labour-supporting posters who were horrified at what was happening to the party (e.g. @SouthamObserver). But I imagine that will be rather cold comfort to them.
On a betting note, if this poll is even halfway accurate the 1/3 offered on Labour to win under 30 seats looks like extraordinarily good value. Labour hold five seats in north Wales - Alyn and Deeside, Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Clwyd South and Wrexham - and they could all be vulnerable if a chunk of Labour's vote seeps to UKIP (the first two are also somewhat more gentrified than they were ten years ago). In the south, Gower, Cardiff North and Vale of Glamorgan might be under pressure as well. It's not likely even under the completely crazy d'Hondt system operating in Wales that Labour would pick up enough list seats to compensate for such losses.
If a market came out for Labour to get 25 or fewer seats, that might be worth exploring.
How many REMAIN people would stay remain people if Cameron failed to get any concession of substance protecting non-Eurozone countries from Eurozone members winning any changes they want under QMV ?
Suppose for instance all he was able to achieve was a "[insert colour] emergency brake" that delayed implementation of the voted on changes for a year or two.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
The electoral roll for the referendum - assuming the 16/17 year olds don't get the vote - will be identical to that for a General Election.
Therefore, the people that will be allowed to vote are:
British Citizens Commonwealth Citizens Irish Citizens
Edit to add: this means that Maltese citizens living in the UK get the vote. I think that's the only Commonwealth country in the EU.
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
For me, the reason to Leave is that our relationship with other EU member States isn't working out. If we vote Remain, we get more of the same; endless arguments over increased budgetary contributions; endless spats between our government, which doesn't want more political integration, and most other EU governments and EU institutions, which do; endless mission creep, as EU institutions seek to micro-manage the affairs of member States.
I think that leaving the EU at least gives the opportunity of negotiating a better relationship with the EU. Staying in, doesn't.
With the uncommitted, I'd say treat the Referendum as a vote of confidence in the EU. Do you like the way it's run or not?
If they think that Cameron is doing a crap job - REjOICE! It makes your life easier - win the DKs over with warm messages of reassurance, with persuasive facts, and the coherent plans up your sleeve. You'll need them if you win. There is no mileage in blaming your rivals for not supporting your POV - and doubly so for moaning endlessly about how useless they are. It comes across as angry and bitter - and rather unhinged. Imagine United fans complaining City weren't trying hard enough to win...
Where as it's perfectly acceptable for "undecided" Cameron tribalists to bore the pants off everyone about what a wonderful job he is doing, and how he is really doing a great job and should not be criticised (if ever) until the end of the negotiations, by which time his cheer leaders will have had a six month clear run at waving their pom-poms.
Its the most disingenuous crap ever, people can't dis Cameron because they don't know what he will bring home, but its perfectly expectable to run around cheering for him, even though they don't know what he will bring home.
The transparent attempt to close down debate on the renegotiation because it might be a bit of an embarrassing damp squib is shameful.
For me, the reason to Leave is that our relationship with other EU member States isn't working out. If we vote Remain, we get more of the same; endless arguments over increased budgetary contributions; endless spats between our government, which doesn't want more political integration, and most other EU governments and EU institutions, which do; endless mission creep, as EU institutions seek to micro-manage the affairs of member States.
I think that leaving the EU at least gives the opportunity of negotiating a better relationship with the EU. Staying in, doesn't.
With the uncommitted, I'd say treat the Referendum as a vote of confidence in the EU. Do you like the way it's run or not?
We leave the ECJ, but our membership of the EHCR is completely separate, and (indeed) we could leave that even if we remained a member of the EU. (Although it would be slightly complicated for various reasons.)
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
Similar to the general election, IMHO. Greater London, core cities, Merseyside, Scotland, university constituencies, will vote remain. Add to that, a fair number of prosperous Conservative seats in the South.
The rest of the country will vote leave, including some Labour-voting areas in the North.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
London and the surrounding areas.
UKIP do well in Essex and Kent because these places are full of people who will see their C2 incomes under pressure, their grown children struggling to buy houses, their GP and A and E full etc.
Judging by UKIP support levels, I imagine this is replicated in the East Mids, Yorks and Humber, North East etc.
Having gone alphabet soup blind, if we Leave - does that then mean we ditch the ECJ and ECHR? Everything seems deliberately entwined.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
Depends how LEAVE you want to be. If you are a kipper and you mean really leave, repeal all connections with the ECJ and withdraw from the ECHR. If you are a RCS leaver (EEA) you mean withdraw from most of the political aspects but be still lumbered with most of the rest of it, including the ECJ, the ECHR and free movement.
We leave the ECJ, but our membership of the EHCR is completely separate, and (indeed) we could leave that even if we remained a member of the EU. (Although it would be slightly complicated for various reasons.)
I was under the impression that EU membership required ECHR membership, and that sooner or later it would be incorporated into EU Law anyway.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Another O/t but interesting idea from Douglas Carswell's Tory council and it's Careline service for pensioners, for which they already pay £21 per month for an alert. In the event of a fall at home "the council will introduce an additional £25.92 annual charge for a 'lifting service'. The council says the money would pay for one member of staff to provide 24/7 on call assistance in the event of a fall, where previously a paramedic would have been sent for." The article in the Telegraph makes it clear that in the event of a call, there will be a charge of almost £26 to the client. So far no comment from the local MP, but if he got stuck in it might make his seat a bit safer.
Having gone alphabet soup blind, if we Leave - does that then mean we ditch the ECJ and ECHR? Everything seems deliberately entwined.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
That's a complicated question. Every EFTA/EEA country, for example, is a member of Schengen - but that's by choice rather than obligation. Switzerland voted to join Schengen in a referendum entirely of their own accord a decade ago, for example.
There are certain areas where we would completely leave EU jurisdiction - on matters of fisheries and agriculture policy, for example. And the cost of being in the single market would be substantially lower.
However, we would continue to allow member of EU states to live and work in the UK. (Something I regard as the only good thing the EU has brought us, but a deal breaker for many.) As Richard_Tyndall has pointed out in the past, however, there are certain things that EFTA/EEA countries can do that EU countries cannot; such as requiring registration of non-citizens at the local police station.
How many ex pats in Spain will actually have the vote? To have the vote they would have had to remain on the electoral register here. I suspect that the recent clean up of the registers and indeed the steps toward individual voter registration will have taken the majority of them off.
Not so - very easy to register and large numbers keep their UK vote - especially pensioners - we pay UK tax.
I am not doubting you but in which constituency do you have the right to vote when you are no longer resident? I am assuming the majority will have disposed of their UK residence, indeed are likely to be living on the proceeds. I would be interested to learn how that works.
Why do you pay UK tax when you are no longer domiciled in the UK? I can see you might have to account to the UK for a pension paid from here but if the ex pat gets a job in a bar, for example, surely he or she pays tax locally on the money earned there?
You vote in your last UK constituency. Registration is now mostly online and very simple to annually update. Any UK govt pension (OAP, Teacher, etc) has to remain UK tax - private pensions, investment, jobs, etc all taxed in home country. No double taxation is allowed. Annual tax return required with all worldwide savings and income declared.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
I'd agree with large chunks of that - which is why Cameron is pushing for it so publicly.
Anyone who's watched some of the C5 benefits documentaries will know how hot an issue this is. I was fairly sanguine until I saw one about EU immigrant workers playing the system like pros and stacking up small fortunes [their own words] to change their lives beyond their wildest dreams back home.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger. It obviously isn't Farage,
The leave camp need to use fear, uncertainty and financial worry more as tactics. There's absolutely no reason these should be owned by the remain camp. Regrettably, we can just no longer afford to stay members. It's too risky. It's out of control. It's collapsing and we don't want to be around when it does. Immigration is part of that, to be used sparingly with the right audience. They need to park their tanks on the leave camp's lawn, and make them defend the record of the EU and attempt to project its future course. If they do that, Remain won't have any argument.
Having gone alphabet soup blind, if we Leave - does that then mean we ditch the ECJ and ECHR? Everything seems deliberately entwined.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
Depends how LEAVE you want to be. If you are a kipper and you mean really leave, repeal all connections with the ECJ and withdraw from the ECHR. If you are a RCS leaver (EEA) you mean withdraw from most of the political aspects but be still lumbered with most of the rest of it, including the ECJ, the ECHR and free movement.
We leave the ECJ, but our membership of the EHCR is completely separate, and (indeed) we could leave that even if we remained a member of the EU. (Although it would be slightly complicated for various reasons.)
I was under the impression that EU membership required ECHR membership, and that sooner or later it would be incorporated into EU Law anyway.
The EU attempted to join the ECHR but the ECHR decided that the EU was not a country and had no legal standing to be a member of the court.
As a result, it cannot and will not become a member, and therefore the treaty terms that refer to it have no legal binding.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
The electoral roll for the referendum - assuming the 16/17 year olds don't get the vote - will be identical to that for a General Election.
Therefore, the people that will be allowed to vote are:
British Citizens Commonwealth Citizens Irish Citizens
Edit to add: this means that Maltese citizens living in the UK get the vote. I think that's the only Commonwealth country in the EU.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
They can become citizens if granted the citizenship by Portugal.
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
They can become citizens if granted the citizenship by Portugal.
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
Yeah, but then they are Poruguese citizens, not Guniea-Bissau ones.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
Having gone alphabet soup blind, if we Leave - does that then mean we ditch the ECJ and ECHR? Everything seems deliberately entwined.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
Depends how LEAVE you want to be. If you are a kipper and you mean really leave, repeal all connections with the ECJ and withdraw from the ECHR. If you are a RCS leaver (EEA) you mean withdraw from most of the political aspects but be still lumbered with most of the rest of it, including the ECJ, the ECHR and free movement.
We leave the ECJ, but our membership of the EHCR is completely separate, and (indeed) we could leave that even if we remained a member of the EU. (Although it would be slightly complicated for various reasons.)
I was under the impression that EU membership required ECHR membership, and that sooner or later it would be incorporated into EU Law anyway.
The EU attempted to join the ECHR but the ECHR decided that the EU was not a country and had no legal standing to be a member of the court.
As a result, it cannot and will not become a member, and therefore the treaty terms that refer to it have no legal binding.
I don't see the point of leaving the ECHR provided its rulings are not ultimately binding, and the member country has its own supreme court.
When it comes to the actual vote, MPs of all colours will have just one vote, same as the other 40 million of us. Of course they will pin their colours to their respective In or Out masts but I don't think that it will destroy political careers if their mast isn't tallest after the plebiscite.
It should of course be hedged with the usual caveats, but it seems to broadly confirm the other polling data we've been getting - that Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's vote, particularly with older voters and those who do not live in major urban centres. In other words, his electoral appeal is similar to Miliband's but he lacks Miliband's experience, intelligence or rhetorical ability (and it's not as though Miliband was some sort of latter-day Cicero).
I have been doubtful about the value of polls up to now, due to both methodological problems and the fact that people would take time to adjust to Corbyn who was after all completely unknown until six months ago, but the evidence is starting to become too compelling to ignore. People do not like the government. However, they hate the Leader of the Opposition. People do not like the Conservatives, therefore they actually want to be able to trust Labour. However, while Corbyn is the leader they cannot. Therefore, although the opinion polls would under normal circumstances be showing consistent Labour leads, they are showing consistent Conservative ones. If this is happening even in Wales, which has been solidly Labour for nearly a century, I hate to think what will be happening in the Midlands and the suburban north.
It is all playing out exactly as was predicted here, including by those shrewder Labour-supporting posters who were horrified at what was happening to the party (e.g. @SouthamObserver). But I imagine that will be rather cold comfort to them.
On a betting note, if this poll is even halfway accurate the 1/3 offered on Labour to win under 30 seats looks like extraordinarily good value. Labour hold five seats in north Wales - Alyn and Deeside, Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Clwyd South and Wrexham - and they could all be vulnerable if a chunk of Labour's vote seeps to UKIP (the first two are also somewhat more gentrified than they were ten years ago). In the south, Gower, Cardiff North and Vale of Glamorgan might be under pressure as well. It's not likely even under the completely crazy d'Hondt system operating in Wales that Labour would pick up enough list seats to compensate for such losses.
If a market came out for Labour to get 25 or fewer seats, that might be worth exploring.
Fascinating - could lead to a very interesting result.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
The electoral roll for the referendum - assuming the 16/17 year olds don't get the vote - will be identical to that for a General Election.
Therefore, the people that will be allowed to vote are:
British Citizens Commonwealth Citizens Irish Citizens
Edit to add: this means that Maltese citizens living in the UK get the vote. I think that's the only Commonwealth country in the EU.
There are (I have just discovered) a million commonwealth citizens in the UK, ranging from Australians and New Zealanders on gap years, to Indian economic migrants, and Canadian mining executives.
I don't know how many of them bothered to vote in the last general election, and I couldn't venture how they are likely to vote :-)
What's becoming clearer by the day to me (not least through reading PB comments) is how little understanding both sides have of the opinions held by the other side(s) - and the reasons for those opinions.
In general elections we see politicians wilfully misrepresenting the positions of their opponents as a matter of course and we've come to expect it - sadly.
This referendum is something entirely different though. Most of the misrepresentation is not wilful mischief making but is coming about due to the two sides both being completely genuinely unable to relate to each another and having no insight at all into why their opponents hold the views that they do.
I don't in any way exempt myself from this criticism, by the way.
What's becoming clearer by the day to me (not least through reading PB comments) is how little understanding both sides have of the opinions held by the other side(s) - and the reasons for those opinions.
In general elections we see politicians wilfully misrepresenting the positions of their opponents as a matter of course and we've come to expect it - sadly.
This referendum is something entirely different though. Most of the misrepresentation is not wilful mischief making but is coming about due to the two sides both being completely genuinely unable to relate to each another and having no insight at all into why their opponents hold the views that they do.
I don't in any way exempt myself from this criticism, by the way.
Having gone alphabet soup blind, if we Leave - does that then mean we ditch the ECJ and ECHR? Everything seems deliberately entwined.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
That's a complicated question. Every EFTA/EEA country, for example, is a member of Schengen - but that's by choice rather than obligation. Switzerland voted to join Schengen in a referendum entirely of their own accord a decade ago, for example.
There are certain areas where we would completely leave EU jurisdiction - on matters of fisheries and agriculture policy, for example. And the cost of being in the single market would be substantially lower.
However, we would continue to allow member of EU states to live and work in the UK. (Something I regard as the only good thing the EU has brought us, but a deal breaker for many.) As Richard_Tyndall has pointed out in the past, however, there are certain things that EFTA/EEA countries can do that EU countries cannot; such as requiring registration of non-citizens at the local police station.
How many REMAIN people would stay remain people if Cameron failed to get any concession of substance protecting non-Eurozone countries from Eurozone members winning any changes they want under QMV ?
Suppose for instance all he was able to achieve was a "[insert colour] emergency brake" that delayed implementation of the voted on changes for a year or two.
According to the Ashcroft poll, REMAIN people are unlikely to change their minds. Neither are the LEAVE people. The people who matter are the 13% undecided who will vote whichever way Dave recommends. Clearly Dave is going to recommend REMAIN and that's what it's going to be.
Yeah, but then they are Poruguese citizens, not Guniea-Bissau ones.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
A passport doesn't alter where people really come from, but it does change their rights and entitlements. Any country, as the Greeks threatened, can basically do whatever it likes. Inevitably, a common asylum and immigration policy will be demanded to prevent this.
The march is inexorable. In any union, everyone has to play by the rules and accept the terms of involvement. If you can't change or set the rules, you either leave or succumb to relative powerlessness.
A vote to Remain is a vote for closer union. It's unavoidable. With every problem, there will be a demand for greater harmonisation and uniformity and less national independence.
As a result, it cannot and will not become a member, and therefore the treaty terms that refer to it have no legal binding.
How close to a USE would it have to become before it came back into consideration again ? A political entity controlling a geographic area with borders and having the means (EU Border Force / EU Army) to control and enforce those borders..
Fascinating - could lead to a very interesting result.
I think the importance of Wales will be whether Corbyn manages to increase his share of the vote in the Valleys at the expense of forfeiting marginal seats elsewhere, which is what we should probably expect to happen on the basis of this poll. If of course that does happen, and Corbyn continues the said strategy until 2020, it is entirely possible Labour will increase its share of the vote in the next general election while still losing a large number of seats. That is of course also a possible explanation for Oldham - that a left-wing constituency voted happily for a left-wing leader, although that does beg the question of why both UKIP and the Labour party thought Corbyn was playing badly on the doorstep (shy Jezziah factor, maybe)?
Wales is a good case study because there is only one really marginal seat - Llanelli - where a core vote strategy based on very Left-wing values would be unambiguously popular, and as that is a PC/Labour fight it doesn't really count in the wider scheme of things (it would be the equivalent of Labour taking seats off/fending off the Greens, which is of course a possibility under Corbyn). Moreover, it is a country where years of painstaking detoxification and rebuilding from the ground up have been pursued by the Tories since the total annihilation they suffered in 1997, along the lines of Cameron's national project but perhaps more effectively pursued by Bourne and his amiable, sensible helpers Glyn Davies and David Melding, sometimes rather hindered by David Davies and Darren Millar.
If, on the other hand, the majority of those seats I have listed remain Labour or even (unlikely but something we must consider) have increased majorities we have to start taking seriously the possibility that Labour could do rather better than expected nationwide in 2020, although unless something very dramatic happens in Scotland it is hard to see them winning a majority any time soon.
Maybe I'm being naive too, but I don't see a huge intra-Party war either.
Those who are keen on either side are already well known - the rest are just, well the rest. I don't see the EU ref being divisive in the same way SIndy was either.
Some hotheads will make charlies of themselves, but we've got the referendum. Whichever loses will be sore and complain they woz robbed. The rest of us will carry on. Assuming Leave loses, I'd expect a firm Eurosceptic to become Tory leader.
When it comes to the actual vote, MPs of all colours will have just one vote, same as the other 40 million of us. Of course they will pin their colours to their respective In or Out masts but I don't think that it will destroy political careers if their mast isn't tallest after the plebiscite.
Some hotheads will make charlies of themselves, but we've got the referendum. Whichever loses will be sore and complain they woz robbed. The rest of us will carry on. Assuming Leave loses, I'd expect a firm Eurosceptic to become Tory leader.
If the EU overplays its hand at this point, as it tends to, things could get interesting. Say EU Border Force officials trying to override the decisions of the local constabulary at the Channel Tunnel, especially if it results in more illegals being able to gain entry through the tunnel.
Would it be fair to note that areas most effected by EU immigration [rather than non-EU] are in coastal, or rural poor areas where UKIP has done pretty well?
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives.
The idea that people don't see enormously changed communities because of EU immigration, then send their kids to school, visit GPs, see rocketing house prices and then feel it doesn't impact on their lives is a bewildering perspective.
The electoral roll for the referendum - assuming the 16/17 year olds don't get the vote - will be identical to that for a General Election.
Therefore, the people that will be allowed to vote are:
British Citizens Commonwealth Citizens Irish Citizens
Edit to add: this means that Maltese citizens living in the UK get the vote. I think that's the only Commonwealth country in the EU.
There are (I have just discovered) a million commonwealth citizens in the UK, ranging from Australians and New Zealanders on gap years, to Indian economic migrants, and Canadian mining executives.
I don't know how many of them bothered to vote in the last general election, and I couldn't venture how they are likely to vote :-)
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
They can become citizens if granted the citizenship by Portugal.
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
Yeah, but then they are Poruguese citizens, not Guniea-Bissau ones.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
I seem to recall Portugal granting full rights to people from Macau while we did *not* to people from Hong-Kong.
What's becoming clearer by the day to me (not least through reading PB comments) is how little understanding both sides have of the opinions held by the other side(s) - and the reasons for those opinions.
In general elections we see politicians wilfully misrepresenting the positions of their opponents as a matter of course and we've come to expect it - sadly.
This referendum is something entirely different though. Most of the misrepresentation is not wilful mischief making but is coming about due to the two sides both being completely genuinely unable to relate to each another and having no insight at all into why their opponents hold the views that they do.
I don't in any way exempt myself from this criticism, by the way.
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
They can become citizens if granted the citizenship by Portugal.
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
Yeah, but then they are Poruguese citizens, not Guniea-Bissau ones.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
I seem to recall Portugal granting full rights to people from Macau while we did *not* to people from Hong-Kong.
For some explicable reason we felt letting a million or so industrious businessmen and their families into the UK was a bad idea, but were completely relaxed about say Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU with the same nett effect, but rather less industry... See the rather interesting architectural developments in Paris that resulted http://goo.gl/hNyFPd
''Leave just needs the right messenger. It obviously isn't Farage,''
No wonder Dave is desperate to get Boris inside the tent, p8ssing out
Leave doesn't need another colourful but flaky messenger. My expectation is that Boris Johnson will campaign for Remain and that Theresa May will campaign for Leave, based on their respective self-interest.
The impact on Caroline Lucas at GE2020 would be fascinating - she's resigned from STW and Greenies in Brighton screwed up running the council in a fairly acrimonious and cack-handed way.
Fascinating - could lead to a very interesting result.
Wales is a good case study because there is only one really marginal seat - Llanelli - where a core vote strategy based on very Left-wing values would be unambiguously popular, and as that is a PC/Labour fight it doesn't really count in the wider scheme of things (it would be the equivalent of Labour taking seats off/fending off the Greens, which is of course a possibility under Corbyn).
The benefits issue really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Without the aid of housing benefit and tax credits, London would not be seeing families with children coming over from Lithuania, Guinea-Bissau, Slovakia etc then being housed at £15k pa rent plus up to £20k a year in tax credits/Child benefit etc etc.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger.
Surely Guinea-Bissau is not a member of the EU and therefore its citizens have no right to reside here.
Portuguese colonial arrangement.
Yes; but they are not Portuguese citizens. It's like the way Australians and New Zealanders can easily get visas to work in the UK under "working holiday arrangements", but that doesn't enable them to go to France and work.
They can become citizens if granted the citizenship by Portugal.
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
Yeah, but then they are Poruguese citizens, not Guniea-Bissau ones.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
I seem to recall Portugal granting full rights to people from Macau while we did *not* to people from Hong-Kong.
For some explicable reason we felt letting a million or so industrious businessmen and their families into the UK was a bad idea, but were completely relaxed about say Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU with the same nett effect, but rather less industry... See the rather interesting architectural developments in Paris that resulted http://goo.gl/hNyFPd
'I have no idea whether it will work or not but the claim that this was ever a serious renegotiation of our relationship has been shown to be laughably false.'
Agree there is nothing to address the top voter concern which is immigration. If this had been addressed I would have voted Remain.
My Google Fu isn't up to much, but there was a DT article intv with Delors IIRC who said political union was always on the cards, since a common currency without one was obviously nonsense - but they knew they couldn't talk about it back then.
'I have no idea whether it will work or not but the claim that this was ever a serious renegotiation of our relationship has been shown to be laughably false.'
Agree there is nothing to address the top voter concern which is immigration. If this had been addressed I would have voted Remain.
Whereas if it was resolved to your satisfaction then I'd vote Leave. Backwards to most I appreciate but the benefits of open migration from and to Europe are what makes the rest of the EU worth it to me. Unusual maybe but not unique.
Edit: I suppose the corollary to my post is that I think the logical position for you is to vote Leave although I'd want you to vote Remain.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
I think Mr Cummings point was given their views in the first case, it was unlikely that the ECJ would look with benevolence on the governments appeal in relation to the second case.
Either that or he just wanted a scare story about UK domestic courts cutting down UK Acts as illegal based, extremely loosely, a reference to the Charter which we are supposed to have an opt out of.
I am sure you will be proved right....
The outcome of that case shows the real problem with the EU by the way. The Commission had used the safe harbour provisions in the Directive to allow data to go to the US. The CJE held this was illegal and they had to inquire and be satisfied that the US law gives the same protections as the Directive gives us.
This sort of stupidity is completely incompatible with the realities of international trade and IT. It is anti competitive and frankly just stupid. So much EU legislation seems to have been drafted by the relatives of King Cnute.
Have been looking through some old papers and in November 1951 there is a headline 'During a Conservative victory dance, held at Sidcup on Saturday, Edward Heath (Bexley) shares a joke with his great friends, Pat Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst) and Margaret Roberts (Dartford)'
I can't see how anyone can now argue that a vote to Remain would be anything other than, at best, exactly what we have now and most likely yet more integration. As we have said since this whole charade started, Cameron has never been interested in any real reform and simply wants the bare minimum to keep the UK inside the EU.
I have no idea whether it will work or not but the claim that this was ever a serious renegotiation of our relationship has been shown to be laughably false.
Anyone that thinks things will stay as they are should take a gander at Mr Cumming's recent blog entry.
Prisoners will be getting the vote regardsless of a massive majority in our parliament requiring that this does not happen. More tellingly
In a little noticed case in July 2015, the Divisional Court in London struck down the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 for inconsistency with the Charter. Nothing in today’s ruling suggests the Government’s appeal against that ruling will be successful. In fact, the reverse is true. Despite ‘security’ being the theme of the Conservative Party conference, a foreign court, rather than the British Parliament, will now decide what is necessary to protect the UK’s national security.
Dominic Cummings of the Vote Leave Campaign. You forgot to mention perhaps.
Now you have played the man, how about trying to play the ball, or is the Divisional Court a member of vote leave as well. What is it with tribal Tories and cheap point scoring, are you afraid of the actual issues ? is Felix a Tory?
With Osborne and Johnson looking like walking into the Remain lobby,leading Leave could be May's trump card in the forthcoming Tory leadership election.
Comments
Look, we had negotiations and the people voted IN, you are now fully fledged Europhiles.
I'm happy to say if that is the case I will immediately relinquish my interest in current affairs and roll over. That can be interpreted as pique or sulking, but I love living here and will disappointedly resign myself to the fact that our parliament will be an increasingly irrelevant organisation. And most importantly there won't be a thing we can do to change it.
The EU doesn't touch his life much day to day as far as he's concerned. He uses Euros on his holidays and that's about it. He glazes over when people talk about federalism, United States of Europe and all that.
However, the EU remains a meddling, grubby, bureaucratic monstrosity that will collapse sooner or later.
We'll leave. It's just a question of whether it's through the ballot box in a relatively civilised way, or staggering out of the smoking ruins when the decrepit edifice crumbles under its own weight.
The divisional court case, as described by Mr Cummings, is a different question about the translation of an EU directive into our domestic law.
But I'll vote Leave just because I'm still miffed about the big lies told in 1975 (I bear a grudge).
"No, no, it's nothing to do with political union at all, it's a trading bloc. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar." ... Tee-hee-hee, that's fooled them.
The negative trade balance with Europe; the influx of people that places pressures on schooling, housing, healthcare, wages at the bottom etc; the likelihood of continued inward immigration with the potential for Turkey (and it's porous Syrian/Iraqi borders), among others, joining.
A fall in immigration, even a reversal, would improve the prospects of those at the bottom and in the middle when it comes to getting an affordable home, getting better pay for their labour, getting better access to schools and care etc.
London has far too many people in it who are only here because the lunacy of the welfare state and the EU makes it possible.
The EU was initially envisaged as a union among a group of nations that were similarly wealthy and similarly skilled. It has now allowed cheap labour to flood in. That provides the owners of capital with great advantage, but does very little to improve the lot of the less well off.
Quite a few on here have been moving into the Leave camp - but I'd be surprised if any of the discussions about the EU had much to do with it.
I hope Leave gets their act together - I want them to win. You want the opposite. You must be chuffed at how useless they are right now.
Most people don't actually care that much about membership - it doesn't impinge on their daily lives. They have vague feelings for or against being linked up, but relatively scanty evidence will swing it for many either way. "Your job might be doomed if we leave" is probably at present the only real vote-decider in the room. "Something is being done about benefits and Cameron's made an effort" is second division but will also help Remain a bit.
Way back when Major was PM, I endured hours of the Today prog grilling Cash, Redwood et al about subsidiarity, federalism and the horrors of a United States of Europe. I didn't have a clue what they were talking about, and cared less. I still glaze over when these subjects come up.
What has surprised me is how the debate has become about party allegiance and personality, I totally get that plenty don't like Farage and UKIP, it seems that some will vote IN just to wipe the smile off his face. IN seem to be keeping their divisive figures out of the way for now, it will be interested to see the undecided tribal Tories after a debate with Mandelson and Farage, I guess that will lead to lots of abstentions.
I understand party loyalty in GEs, party politics really must be cast aside on this occasion, some are finding that very difficult.
Why do you pay UK tax when you are no longer domiciled in the UK? I can see you might have to account to the UK for a pension paid from here but if the ex pat gets a job in a bar, for example, surely he or she pays tax locally on the money earned there?
That is the message we have to hammer home, that our PM is cap in hand to Brussels asking for permission to do something. It is an absolute nonsense.
I am fed up with hearing that what ever anyone wants its up to Merkel to decide as the most powerful leader etc etc. Thought there was meant to be equity here? Secondly fed up with money going in and most taking out... Ok not precisely correct but that's what it appears to be. Also fed up with us obeying every EU diktat to the letter while others just ignore them yet we end up constantly in the courts while others seem to get away with it. Ok these are perceptions perhaps but many people have them and you hear this day in and out in the supermarket, down the pub in the train etc etc. I always smile when europe talks about the UK joint the slow lane but compared to most we are in the outside lane here and the EU is the one in the slow lane.
Personally I think Cameron is a hostage to fortune here. He is never going to come back with an agreement that keeps everyone happy even in his own party. The main issue here is nothing is going to be the same after the referendum and how prepared are we really for that?
If we vote to leave then that will throw up any number of issues that will have to be dealt with and to my knowledge no one really knows what they all are as no country has to date left in this way. It won't be friendly I would have thought in fact I can see it being quite acrimonious. Remember nothing must get in the way of the dream, the project the union.
If we vote to stay then the flood gates are truly open because the other leaders around the table will hammer this government and those that come after with the killer fact. Your people voted in and for the European ideal. Expect lots of stuff to reappear on the table including changing to the euro. It is naive to think otherwise. It will start at the first summit after the remain vote is cast.
Of course there is I suppose a third option which has been used on a well travelled road.......
We vote leave, Europe declares the leave decision is not binding < insert crap reason here> ( never underestimate what they can do legal or otherwise) . The vote is taken again..... And again... Until we finally through balloting exhaustion give the correct answer remain. At which point they will all agree that that one vote is binding and cannot be voted on until the next century...... After next.
Cynical maybe? Well yes it is, but anything to do with Europe needs to have a cynical eye cast over it consistently. For example our huge employment being as a result of EU membership well ha! Just like massive unemployment is a result of membership. Oh wait no, .....that's always the fault of the right wing in this country nothing to do with the EU.
C'est la vie.........
If benefits are the only issue holding up a deal then Cameron may be onto a good thing. The crucial issue is our relationship to the Eurozone and how we also work out how we deal with distancing ourselves from 'ever closer union'.
It seems inevitable that we are going to be semi detached from the EU/Eurozone and we are not going to be part of Schengen, so how to we create that arrangement.
There is likely to be no essential difference between Leaving and Staying. Leaving to move to the EEA will make very little difference. We may save some of our contributions but we will lose our votes. To me this is not a bad option, but it will make little difference to our position now.
IIRC EU immigrants won't be allowed to vote, but non-EU will. Can anyone clarify this?
Is there any research that could help us to see which areas will come out most strongly for Leave beyond the Kipper vote which will be short of ethnic minorities, but may be Leavers?
Further: the UK could ignore its obligations under Lisbon at any time and simply repeal the various acts it passed to enter the EU. We would then cease - de jure and de facto - to be a part of the European Union.
The EU has no ability to say "vote again". The only people who can say vote again are our own politicians who would need to pass a law enacting another referendum. (It is also worth remembering that in the UK, referendum have no binding power; they are all legally only advisory. Although any government that failed to respect a referendum would fall.)
For this reason, I think you're last point is unnecessarily paranoid.
Take this subsidised demand away, what happens to rents, school places, house prices, GP services etc in the impacted areas?
If Cameron fails, this is an open goal for Leave with an electorate that is fed up with immigration and the perverse and grotesque behaviour of the welfare system.
Leave just needs the right messenger. It obviously isn't Farage,
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/what-impact-election-jeremy-corbyn-10622324
It should of course be hedged with the usual caveats, but it seems to broadly confirm the other polling data we've been getting - that Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's vote, particularly with older voters and those who do not live in major urban centres. In other words, his electoral appeal is similar to Miliband's but he lacks Miliband's experience, intelligence or rhetorical ability (and it's not as though Miliband was some sort of latter-day Cicero).
I have been doubtful about the value of polls up to now, due to both methodological problems and the fact that people would take time to adjust to Corbyn who was after all completely unknown until six months ago, but the evidence is starting to become too compelling to ignore. People do not like the government. However, they hate the Leader of the Opposition. People do not like the Conservatives, therefore they actually want to be able to trust Labour. However, while Corbyn is the leader they cannot. Therefore, although the opinion polls would under normal circumstances be showing consistent Labour leads, they are showing consistent Conservative ones. If this is happening even in Wales, which has been solidly Labour for nearly a century, I hate to think what will be happening in the Midlands and the suburban north.
It is all playing out exactly as was predicted here, including by those shrewder Labour-supporting posters who were horrified at what was happening to the party (e.g. @SouthamObserver). But I imagine that will be rather cold comfort to them.
On a betting note, if this poll is even halfway accurate the 1/3 offered on Labour to win under 30 seats looks like extraordinarily good value. Labour hold five seats in north Wales - Alyn and Deeside, Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Clwyd South and Wrexham - and they could all be vulnerable if a chunk of Labour's vote seeps to UKIP (the first two are also somewhat more gentrified than they were ten years ago). In the south, Gower, Cardiff North and Vale of Glamorgan might be under pressure as well. It's not likely even under the completely crazy d'Hondt system operating in Wales that Labour would pick up enough list seats to compensate for such losses.
If a market came out for Labour to get 25 or fewer seats, that might be worth exploring.
Suppose for instance all he was able to achieve was a "[insert colour] emergency brake" that delayed implementation of the voted on changes for a year or two.
Therefore, the people that will be allowed to vote are:
British Citizens
Commonwealth Citizens
Irish Citizens
Edit to add: this means that Maltese citizens living in the UK get the vote. I think that's the only Commonwealth country in the EU.
When does joining EEA or whatever mean we end up back where we started?
The rest of the country will vote leave, including some Labour-voting areas in the North.
UKIP do well in Essex and Kent because these places are full of people who will see their C2 incomes under pressure, their grown children struggling to buy houses, their GP and A and E full etc.
Judging by UKIP support levels, I imagine this is replicated in the East Mids, Yorks and Humber, North East etc.
The article in the Telegraph makes it clear that in the event of a call, there will be a charge of almost £26 to the client.
So far no comment from the local MP, but if he got stuck in it might make his seat a bit safer.
There are certain areas where we would completely leave EU jurisdiction - on matters of fisheries and agriculture policy, for example. And the cost of being in the single market would be substantially lower.
However, we would continue to allow member of EU states to live and work in the UK. (Something I regard as the only good thing the EU has brought us, but a deal breaker for many.) As Richard_Tyndall has pointed out in the past, however, there are certain things that EFTA/EEA countries can do that EU countries cannot; such as requiring registration of non-citizens at the local police station.
Anyone who's watched some of the C5 benefits documentaries will know how hot an issue this is. I was fairly sanguine until I saw one about EU immigrant workers playing the system like pros and stacking up small fortunes [their own words] to change their lives beyond their wildest dreams back home.
As a result, it cannot and will not become a member, and therefore the treaty terms that refer to it have no legal binding.
Wonder what Western Isles will do.
I can see how it'd cut both ways - they're here because of a big club, but they may not want other club's here as a rival.
Cometh the hour, cometh the Izzard !
It's no different to us granting citizenship to various people from parts of our defunct empire.
Europe doesn't stop at Europe - it extends to all it's former colonies the moment each individual nation decides it will grant citizenship.
Edit to add: we are by far the most generous granters of citizenship in the whole EU - in fact it's one of the complaints that other EU countris have towards the UK.
Or am I being naive?
I don't know how many of them bothered to vote in the last general election, and I couldn't venture how they are likely to vote :-)
In general elections we see politicians wilfully misrepresenting the positions of their opponents as a matter of course and we've come to expect it - sadly.
This referendum is something entirely different though. Most of the misrepresentation is not wilful mischief making but is coming about due to the two sides both being completely genuinely unable to relate to each another and having no insight at all into why their opponents hold the views that they do.
I don't in any way exempt myself from this criticism, by the way.
It'd be hated by both Inners and Outters.
The complexity makes me just want to go Full Leave, but I'm open to something else. I don't like open borders at all so EEA looks like a no-no to me.
The march is inexorable. In any union, everyone has to play by the rules and accept the terms of involvement. If you can't change or set the rules, you either leave or succumb to relative powerlessness.
A vote to Remain is a vote for closer union. It's unavoidable. With every problem, there will be a demand for greater harmonisation and uniformity and less national independence.
Wales is a good case study because there is only one really marginal seat - Llanelli - where a core vote strategy based on very Left-wing values would be unambiguously popular, and as that is a PC/Labour fight it doesn't really count in the wider scheme of things (it would be the equivalent of Labour taking seats off/fending off the Greens, which is of course a possibility under Corbyn). Moreover, it is a country where years of painstaking detoxification and rebuilding from the ground up have been pursued by the Tories since the total annihilation they suffered in 1997, along the lines of Cameron's national project but perhaps more effectively pursued by Bourne and his amiable, sensible helpers Glyn Davies and David Melding, sometimes rather hindered by David Davies and Darren Millar.
If, on the other hand, the majority of those seats I have listed remain Labour or even (unlikely but something we must consider) have increased majorities we have to start taking seriously the possibility that Labour could do rather better than expected nationwide in 2020, although unless something very dramatic happens in Scotland it is hard to see them winning a majority any time soon.
Those who are keen on either side are already well known - the rest are just, well the rest. I don't see the EU ref being divisive in the same way SIndy was either.
Some hotheads will make charlies of themselves, but we've got the referendum. Whichever loses will be sore and complain they woz robbed. The rest of us will carry on. Assuming Leave loses, I'd expect a firm Eurosceptic to become Tory leader.
And in a few months, none of the knowledge we've dug up will matter too much. Like boning up on a client, then losing the bid...
No wonder Dave is desperate to get Boris inside the tent, p8ssing out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qylj2SuMllw !
'I have no idea whether it will work or not but the claim that this was ever a serious renegotiation of our relationship has been shown to be laughably false.'
Agree there is nothing to address the top voter concern which is immigration.
If this had been addressed I would have voted Remain.
I don't trust politicians and I don't trust some Europhiles after 1975, so even if we vote to leave ... they wuz robbed!
Edit: I suppose the corollary to my post is that I think the logical position for you is to vote Leave although I'd want you to vote Remain.
This sort of stupidity is completely incompatible with the realities of international trade and IT. It is anti competitive and frankly just stupid. So much EU legislation seems to have been drafted by the relatives of King Cnute.
is Felix a Tory?