Mr. K, politicians' relatives will get limited sympathy. Leave should focus on the military when raising this.
I think that bearing in mind the BAE corruption allegations in the past, and the very close relationships between our senior military, MoD staff and BAE, that such scrutiny is long overdue.
There have certainly been a number of curious and expensive military procurements over the years.
The key to understanding military procurement is that the development stage is where the big money is. Hence the anger in certain circles over the original Trident buy - no opportunity for profit in just buying off the shelf.
Over the decades, the military establishment in Whitehall has proved rather good at generating requirements that ensure a custom solution is required. Requirement that often don't make sense and certainly don't match anyone else on the planet. The latest Nimrod comedy was as a direct result of this.
Another example was the bizarre hybrid down spec 'd Chinook helicopters which were customised to the point of not being airworthy. It is worth noting that the original version of the special operations Chinook that this was taken from, served many many years in the US, Australia and elsewhere.
This isn't just a uk problem - back to Trident, the political anger in some quarters in the US, that the replacement will be... Er.... Trident is a pleasure to behold.
But we have a very bad case of it....
The bizarre procurement decisions (carriers with no planes !?!) do need investigation. The Chinooks and Nimrod were farces. We need to know whether these were incompetent or corrupt decisions. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve better, and so do our taxpayers.
Thank you, David, as always. The point, I suppose, is as much to provoke comment as to make a reasoned analysis or rather to dress the former up in the latter. If the analysis provoked no comment, what would be the point in terms of site traffic ?
One could argue the piece is a bit of psychological warfare from Team Cameron aimed at demoralising and destabilising Team LEAVE. What's the point, you've lost already etc, etc. There may be those for whom such comments are the proverbial red rag to the metaphorical bull.
The rather misleading comments about the AV referendum notwithstanding, I do see a number of key differences between then and now and between that referendum and the forthcoming EU question. Cameron's only message is "Trust Me" and that worked well enough in 2015 when, to be honest, the Conservatives had a paucity of positive reasons to vote Conservative and it may work again now but the longer the campaign goes on, the greater the risk the bond of trust between Cameron and the electorate (let alone between Cameron and the Conservative Party) will fragment.
LEAVE is potentially well funded and well resourced with plenty of foot soldiers and most people haven't given it the slightest thought as yet. Once there's a date in the diary so to speak, the engagement process can begin - this is all Phoney War sniping at this stage.
Grayling's comments this week may have left the PM's office "relaxed" but the fact Cameron has conceded the right of even Cabinet Ministers to campaign for LEAVE is astonishing. Wilson did this in 1975 but he had the advantage of being able to remain neutral which Cameron doesn't. The sight of Conservatives on opposing platforms may be argued by some as a mark of a civilised debate but could be regarded as a sign of disunity.
I do agree LEAVE needs to offer a coherent alternative message - I've long argued Britain could rejoin EFTA and reform that organisation making it a free market (if you will) alternative to the EU. The size and strength of the British economy would transform EFTA into a serious force and provide that counterpoint to the anti-federalist sentiments in the rest of the EU which currently have nowhere to go.
David may attempt to trivialise the EU Referendum and assert it's Game Over but I disagree with that profoundly and suspect there's plenty of fun (and betting opportunities) to be had before a single vote is cast.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
One problem of BoJo or May leading Leave is that their motivations would be suspect and likely to annoy other prominent Leavers. Both are fairly plainly looking to get the Tory Leadership, so each twist in the campaign would be pored over in the media (and even more on here) over how the twist affects their chances.
In other words the Leave campaign would become increasingly and totally bound up in internal Tory wranglings and cease to speak to the wider country. It looks like Tory voters are the marginal voters who could swing the referendum, but ignoring the others is risky.
I know what you mean but they're kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. Those that keep quiet and go along with the PM will be seen as not true Eurosceptics. It all gets very complicated as one could argue that the best thing in terms of the Tory leadership would be to win a moral victory against the PM by making the case to leave, even if the vote was to Remain.
I think that the next Tory leader will be a Leaver, but ironically one in charge of a country that voted Remain. It will be Sindyref mark 2.
If only we had a decent, credible opposition then the Tories would be toast in 2020.
A decent credible opposition would make a decent credible government. It is absurd to pretend that the current labour party will make a credible government. It's very membership never mind it's MPs are quite bonkers and look like remaining so. I do not see it ever making a credible government. If it ever elects someone with more wit and wisdom than Corbyn the crackpot membership will still stand behind it. So stop sneering at the conservatives. They are far and away the closest to a sane govt we have got and likely to have for generations as far as I can see.
He will always sneer at conservatives - they threaten the cosy position doctors have - and want to keep - in the 'people's' (sic) NHS.
Also interesting to note, on the subject of Moeen Ali, that after 20 tests Anderson had a bowling average of 39. He now has one of 29 and 428 wickets.
The two cases are not strictly comparable, because the problem in Anderson's case was chronic mismanagement by the England coaching staff. But it's instructive to think that had he been discarded, the England teams of the last 7 years would have looked VERY different.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
There is however (I would have thought) a very foreground concern amongst voters for their jobs. People (that's voters) come into contact with EU migrant workers every day of their lives and see them doing jobs no one else wants or are not available for. Voters see (or should see) that EU migrant workers are a sign of the success of our economy. To a certain degree it does also mark a failure of our social system.
Mr. tpfkar, if Remain wins, as I expect, do you think in 20 years' time we'll have the exact same relationship with the EU?
Leave is the more dramatic, immediate change. Remain is the change of a frog in slowly boiling water.
The issue now that we have been forced into a referendum is, when remain inevitably wins, we will be in a position of weakness when fighting against EU stupidity, because "the people have spoken" and said they wish to remain with all the baggage that entails.
A referendum that is going to result in a remain decision is the single stupidest thing that this country has done for some time.
Another excellent post from David Herdson. Even though I profoundly disagree with it - for reasons that can be found within the post itself!
It's not personality that's holding back Leave, it's lack of a credible narrative about what happens next. Would the EU go on trading with us on our terms? How would our relationship with the rest of the English-speaking world evolve? Is it enough for Remain to win by one vote, or does it need to win in shire England as well as in London, Scotland and Wales? Isn't the timing of the referendum a reflection of the needs of the governing Party (as it was in 1975) rather than of the national interest?
My heart says Leave, my head says Remain. I believe that almost all the undecided split that way, rather than the reverse. And that's why Leave has to answer the questions I pose in the previous paragraph. It is probably true, as DH suggests, that Leave cannot find an intellectually credible spokesperson to answer them - but the Leavers on this board can't do that either. They are more interested in feeling good about themselves than they are in persuasion.
But the reason why there is no credible narrative fro Leave as to what 'leave' looks like is because thereis noone to marshal Leave's forces, bring them together around a vision and advocate it - or, which is the alternative, to coordinate the advocacy of a range of alternatives in a way that doesn't confuse or contradict.
Yes, but will politically disengaged people think there is a need for "what Leave looks like" other than just being outside the EU? The question of what exactly would happen is quite technical. Most people haven't heard of the EEA, EFTA etc or that there are implications for VAT or whatever.
Of course, Remain will *tell* them that all kinds of bad stuff will happen if they vote Leave. Remain may not be believed though. The only competent advocate Remain has is Cameron.
It depends on the individual. I've always felt that if a partnership isn't working, and doesn't look like it's going to improve, then it's best to end it, rather than agonise over what the alternatives will be.
That may well be ok for a couple in a hapless marriage - don't think you can just scale it up so simply as you seem to suggest.
Another excellent post from David Herdson. Even though I profoundly disagree with it - for reasons that can be found within the post itself!
It's not personality that's holding back Leave, it's lack of a credible narrative about what happens next. Would the EU go on trading with us on our terms? How would our relationship with the rest of the English-speaking world evolve? Is it enough for Remain to win by one vote, or does it need to win in shire England as well as in London, Scotland and Wales? Isn't the timing of the referendum a reflection of the needs of the governing Party (as it was in 1975) rather than of the national interest?
My heart says Leave, my head says Remain. I believe that almost all the undecided split that way, rather than the reverse. And that's why Leave has to answer the questions I pose in the previous paragraph. It is probably true, as DH suggests, that Leave cannot find an intellectually credible spokesperson to answer them - but the Leavers on this board can't do that either. They are more interested in feeling good about themselves than they are in persuasion.
But the reason why there is no credible narrative fro Leave as to what 'leave' looks like is because thereis noone to marshal Leave's forces, bring them together around a vision and advocate it - or, which is the alternative, to coordinate the advocacy of a range of alternatives in a way that doesn't confuse or contradict.
Yes, but will politically disengaged people think there is a need for "what Leave looks like" other than just being outside the EU? The question of what exactly would happen is quite technical. Most people haven't heard of the EEA, EFTA etc or that there are implications for VAT or whatever.
Of course, Remain will *tell* them that all kinds of bad stuff will happen if they vote Leave. Remain may not be believed though. The only competent advocate Remain has is Cameron.
It depends on the individual. I've always felt that if a partnership isn't working, and doesn't look like it's going to improve, then it's best to end it, rather than agonise over what the alternatives will be.
That may well be ok for a couple in a hapless marriage - don't think you can just scale it up so simply as you seem to suggest.
I was thinking more in business terms. I view our relationship with the EU as a business transaction.
Another excellent post from David Herdson. Even though I profoundly disagree with it - for reasons that can be found within the post itself!
It's not personality that's holding back Leave, it's lack of a credible narrative about what happens next. Would the EU go on trading with us on our terms? How would our relationship with the rest of the English-speaking world evolve? Is it enough for Remain to win by one vote, or does it need to win in shire England as well as in London, Scotland and Wales? Isn't the timing of the referendum a reflection of the needs of the governing Party (as it was in 1975) rather than of the national interest?
My heart says Leave, my head says Remain. I believe that almost all the undecided split that way, rather than the reverse. And that's why Leave has to answer the questions I pose in the previous paragraph. It is probably true, as DH suggests, that Leave cannot find an intellectually credible spokesperson to answer them - but the Leavers on this board can't do that either. They are more interested in feeling good about themselves than they are in persuasion.
But the reason why there is no credible narrative fro Leave as to what 'leave' looks like is because thereis noone to marshal Leave's forces, bring them together around a vision and advocate it - or, which is the alternative, to coordinate the advocacy of a range of alternatives in a way that doesn't confuse or contradict.
Yes, but will politically disengaged people think there is a need for "what Leave looks like" other than just being outside the EU? The question of what exactly would happen is quite technical. Most people haven't heard of the EEA, EFTA etc or that there are implications for VAT or whatever.
Of course, Remain will *tell* them that all kinds of bad stuff will happen if they vote Leave. Remain may not be believed though. The only competent advocate Remain has is Cameron.
1-0 is still a win.
Yes, i think Leave does need some kind of position. Intellectually, it's not necessary; politically, it will be. Otherwise, Remain will make hay over the divisions and internal contradictions within Leave.
One problem of BoJo or May leading Leave is that their motivations would be suspect and likely to annoy other prominent Leavers. Both are fairly plainly looking to get the Tory Leadership, so each twist in the campaign would be pored over in the media (and even more on here) over how the twist affects their chances.
In other words the Leave campaign would become increasingly and totally bound up in internal Tory wranglings and cease to speak to the wider country. It looks like Tory voters are the marginal voters who could swing the referendum, but ignoring the others is risky.
I know what you mean but they're kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. Those that keep quiet and go along with the PM will be seen as not true Eurosceptics. It all gets very complicated as one could argue that the best thing in terms of the Tory leadership would be to win a moral victory against the PM by making the case to leave, even if the vote was to Remain.
I think that the next Tory leader will be a Leaver, but ironically one in charge of a country that voted Remain. It will be Sindyref mark 2.
If only we had a decent, credible opposition then the Tories would be toast in 2020.
A decent credible opposition would make a decent credible government. It is absurd to pretend that the current labour party will make a credible government. It's very membership never mind it's MPs are quite bonkers and look like remaining so. I do not see it ever making a credible government. If it ever elects someone with more wit and wisdom than Corbyn the crackpot membership will still stand behind it. So stop sneering at the conservatives. They are far and away the closest to a sane govt we have got and likely to have for generations as far as I can see.
He will always sneer at conservatives - they threaten the cosy position doctors have - and want to keep - in the 'people's' (sic) NHS.
I am not getting at Fox, although people in the isolated positions like doctors or others in the NHS do end up talking to each other all the time. I do not think doctors have all that cosy a position. GPs have had their salaries squeezed quite a bit and so I can understand why they are less than happy. From my experience they work long hours and not just frpm seeing patients but in running theit practice. But the NHS as a whole has huge sums of money at its disposal and I think GPS should be wondering why more of it is not coming their way and should be demanding more efficiency. Well frankly what they should be demanding is more consensus and less its uses as a political football and litmus test of government.
Mr. tpfkar, if Remain wins, as I expect, do you think in 20 years' time we'll have the exact same relationship with the EU?
Leave is the more dramatic, immediate change. Remain is the change of a frog in slowly boiling water.
The issue now that we have been forced into a referendum is, when remain inevitably wins, we will be in a position of weakness when fighting against EU stupidity, because "the people have spoken" and said they wish to remain with all the baggage that entails.
A referendum that is going to result in a remain decision is the single stupidest thing that this country has done for some time.
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation. In addition even if I'm completely wrong the country through its elected government could walk away from the EU at any time. I agree the eurozone will move closer - the € cannot survive unless it does - but I even doubt if even all of them will join project USE. The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
Well frankly what they should be demanding is more consensus and less its uses as a political football and litmus test of government.
That is every teacher's dream as well. Standard response at interviews to the 'what do you hate?' trick question is always, 'the political interference in our profession which is done to get good headlines rather than promote the educational achievement of children.'
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
Perhaps the key is whether Remain really gets momentum from Cameron's triumphant return or whether that effect is short-lived.
This isn't quite like 1975. The EU was a new experience then. The media were generally pro. Leading Conservative politicians were almost all pro. There were credible heavyweight Labour figures campaigning for In. I'm doubtful that Cameron and whoever lines up with him can substitute for all that.
Would prefer to be proved wrong, even it costs me.
But the dynamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
One, of course, wonders how long that "basis" will survive any serious analysis. So far, the "negotiation" is rather akin to John Nance Garner's take on the Vice-Presidency.
Again, you're back to "Trust Dave" and that's basically all REMAIN has to be honest since there's going to be little or nothing significant once Cameron returns with his "I have in my hand an email bearing Frau Merkel's digital signature" moment.
LEAVE needs a single coherent narrative, agreed, but the stench of complacency around REMAIN is nauseating at the moment. As we've seen, external events could suddenly change the tone of the debate and not necessarily to REMAIN's advantage.
Mr. K, politicians' relatives will get limited sympathy. Leave should focus on the military when raising this.
I think that bearing in mind the BAE corruption allegations in the past, and the very close relationships between our senior military, MoD staff and BAE, that such scrutiny is long overdue.
There have certainly been a number of curious and expensive military procurements over the years.
The key to understanding military procurement is that the development stage is where the big money is. Hence the anger in certain circles over the original Trident buy - no opportunity for profit in just buying off the shelf.
Over the decades, the military establishment in Whitehall has proved rather good at generating requirements that ensure a custom solution is required. Requirement that often don't make sense and certainly don't match anyone else on the planet. The latest Nimrod comedy was as a direct result of this.
Another example was the bizarre hybrid down spec 'd Chinook helicopters which were customised to the point of not being airworthy. It is worth noting that the original version of the special operations Chinook that this was taken from, served many many years in the US, Australia and elsewhere.
This isn't just a uk problem - back to Trident, the political anger in some quarters in the US, that the replacement will be... Er.... Trident is a pleasure to behold.
But we have a very bad case of it....
The bizarre procurement decisions (carriers with no planes !?!) do need investigation. The Chinooks and Nimrod were farces. We need to know whether these were incompetent or corrupt decisions. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve better, and so do our taxpayers.
The bit in the Carriers-with-no-planes thing that needs investigating was the insane quote to install catapults and wires.
Shows the design for the angled deck - there would be virtually no structural modification for an angled flight desk...
Note the fury with which the decision not to convert to CATOBAR was greeted with in certain circles - all those nice juicy billions evaporated.
Senior civil servants and military personal "get experience" creating requirements. This experience gets them jobs when they retire. From there it is a short step to creating requirements that create work.
Mr. tpfkar, if Remain wins, as I expect, do you think in 20 years' time we'll have the exact same relationship with the EU?
Leave is the more dramatic, immediate change. Remain is the change of a frog in slowly boiling water.
Of course not, in the same way my council won't have the exact same relationship with the Government in 20 years.
Put it this way (to steal SeanF''s analogy) I wouldn't expect to have the exact same relationship with my wife in 20 years but I very much hope we will still be married. And no question which outcome relates to change, and which to stability.
A lucid summary as ever, but slightly misses the point for me - though I agree that 'Remain' are on course to win. For me its about fear and uncertainty, that's what decided the referendum result in Scotland for 'No', and in my opinion what decided the election result for the Tories. Currently 'Remain' have fear and uncertainty firmly in their arsenal (on an utterly unjustified basis), and they have the people (namely the entire establishment) with the authority to enforce this message, not to mention the megaphone of the mass media to spread it. And this is what Cameron plans to do: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/scary-monsters-david-cameron-will-invoke-the-threat-of-jihadis-russia-and-crime-to-win-an-eu-invote/
To have a hope of winning, Leave have to endeavour to inspire an equal or greater lack of confidence in a future within the EU, and also to unravel and undermine Cameron and his team's positions and motivations in a mentally assimilable way. It's a tall order but nothing's impossible.
Well frankly what they should be demanding is more consensus and less its uses as a political football and litmus test of government.
That is every teacher's dream as well. Standard response at interviews to the 'what do you hate?' trick question is always, 'the political interference in our profession which is done to get good headlines rather than promote the educational achievement of children.'
When political parties all agree on something, that's when you know they are wrong...
Mr Stodge .... How did Wilson remain neutral in the 75 referendum? Wilson himself said the renegotiation aims had been substantially although not completely achieved. His government was one with a relatively small majority but survived the referendum comfortably. Wi!son said ministers could speak freely on the issue but must support govt policies at the despatch box. In 75, Scotland was the least interested in the EC.
A national poll Friday showed that Germans are becoming increasingly concerned about the country's ability to integrate the huge numbers of asylum-seekers who arrived last year.
Sixty-six per cent of the 1,203 respondents said Germany cannot handle the migrant influx, up from 46 per cent in December.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Mr. K, politicians' relatives will get limited sympathy. Leave should focus on the military when raising this.
I think that bearing in mind the BAE corruption allegations in the past, and the very close relationships between our senior military, MoD staff and BAE, that such scrutiny is long overdue.
There have certainly been a number of curious and expensive military procurements over the years.
.......
Much of it is explainable due to the long lead times for development. When a project is initiated the requirements are specified. As the project goes on, not only do requirements get dropped due to cost overruns, but the external threats alter as well. The Typhoon has suffered somewhat from this, in addition to its multinational nature. To deal with this, there is a tendency to try to think of all possible threats at project initiation, and design kit to match as many of them as possible.
that gets into the real story... Essentially you start out trying to build a light recon vehicle and infantry carrier. Then the projects get combined. Then weapons and armour get added. Then it weighs as much as an MBT. Then it gets cancelled.
The Bradley got bought half weigh through the second last step. And actually turned out to be a very useful and survivable vehicle.
This is all because the same people who want an a vehicle that can survive anything want it to weigh 10 tons.... The book above points out that infantry vehicle doctrine is not to charge to the front with sabots bouncing off the glacis plate - but that was what the "reform" types wanted. With air mobility.
Interestingly, the US is currently back to the MBT class infantry vehicle in the design process (GCV) - no wait, they've cancelled that. It got too heavy.. :-)
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation. In addition even if I'm completely wrong the country through its elected government could walk away from the EU at any time. I agree the eurozone will move closer - the € cannot survive unless it does - but I even doubt if even all of them will join project USE. The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
There has perhaps been an implicit threat that the UK would walk away if not given opt-outs etc, which will be diminished after a Remain vote. However, I think I agree with you insofar as the issue wouldn't stay settled for long. The UK would remain sceptical in tone for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Strictly speaking this is a political betting blog and a lot of the political discussion isn't really related to betting (not even tangentially as we are often talking about things that happened in the past). One could argue that a discussion about the state of play in the test is just as on-topic as one about the last election.
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation. In addition even if I'm completely wrong the country through its elected government could walk away from the EU at any time. I agree the eurozone will move closer - the € cannot survive unless it does - but I even doubt if even all of them will join project USE. The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
There has perhaps been an implicit threat that the UK would walk away if not given opt-outs etc, which will be diminished after a Remain vote. However, I think I agree with you insofar as the issue wouldn't stay settled for long. The UK would remain sceptical in tone for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
Oh, that's a relief, I am glad we'll remain 'sceptical in tone' - that'll really show them.
I am sure I have read this thread at least six times before but since everyone is repeating their oft stated views I might as well join in.
It is not possible for anyone to state what the UK's eventual relationship with the EU will be in the event we vote to leave because that will depend on negotiations that will be carried out by people other than those campaigning to leave and cannot start until after a leave vote has happened. Therefore, if those campaigning to leave were to say "Vote and out and this will be the future" they would be dishonest and, rightly, open to attack on the basis that they were promising something that cannot be guaranteed.
Mr. Stoge made the very good point that the Remain campaign has yet to start and will not get going until the results of Cameron's negotiations are known. I would suggest the same is true for Leave. My memory is not what it used to be, but did not Cameron say in a speech in 2013 (?) that the UK should leave unless it could come up with a whole new deal with a reformed EU? He even set out areas that had to be reformed. So take Cameron at his word and compare what he said then with what he eventually gets. There is a basis for a debate, that requires no dishonesty, no false premises and no scare stories.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation. In addition even if I'm completely wrong the country through its elected government could walk away from the EU at any time. I agree the eurozone will move closer - the € cannot survive unless it does - but I even doubt if even all of them will join project USE. The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
There has perhaps been an implicit threat that the UK would walk away if not given opt-outs etc, which will be diminished after a Remain vote. However, I think I agree with you insofar as the issue wouldn't stay settled for long. The UK would remain sceptical in tone for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
Oh, that's a relief, I am glad we'll remain 'sceptical in tone' - that'll really show them.
It won't be any different from the last X years is my point.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation. In addition even if I'm completely wrong the country through its elected government could walk away from the EU at any time. I agree the eurozone will move closer - the € cannot survive unless it does - but I even doubt if even all of them will join project USE. The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
There has perhaps been an implicit threat that the UK would walk away if not given opt-outs etc, which will be diminished after a Remain vote. However, I think I agree with you insofar as the issue wouldn't stay settled for long. The UK would remain sceptical in tone for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
Oh, that's a relief, I am glad we'll remain 'sceptical in tone' - that'll really show them.
Hey now, that's the EU equivalent of a rebellion, don't knock it. Maybe sometimes there will even be a carefully worded rebuke. That's like a nuclear attack. But only done if pre agreed so mrs Merkel doesn't frown at us, as that would put us beyond the point of no return.
What a staggeringly complacent thread. I hope this is the general level of thinking among Europhiles.
I'm glad you posted that, the assumptions made by the Leavers on here are puzzling. As somebody points out below, these polls are too close to draw any firm conclusions from taking into account the GE and age/likelihood to vote factor. The biggest imponderable is when the PM gets off the aeroplane and waves his renegotiation paper.
When everybody realises it says "fuck all" it's game on.
And when Labour voters realise that cuts to migrant benefits means cuts to everybody's benefits it's really game on.
'It won't be any different from the last X years is my point.'
Indeed, it won't - if Remain win we will see a continued erosion of the UK's political independence and continued damage to our economic interests. That process may well even speed up.
But as noted downthread the author of today's article and other pro-Remain posters (despite their amusing attempts to affect a 'disinterested' or 'neutral' tone, or blame Labour) are quite happy with this.
Indeed. Remain means signing up to continual and ongoing erosion of independence. But, I guess advocates of remain are content with this.
One person's erosion of independence is another person's growth of pooled sovereignty. So yes, a lot of the things that you Leavers see as being the worst aspects of membership are the very things that we Remainers see as being the best. Meanwhile the vast majority of people look on in bewilderment at both sides.
Mr. tpfkar, if Remain wins, as I expect, do you think in 20 years' time we'll have the exact same relationship with the EU?
Leave is the more dramatic, immediate change. Remain is the change of a frog in slowly boiling water.
The issue now that we have been forced into a referendum is, when remain inevitably wins, we will be in a position of weakness when fighting against EU stupidity, because "the people have spoken" and said they wish to remain with all the baggage that entails.
A referendum that is going to result in a remain decision is the single stupidest thing that this country has done for some time.
All this doom and gloom about remain leading inevitably to 'ever-closer' Union is quite absurd. The UK has an absolute right to prevent this now for us even without the re-negotiation... The current strains prompted by the euro crisis and the migration storm are showing the problems of too much unity quite eloquently. Schengen is all but dead and Merkel's star is very much on the wane.
I have to disagree. Perhaps it should be absurd, but despite even the recent troubles, the institution has been set up to achieve a particular goal and its officials and most of the EU leaders remain absolutely committed to that. You say the current strains show the problem eloquently, and I'd agree, but they will not see it that way. It will be seen as a temporary blockage to the ultimate goal, which will cause a delay, but will not shift their view one iota about the worthiness of said goal, even if it will take longer to get there.
This piece is, typically, well written, but I hope it is not prophetic.
If you think that the EU should become a country, that's a legitimate view (although one with which I wholeheartedly disagree), but slimy political terms like that suggest it's nothing but a minor regulation change.
[Also worth noting those two definitions can co-exist, it's just a question of whether you want your country to be the UK or the EU].
One reason for Leicester (and Watfords) success lies in the injury table. Leicester is second behind Watford. We have a great medical team at Leicester. Those in the European contests are well down the injury table. European football restarts soon too, while Vardy is fully fit again.
How will Leicester do in the CL? Probably not do very well, but it will be fun.
I did think about doing a piece a few weeks ago comparing Donald Trump to Leicester City but other things got in the way. I think the ship's sailed there now.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
Are you saying that he is going to be a bit marmite... similar to Farage?
Shows the design for the angled deck - there would be virtually no structural modification for an angled flight desk...
Note the fury with which the decision not to convert to CATOBAR was greeted with in certain circles - all those nice juicy billions evaporated.
Senior civil servants and military personal "get experience" creating requirements. This experience gets them jobs when they retire. From there it is a short step to creating requirements that create work.
Hmmm. IANAE, but wasn't the CATOBAR mess more complex than that?
We were told by politicians (perhaps Hoon) that the carriers were supposed to be designed so that COTOBAR could be fitted in the future ("designed for, not with"). Roll on seven or eight years, and it turned out that the requirement had not been worked on from the beginning of the project.
And it made sense not to: if the requirement for future conversion to COTOBAR was not firm, such a design requirement would have added vastly to the cost.
So converting them to CATOBAR so late on, once the design was finalised and metal already cut, was going to be very expensive. It would not surprise me if it would have been cheaper to make new carriers.
Then there is the question of what sort of CATOBAR system was to be fitted. If they went for a conventional steam system then there was not enough steam power on board; if they went for the new EMALS system then there were questions of when the EMALS system would be ready and its eventual cost; there also was not enough generative capacity.
And it's not easy to shoehorn in new steam or electricity generative capacity into an already-designed ship.
The major issue IMO is why we were told the ships were being designed so they could be converted to CATOBAR, when that requirement appears to have been a lie.
"Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said power brokers and financiers are now trying to cozy up to Trump in various ways, such as reaching out through mutual friends in New York’s business community.
“A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump’s orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there,” he said."
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
The piece doesn't mention the polls. It's all about the dynamics of the campaign between here and the vote - probably June if Cameron has any sense.
History suggests that to win a referendum, you need: - Enthusiasm - A team of leading advocates who are liked and trusted - Unity and coherence - A believable explanation of what your preferred result means and why it improves people's lives
Obviously, all these are relative and you don't need all of them as long as you have no fatal weakness - there are only two sides, after all - but Leave at the moment lead only on Enthusiasm, which at the moment is, in saddened's brilliant analogy downthread, producing a result like a dog that's been chasing cars, has caught one and now can only bark at it.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
Logic suggests that Mr Herdson is probably right, but I wonder if we are yet to see a substantial backlash against Remain to be reflected in the polls following the dreadful sexual attacks against women in Cologne. And then, there's always the question of further events Dear Boy, further events.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
It's the sort of attack that he might actually be able to gain some traction with beyond his core support though, so in terms of strengthening himself it makes sense. There are to be changes, some of which should benefit the Tories (which does not necessarily mean they must be unfair, if it is redressing an imbalance, but some can be), which it will be easy to suggest is 'rigging' things.
Remain should win because they have inertia on their side.
When that happens, it will mean closer political union - more so than if there'd been no referendum. There will be complaints but it will be too late. The Eurocrat view will be that the UK has signed up to it.
Indeed. Remain means signing up to continual and ongoing erosion of independence. But, I guess advocates of remain are content with this.
It's now or never, if we want to Leave.
Sadly, I suspect most floating voters won't appreciate this. So it'll be 'never'.
What a staggeringly complacent thread. I hope this is the general level of thinking among Europhiles.
I'm glad you posted that, the assumptions made by the Leavers on here are puzzling. As somebody points out below, these polls are too close to draw any firm conclusions from taking into account the GE and age/likelihood to vote factor. The biggest imponderable is when the PM gets off the aeroplane and waves his renegotiation paper.
When everybody realises it says "fuck all" it's game on.
And when Labour voters realise that cuts to migrant benefits means cuts to everybody's benefits it's really game on.
'Everybody' won't realise that. The Mail and Express will say that but then they already have been and the Leave votes are already in the bag there.
Thank you, David, as always. The point, I suppose, is as much to provoke comment as to make a reasoned analysis or rather to dress the former up in the latter. If the analysis provoked no comment, what would be the point in terms of site traffic ?
One could argue the piece is a bit of psychological warfare from Team Cameron aimed at demoralising and destabilising Team LEAVE. What's the point, you've lost already etc, etc. There may be those for whom such comments are the proverbial red rag to the metaphorical bull.
The rather misleading comments about the AV referendum notwithstanding, I do see a number of key differences between then and now and between that referendum and the forthcoming EU question. Cameron's only message is "Trust Me" and that worked well enough in 2015 when, to be honest, the Conservatives had a paucity of positive reasons to vote Conservative and it may work again now but the longer the campaign goes on, the greater the risk the bond of trust between Cameron and the electorate (let alone between Cameron and the Conservative Party) will fragment.
LEAVE is potentially well funded and well resourced with plenty of foot soldiers and most people haven't given it the slightest thought as yet. Once there's a date in the diary so to speak, the engagement process can begin - this is all Phoney War sniping at this stage.
Grayling's comments this week may have left the PM's office "relaxed" but the fact Cameron has conceded the right of even Cabinet Ministers to campaign for LEAVE is astonishing. Wilson did this in 1975 but he had the advantage of being able to remain neutral which Cameron doesn't. The sight of Conservatives on opposing platforms may be argued by some as a mark of a civilised debate but could be regarded as a sign of disunity.
I do agree LEAVE needs to offer a coherent alternative message - I've long argued Britain could rejoin EFTA and reform that organisation making it a free market (if you will) alternative to the EU. The size and strength of the British economy would transform EFTA into a serious force and provide that counterpoint to the anti-federalist sentiments in the rest of the EU which currently have nowhere to go.
David may attempt to trivialise the EU Referendum and assert it's Game Over but I disagree with that profoundly and suspect there's plenty of fun (and betting opportunities) to be had before a single vote is cast.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
No, but Remain's advantage is that it's not just Cameron. It'll be a coalition like No2AV, which will be able to talk to a broad spectrum of opinion. Younger Labour-leaning voters will have Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and the SNP to talk to them, as well as Eddie Izzard.
Mr. Royale, not strictly true. The rotting edifice will crumble sooner or later. But if we wait for that, we'll suffer the more.
Which could be decades.
The margin (of likely defeat) is crucial. If it's <5% then the issue isn't off the table for the forseeable future. If it's c.10% (like the indyref) it is, but it will be a running sore.
If it's by 20%+ and an AV referendum level defeat event, it's game over for decades.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
On the whole I'd choose 1975. Not so many gadgets and likely to die a lot younger (I'd probably have died from my Kidney problems) but more community, more jobs, affordable housing, less worries about children's futures, cheap (well at least affordable) beer and fags, and no vague sense of guilt.
Voting remain does not mean voting for ever closer union. Especially given "no more ever closer union" is part of our negotiations.
We already had a veto on new treaties anyway and are not giving that up. We are not in the Euro or Schengen and never will be.
It seems every side wants to portray the other as extremist options which is rather sad. Realistically whether we vote Remain or Leave very little will change though you'd swear whoever you listen to the other side will bring on the Apocalypse.
If we Remain we will continue being semi detached members of the EU. If we Leave we would almost certainly join the EEA or something else and be sort of semi detached non members of the EU.
Neither side will bring on the Apocalypse and the UK can thrive with either choice.
Logic suggests that Mr Herdson is probably right, but I wonder if we are yet to see a substantial backlash against Remain to be reflected in the polls following the dreadful sexual attacks against women in Cologne. And then, there's always the question of further events Dear Boy, further events.
I did wonder about that effect and it's certainly an 'unknown'.
On a logical level, it should make no difference: the migrants would come anyway and without Schengen - which is on life support - or even without the EU, they'd still be making their way to Germany, just more slowly. But it won't be a logical reaction. However, if the result is that Merkel is forced to change her open-door policy, which is quite likely, then that has to mean Cameron's initial 'support them in Turkey / Jordan / Lebanon' policy is back on the table as the best alternative - which would give Remain a concrete example of the UK's influence within the EU at just the right time. Perhaps. Big MoE on each side.
David Herdson is spot on identifying the strategic problem that Leave suffers from having confused leadership. Nick Palmer correctly identifies the cause of the problem. UKIP need Leave to do respectably to prosper. Nigel Farage should reflect on that.
Mr. Royale, indeed, it's likely to be decades unless the exodus turns very bad very, very quickly.
Mr. Thompson, I fear your optimism is misplaced.
We have a veto on treaties, as do all member states, but a lot can be fiddled with without either treaties or another form of veto thanks to Brown throwing them away for QMV (of which the eurozone has a critical mass).
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
On the whole I'd choose 1975. Not so many gadgets and likely to die a lot younger (I'd probably have died from my Kidney problems) but more community, more jobs, affordable housing, less worries about children's futures, cheap (well at least affordable) beer and fags, and no vague sense of guilt.
And, most importantly, no verifiable way of testing that hypothesis. The grass, they say, is always greener...
David Herdson is spot on identifying the strategic problem that Leave suffers from having confused leadership. Nick Palmer correctly identifies the cause of the problem. UKIP need Leave to do respectably to prosper. Nigel Farage should reflect on that.
It's that age old problem (compare, Corbyn) - unity involves at least one side dropping their causes. But who should it be? Each blames the other for disunity, because, in truth, it is the disagreement between them that is the cause of the disunity, and they are both convinced they are right.
I heard him speak in 2008 at a fringe Tory conference event when he said the worst thing for eurosceptics to do would be to hold an in/out referendum, and lose it.
We remove all threat of where all that visceral British dissatisfaction of the European project might lead us and can no longer credibly obfuscate, obstruct and block integrationist policies using public opinion as leverage.
Leave should have spent several years building up a mass movement in the country, scoring double-digit leads in the opinion polls first, and then with a charismatic, moderate mainstream leader pressured a Tory PM to reflect the will of the country - and call a referendum.
Just like the groundswell that led to an overwhelming endorsement of Scottish devolution in 1997.
SeanT is right. We are very likely vote to Remain. And, having called our bluff, the EU will start to do OUTRAGEOUS things very quickly.
And we will be able to do precisely nothing about it.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
No, but Remain's advantage is that it's not just Cameron. It'll be a coalition like No2AV, which will be able to talk to a broad spectrum of opinion. Younger Labour-leaning voters will have Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and the SNP to talk to them, as well as Eddie Izzard.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
On the whole I'd choose 1975. Not so many gadgets and likely to die a lot younger (I'd probably have died from my Kidney problems) but more community, more jobs, affordable housing, less worries about children's futures, cheap (well at least affordable) beer and fags, and no vague sense of guilt.
And, most importantly, no verifiable way of testing that hypothesis. The grass, they say, is always greener...
Well, I was there as a working-class adult in 1975 (albeit I was a soldier) and the question was "Would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975 or today?". I gave my honest opinion not a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
Voting remain does not mean voting for ever closer union. Especially given "no more ever closer union" is part of our negotiations.
We already had a veto on new treaties anyway and are not giving that up. We are not in the Euro or Schengen and never will be.
It seems every side wants to portray the other as extremist options which is rather sad.
The point remains whatever opt outs we have, we will be part of an organisation that does want and indeed exists for ever closer union. As that goes ahead, now or later, it just fosters greater and greater distance between the various parties inside, and sometimes there will be confusion over what we have to be involved in and what we are not, and the same problems we have now with us being bitter and resentful and the main players in the EU being frustrated and angry at our obstinacy, will only be exacerbated.
It's not healthy for the organisation to foster bitterness at the heart of the project, and if some are pushing on and some are not, that will only continue as one side fears they are being tricked into more than they want, and the other side angry they are being held back from getting more of what they want by the whingers. Whether that is strictly true is immaterial, since as you say only the extremist options will be portrayed.
Shows the design for the angled deck - there would be virtually no structural modification for an angled flight desk...
Note the fury with which the decision not to convert to CATOBAR was greeted with in certain circles - all those nice juicy billions evaporated.
Senior civil servants and military personal "get experience" creating requirements. This experience gets them jobs when they retire. From there it is a short step to creating requirements that create work.
Hmmm. IANAE, but wasn't the CATOBAR mess more complex than that?
We were told by politicians (perhaps Hoon) that the carriers were supposed to be designed so that COTOBAR could be fitted in the future ("designed for, not with"). Roll on seven or eight years, and it turned out that the requirement had not been worked on from the beginning of the project.
And it made sense not to: if the requirement for future conversion to COTOBAR was not firm, such a design requirement would have added vastly to the cost.
So converting them to CATOBAR so late on, once the design was finalised and metal already cut, was going to be very expensive. It would not surprise me if it would have been cheaper to make new carriers.
Then there is the question of what sort of CATOBAR system was to be fitted. If they went for a conventional steam system then there was not enough steam power on board; if they went for the new EMALS system then there were questions of when the EMALS system would be ready and its eventual cost; there also was not enough generative capacity.
And it's not easy to shoehorn in new steam or electricity generative capacity into an already-designed ship.
The major issue IMO is why we were told the ships were being designed so they could be converted to CATOBAR, when that requirement appears to have been a lie.
All AIUI.
It was definitely EMALS only once the decision was made to go non-nuke.
There was space in the original design for EMALS - and an energy storage system (batteries or flywheels). Landing wires were simple - again space was reserved for them. Allegedly.
Two things seem to have happened - the design constraint to have the option was ignored. And the monitoring civil servants signed off on this. Also, BAe is heavily involved in the F35C lift system. If the UK switched to the B version, then there would have been a serious potential for the C program to go away. It was not in BAe's interest for the change to happen.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
No, but Remain's advantage is that it's not just Cameron. It'll be a coalition like No2AV, which will be able to talk to a broad spectrum of opinion. Younger Labour-leaning voters will have Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and the SNP to talk to them, as well as Eddie Izzard.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
*If* it was rigged (and we are getting very much into guesswork here), then it might just have been a timer. There are many ways of triggering explosives, as there are for home-made explosives to go 'bang' of their own volition.
There was a rumour the day it happened that the bomb squad attended. Also that people (passengers?) ran from the car. No idea if either rumour's true, so add them to the rumour-list.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
A better question is would you prefer to live in how 2016 was predicted to be in 1975 or what 2016 actually is.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
No, but Remain's advantage is that it's not just Cameron. It'll be a coalition like No2AV, which will be able to talk to a broad spectrum of opinion. Younger Labour-leaning voters will have Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and the SNP to talk to them, as well as Eddie Izzard.
I change my prediction then.
Game over for Remain. Leave have this in the bag.
Yes, his participation is something of a double-edged sword. Perhaps he might be persuaded to campaign in Paris. Or Mongolia.
If one is going to plant a bomb to destroy a car and its occupant then the simple Tupperware container, held on with magnets. and a mercury tilt switch (as per the Dog House murder) is the best and probably only viable option. Anything else requires having private access to the vehicle for some time in order to tamper with wiring etc..
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
Personally, I'd agree. I can see the frustration it might cause some, but actually the fact it breaks up the flow of a sometimes quite charged political conversations I think helps keep things more civil by introducing tiny little pressure release points. Goodness knows there are topics and particular posts that rile me up, but the same person including a random piece of TV trivia I happen to agree with makes it harder even on the anonymous internet to get as worked up, as the atmosphere becomes more convivial.
Different strokes for different folks - I think there is a balance, and some days there is just not as much politics going on, or certain topics are exhausted for awhile. Case in point, no more EU talk for me today (if I can help it)!
I heard him speak in 2008 at a fringe Tory conference event when he said the worst thing for eurosceptics to do would be to hold an in/out referendum, and lose it.
We remove all threat of where all that visceral British dissatisfaction of the European project might lead us and can no longer credibly obfuscate, obstruct and block integrationist policies using public opinion as leverage.
Leave should have spent several years building up a mass movement in the country, scoring double-digit leads in the opinion polls first, and then with a charismatic, moderate mainstream leader pressured a Tory PM to reflect the will of the country - and call a referendum.
Just like the groundswell that led to an overwhelming endorsement of Scottish devolution in 1997.
SeanT is right. We are very likely vote to Remain. And, having called our bluff, the EU will start to do OUTRAGEOUS things very quickly.
And we will be able to do precisely nothing about it.
Exactly.
People don't have the option to vote REMAIN, they have the option to vote LEAVE or the option to vote EVERCLOSERUNION.
The 'outrageous' things you predict are actually supported by much of the establishment although they do not have the honesty to say so.
Just as the vote for the 'Common Market' in 1975 was used as justification for a generation of Ever Closer Union the intention is that this vote will be used as justification for another generation of Ever Closer Union.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
On the whole I'd choose 1975. Not so many gadgets and likely to die a lot younger (I'd probably have died from my Kidney problems) but more community, more jobs, affordable housing, less worries about children's futures, cheap (well at least affordable) beer and fags, and no vague sense of guilt.
You have an advantage over me, as I was only two in 1975.
But from my impression of the seventies, and familial experiences, I'd say the opposite. Then again I'm a bit of a geek and those gadgets are heaven to me.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
Welcome Mr Fysics_Teacher – And agree with you entirely, the pleasure of PB is not just the superb effort of our genial host, Mr Smithson and guest editors, but also the characters that make up PB and their often off-topic contributions. It’s what sets PB apart from the mundane.
I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
No, but Remain's advantage is that it's not just Cameron. It'll be a coalition like No2AV, which will be able to talk to a broad spectrum of opinion. Younger Labour-leaning voters will have Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and the SNP to talk to them, as well as Eddie Izzard.
I'm not sure Labour is going to be the force it would have been with a mainstream (and unequivocally pro-EU) leader.
Eddie Izzard though. Now you've convinced me. It's in the bag.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
It's the biggest constitutional decision of the last 50 years - if you're not sure about voting Remain do your own research.
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
The last 40 years have been pretty good tbh. What "utter disaster" have we suffered?
LG83 probably thinks it's a disaster we're not being led by Putin ...
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
A better question is would you prefer to live in how 2016 was predicted to be in 1975 or what 2016 actually is.
What were the predictions in 1975? And wouldn't there have been a whole diverse range of them, so it just becomes a case of picking whichever prediction suits your purpose?
In the same way, your view of what the UK will be like in 2055 might be very different from mine.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
I quite agree, and welcome.
Just as a matter of interest, are you, in fact, a Physics teacher?
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
Comments
Thank you, David, as always. The point, I suppose, is as much to provoke comment as to make a reasoned analysis or rather to dress the former up in the latter. If the analysis provoked no comment, what would be the point in terms of site traffic ?
One could argue the piece is a bit of psychological warfare from Team Cameron aimed at demoralising and destabilising Team LEAVE. What's the point, you've lost already etc, etc. There may be those for whom such comments are the proverbial red rag to the metaphorical bull.
The rather misleading comments about the AV referendum notwithstanding, I do see a number of key differences between then and now and between that referendum and the forthcoming EU question. Cameron's only message is "Trust Me" and that worked well enough in 2015 when, to be honest, the Conservatives had a paucity of positive reasons to vote Conservative and it may work again now but the longer the campaign goes on, the greater the risk the bond of trust between Cameron and the electorate (let alone between Cameron and the Conservative Party) will fragment.
LEAVE is potentially well funded and well resourced with plenty of foot soldiers and most people haven't given it the slightest thought as yet. Once there's a date in the diary so to speak, the engagement process can begin - this is all Phoney War sniping at this stage.
Grayling's comments this week may have left the PM's office "relaxed" but the fact Cameron has conceded the right of even Cabinet Ministers to campaign for LEAVE is astonishing. Wilson did this in 1975 but he had the advantage of being able to remain neutral which Cameron doesn't. The sight of Conservatives on opposing platforms may be argued by some as a mark of a civilised debate but could be regarded as a sign of disunity.
I do agree LEAVE needs to offer a coherent alternative message - I've long argued Britain could rejoin EFTA and reform that organisation making it a free market (if you will) alternative to the EU. The size and strength of the British economy would transform EFTA into a serious force and provide that counterpoint to the anti-federalist sentiments in the rest of the EU which currently have nowhere to go.
David may attempt to trivialise the EU Referendum and assert it's Game Over but I disagree with that profoundly and suspect there's plenty of fun (and betting opportunities) to be had before a single vote is cast.
The two cases are not strictly comparable, because the problem in Anderson's case was chronic mismanagement by the England coaching staff. But it's instructive to think that had he been discarded, the England teams of the last 7 years would have looked VERY different.
A referendum that is going to result in a remain decision is the single stupidest thing that this country has done for some time.
Yes, i think Leave does need some kind of position. Intellectually, it's not necessary; politically, it will be. Otherwise, Remain will make hay over the divisions and internal contradictions within Leave.
This isn't quite like 1975. The EU was a new experience then. The media were generally pro. Leading Conservative politicians were almost all pro. There were credible heavyweight Labour figures campaigning for In. I'm doubtful that Cameron and whoever lines up with him can substitute for all that.
Would prefer to be proved wrong, even it costs me.
Again, you're back to "Trust Dave" and that's basically all REMAIN has to be honest since there's going to be little or nothing significant once Cameron returns with his "I have in my hand an email bearing Frau Merkel's digital signature" moment.
LEAVE needs a single coherent narrative, agreed, but the stench of complacency around REMAIN is nauseating at the moment. As we've seen, external events could suddenly change the tone of the debate and not necessarily to REMAIN's advantage.
http://i.imgur.com/BCrgVT4.jpg
Shows the design for the angled deck - there would be virtually no structural modification for an angled flight desk...
Note the fury with which the decision not to convert to CATOBAR was greeted with in certain circles - all those nice juicy billions evaporated.
Senior civil servants and military personal "get experience" creating requirements. This experience gets them jobs when they retire. From there it is a short step to creating requirements that create work.
Put it this way (to steal SeanF''s analogy) I wouldn't expect to have the exact same relationship with my wife in 20 years but I very much hope we will still be married. And no question which outcome relates to change, and which to stability.
Elsewhere, Sunderland to beat Spurs.
To have a hope of winning, Leave have to endeavour to inspire an equal or greater lack of confidence in a future within the EU, and also to unravel and undermine Cameron and his team's positions and motivations in a mentally assimilable way. It's a tall order but nothing's impossible.
Wi!son said ministers could speak freely on the issue but must support govt policies at the despatch box.
In 75, Scotland was the least interested in the EC.
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
If you're left-wing, the EU referendum is a lose-lose. My column: https://t.co/2gKHi8rjVD https://t.co/V3jJDErsGY
@jamesmaxwell86: Blisteringly good piece >> bellacaledonia: Shsh for Indy: https://t.co/RfztMjxCGo…"
That film isn't bad, but there is a book -
http://www.abc-clio.com/ABC-CLIOCorporate/product.aspx?pc=C3081C
that gets into the real story... Essentially you start out trying to build a light recon vehicle and infantry carrier. Then the projects get combined. Then weapons and armour get added. Then it weighs as much as an MBT. Then it gets cancelled.
The Bradley got bought half weigh through the second last step. And actually turned out to be a very useful and survivable vehicle.
This is all because the same people who want an a vehicle that can survive anything want it to weigh 10 tons.... The book above points out that infantry vehicle doctrine is not to charge to the front with sabots bouncing off the glacis plate - but that was what the "reform" types wanted. With air mobility.
Interestingly, the US is currently back to the MBT class infantry vehicle in the design process (GCV) - no wait, they've cancelled that. It got too heavy.. :-)
I'm just surprised that anyone still thinks 'Remain' is some sort of staying in 3rd gear safe option. I wonder whether that's what voters in 1975 thought. Little did they realise the utter disaster they were voting for.
It is not possible for anyone to state what the UK's eventual relationship with the EU will be in the event we vote to leave because that will depend on negotiations that will be carried out by people other than those campaigning to leave and cannot start until after a leave vote has happened. Therefore, if those campaigning to leave were to say "Vote and out and this will be the future" they would be dishonest and, rightly, open to attack on the basis that they were promising something that cannot be guaranteed.
Mr. Stoge made the very good point that the Remain campaign has yet to start and will not get going until the results of Cameron's negotiations are known. I would suggest the same is true for Leave. My memory is not what it used to be, but did not Cameron say in a speech in 2013 (?) that the UK should leave unless it could come up with a whole new deal with a reformed EU? He even set out areas that had to be reformed. So take Cameron at his word and compare what he said then with what he eventually gets. There is a basis for a debate, that requires no dishonesty, no false premises and no scare stories.
1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain)
2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
Video: US bombs stockpile of IS cash in Mosul, Iraq, apparently destroying millions of dollars https://t.co/99ZSnaZuG3
http://m.cambridge-news.co.uk/Man-killed-M11-car-fireball-expolosion-near/story-28533583-detail/story.html
You could add that that pool of younger Labour-leaning supporters are not going to be GOTVed very effectively by Cameron.
When everybody realises it says "fuck all" it's game on.
And when Labour voters realise that cuts to migrant benefits means cuts to everybody's benefits it's really game on.
Indeed, it won't - if Remain win we will see a continued erosion of the UK's political independence and continued damage to our economic interests. That process may well even speed up.
But as noted downthread the author of today's article and other pro-Remain posters (despite their amusing attempts to affect a 'disinterested' or 'neutral' tone, or blame Labour) are quite happy with this.
@thomasmessenger I thought you just had 4 million conversations on doorsteps and ignored all of them #fab16
This piece is, typically, well written, but I hope it is not prophetic.
If you think that the EU should become a country, that's a legitimate view (although one with which I wholeheartedly disagree), but slimy political terms like that suggest it's nothing but a minor regulation change.
[Also worth noting those two definitions can co-exist, it's just a question of whether you want your country to be the UK or the EU].
We were told by politicians (perhaps Hoon) that the carriers were supposed to be designed so that COTOBAR could be fitted in the future ("designed for, not with"). Roll on seven or eight years, and it turned out that the requirement had not been worked on from the beginning of the project.
And it made sense not to: if the requirement for future conversion to COTOBAR was not firm, such a design requirement would have added vastly to the cost.
So converting them to CATOBAR so late on, once the design was finalised and metal already cut, was going to be very expensive. It would not surprise me if it would have been cheaper to make new carriers.
Then there is the question of what sort of CATOBAR system was to be fitted. If they went for a conventional steam system then there was not enough steam power on board; if they went for the new EMALS system then there were questions of when the EMALS system would be ready and its eventual cost; there also was not enough generative capacity.
And it's not easy to shoehorn in new steam or electricity generative capacity into an already-designed ship.
The major issue IMO is why we were told the ships were being designed so they could be converted to CATOBAR, when that requirement appears to have been a lie.
All AIUI.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-now-see-a-trump-cruz-race-with-time-for-a-shift-running-out/2016/01/15/9b5d91f0-bbb4-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html
"Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said power brokers and financiers are now trying to cozy up to Trump in various ways, such as reaching out through mutual friends in New York’s business community.
“A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump’s orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there,” he said."
History suggests that to win a referendum, you need:
- Enthusiasm
- A team of leading advocates who are liked and trusted
- Unity and coherence
- A believable explanation of what your preferred result means and why it improves people's lives
Obviously, all these are relative and you don't need all of them as long as you have no fatal weakness - there are only two sides, after all - but Leave at the moment lead only on Enthusiasm, which at the moment is, in saddened's brilliant analogy downthread, producing a result like a dog that's been chasing cars, has caught one and now can only bark at it.
A question: would posters prefer to live as a working-class person in 1975, or today?
(l'm not claiming that the changes have been directly, or even indirectly, due to the EU).
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament.
#fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
And then, there's always the question of further events Dear Boy, further events.
Sadly, I suspect most floating voters won't appreciate this. So it'll be 'never'.
The margin (of likely defeat) is crucial. If it's <5% then the issue isn't off the table for the forseeable future. If it's c.10% (like the indyref) it is, but it will be a running sore.
If it's by 20%+ and an AV referendum level defeat event, it's game over for decades.
We already had a veto on new treaties anyway and are not giving that up. We are not in the Euro or Schengen and never will be.
It seems every side wants to portray the other as extremist options which is rather sad. Realistically whether we vote Remain or Leave very little will change though you'd swear whoever you listen to the other side will bring on the Apocalypse.
If we Remain we will continue being semi detached members of the EU.
If we Leave we would almost certainly join the EEA or something else and be sort of semi detached non members of the EU.
Neither side will bring on the Apocalypse and the UK can thrive with either choice.
On a logical level, it should make no difference: the migrants would come anyway and without Schengen - which is on life support - or even without the EU, they'd still be making their way to Germany, just more slowly. But it won't be a logical reaction. However, if the result is that Merkel is forced to change her open-door policy, which is quite likely, then that has to mean Cameron's initial 'support them in Turkey / Jordan / Lebanon' policy is back on the table as the best alternative - which would give Remain a concrete example of the UK's influence within the EU at just the right time. Perhaps. Big MoE on each side.
Mr. Thompson, I fear your optimism is misplaced.
We have a veto on treaties, as do all member states, but a lot can be fiddled with without either treaties or another form of veto thanks to Brown throwing them away for QMV (of which the eurozone has a critical mass).
I agree with Lord Trimble.
I heard him speak in 2008 at a fringe Tory conference event when he said the worst thing for eurosceptics to do would be to hold an in/out referendum, and lose it.
We remove all threat of where all that visceral British dissatisfaction of the European project might lead us and can no longer credibly obfuscate, obstruct and block integrationist policies using public opinion as leverage.
Leave should have spent several years building up a mass movement in the country, scoring double-digit leads in the opinion polls first, and then with a charismatic, moderate mainstream leader pressured a Tory PM to reflect the will of the country - and call a referendum.
Just like the groundswell that led to an overwhelming endorsement of Scottish devolution in 1997.
SeanT is right. We are very likely vote to Remain. And, having called our bluff, the EU will start to do OUTRAGEOUS things very quickly.
And we will be able to do precisely nothing about it.
Game over for Remain. Leave have this in the bag.
Jeremy Corbyn snuck in and out of Fabian meeting this morning through back door avoiding us press.
It's not healthy for the organisation to foster bitterness at the heart of the project, and if some are pushing on and some are not, that will only continue as one side fears they are being tricked into more than they want, and the other side angry they are being held back from getting more of what they want by the whingers. Whether that is strictly true is immaterial, since as you say only the extremist options will be portrayed.
There was space in the original design for EMALS - and an energy storage system (batteries or flywheels). Landing wires were simple - again space was reserved for them. Allegedly.
Two things seem to have happened - the design constraint to have the option was ignored. And the monitoring civil servants signed off on this. Also, BAe is heavily involved in the F35C lift system. If the UK switched to the B version, then there would have been a serious potential for the C program to go away. It was not in BAe's interest for the change to happen.
Fantastic news for us Leavers!
I take it all back ;-)
There was a rumour the day it happened that the bomb squad attended. Also that people (passengers?) ran from the car. No idea if either rumour's true, so add them to the rumour-list.
Welcome to pb.com too - great posting name!
Different strokes for different folks - I think there is a balance, and some days there is just not as much politics going on, or certain topics are exhausted for awhile. Case in point, no more EU talk for me today (if I can help it)!
People don't have the option to vote REMAIN, they have the option to vote LEAVE or the option to vote EVERCLOSERUNION.
The 'outrageous' things you predict are actually supported by much of the establishment although they do not have the honesty to say so.
Just as the vote for the 'Common Market' in 1975 was used as justification for a generation of Ever Closer Union the intention is that this vote will be used as justification for another generation of Ever Closer Union.
But from my impression of the seventies, and familial experiences, I'd say the opposite. Then again I'm a bit of a geek and those gadgets are heaven to me.
Eddie Izzard though. Now you've convinced me. It's in the bag.
Polls still overstating labour support says @debmattinson - we're actually further behind #fab16
In the same way, your view of what the UK will be like in 2055 might be very different from mine.
Just as a matter of interest, are you, in fact, a Physics teacher?