Good. Now tell these ignorant f##kers to get on with doing some learning, for instance to start with why the computer room is called Rhodes i.e The Univ Rhodes Computer Room, off the Main Quad, was set up in 1983 after donations from a group of Univ’s former Rhodes Scholars to mark the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Rhodes Trust.
Good.
I do wonder if the Rhodes scholarship has disciplinary procedures - are the protesters bringing the fund into disrepute with their antics?
Would be quite poetic if the leader had his funding withdrawn after being so vocal.
Just because people make a bad argument don't mean they should have their funding cuts. I might not support what they say but I'll defend to death their right to say it!!
You play Colchester in the next round, which was the scene of a Tory gain at the general election, I think this calls for you to rewatch the BBC's election night coverage
Ah Colchester, very close to where I used to live, and yet I called it a safe LibDem hold.
My biggest ever betting loss, although it hasn't been called in. Yet(!)
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
You play Colchester in the next round, which was the scene of a Tory gain at the general election, I think this calls for you to rewatch the BBC's election night coverage
Ah Colchester, very close to where I used to live, and yet I called it a safe LibDem hold.
My biggest ever betting loss, although it hasn't been called in. Yet(!)
Did Tim back the Tories there o_O ?
He did indeed. Someone else was going to, but fortunately I said I wouldn't take more than £10 on at 7/1 or 8/1 (don't recall).
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
Come off it. The Bullingdon / Flashman attack on Cameron was tried again and again and again. The likes of Muckguire couldn't do a tv appearance without banging on about it, we had Marr do the dirty tricks approach where he had the infamous image flashed up mid interview and there was even a tv special commissioned about Cameron / Boris time involved with Bullingdon which ran in the run up to the GE.
But for whatever reason, the public just don't seem to care that much.
Kevin Maguire still goes on about the 'Bullerboy' at every other mention of Cameron. And the Eton stuff is in Labour's blood. They can't help themselves.
Even after the McBride scandal blew, Maguire was calling in print for Cameron to release his private medical records. Something about Maguire's mates down the dog 'n duck wanting proof the accusations weren't true ...
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
Come off it. The Bullingdon / Flashman attack on Cameron was tried again and again and again. The likes of Muckguire couldn't do a tv appearance without banging on about it, we had Marr do the dirty tricks approach where he had the infamous image flashed up mid interview and there was even a tv special commissioned about Cameron / Boris time involved with Bullingdon which ran in the run up to the GE.
But for whatever reason, the public just don't seem to care that much.
Kevin Maguire still goes on about the 'Bullerboy' at every other mention of Cameron. And the Eton stuff is in Labour's blood. They can't help themselves.
This would be Kev "who is married to a posho educated at St Pauls" Maguire. The Mucker himself doesn't like to talk too much about his education, because it was selective. He now tries to spin it by saying that his alma mater is a comp, except it wasn't when he applied.
Hardly a surprise - but given the last 'Labour Leader in Salmond's Pocket' cost £900, I suspect the Tories could find funds for another.....or perhaps Putin's pocket?
SNP would ally with anti-Trident Labour MPs on vote, says Salmond
This is what drives the SNP activists. They are all the loopy CND peacniks that saw Scottish the independence referendum as a chance to kick the Western Alliance.
Carbyn is in Putins pocket, and ISIS and Hezbollah and Argentina's. Anyone's who is anti West.
This would be Kev "who is married to a posho educated at St Pauls" Maguire. The Mucker himself doesn't like to talk too much about his education, because it was selective.
Selective in the same way that people have selective hearing? Just ignore the inconvenient facts that don't fit your world-view.
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
Come off it. The Bullingdon / Flashman attack on Cameron was tried again and again and again. The likes of Muckguire couldn't do a tv appearance without banging on about it, we had Marr do the dirty tricks approach where he had the infamous image flashed up mid interview and there was even a tv special commissioned about Cameron / Boris time involved with Bullingdon which ran in the run up to the GE.
But for whatever reason, the public just don't seem to care that much.
Kevin Maguire still goes on about the 'Bullerboy' at every other mention of Cameron. And the Eton stuff is in Labour's blood. They can't help themselves.
Even after the McBride scandal blew, Maguire was calling in print for Cameron to release his private medical records. Something about Maguire's mates down the dog 'n duck wanting proof the accusations weren't true ...
The man's filth. While McBride lost his job and basically his career, Muckguire didn't lose any of his multiple well paid media roles, despite admitting to have attended meeting "in a personal capacity" to discuss the smear project website.
Despite him barely ever turning up, Labour blew £223,572 on David Axelrod’s firm AKPD. They spent another £563,973 on polling from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and £184,609 on Michael Sheehan’s debate coaching
Jeez...£200k on debate coaching. I'm in the wrong business. And Ed still f##ked them up. And £600k on polling that was either wrong or they hid from Ed throughout the process.
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
The people wearing pig masks at demos are Tories?
They are probably not Labour either but the book they read was commissioned by a leading Tory donor.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
James Forsyth thinks Cameron will push back the referendum - if it gets really bad - to March 2017.
He obviously wants to win it.
I think he'd be nuts to delay it any longer than he has to. The Government is pretty much bound to be in the mid-term doghouse by then. There's a fair chance of a recession. And the events that may favour Leave are not confined to summer; Cologne was on New Year's Eve.
If it looks bad enough to make a 2016 referendum unwinnable then I think it's unwinnable in 2017 too.
If you land on British soil and claim asylum with a suitable sob-story you have a very good chance of success.
If you fail you can invoke Human Rights to a family life and apply it to any credible relative already here to avoid deportation.
If that fails the UK still may be unable to deport you to your EU point of entry, or your country of origin due to the Dublin convention and destroyed documents.
But you have to get here first.
Given all of that what possible disincentive is there for millions of migrants to not attempt to make their way to Calais and then attempt to storm the Tunnel night after night?
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone.
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
Despite him barely ever turning up, Labour blew £223,572 on David Axelrod’s firm AKPD. They spent another £563,973 on polling from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and £184,609 on Michael Sheehan’s debate coaching
Jeez...£200k on debate coaching. I'm in the wrong business. And Ed still f##ked them up. And £600k on polling that was either wrong or they hid from Ed throughout the process.
Hiring David Axelrod to help win GE2015 was an expensive mistake by Labour in more ways than one and all so predictable - the guy couldn’t even get Ed’s name right.
you do not get anything sillier. Let us say less than accurate at best.
Would you describe $110 oil as 'less than accurate' too?
I would call the loyalist governments $142 even more 'less than accurate' and Cameron's $200 Billion the biggest LIE of all. Given their traits Tories are unable to call anyone out on even alleged whoppers given they are the champions at lying.
The shorter reply was funnier...the edited longer rant just illustrates your insecurity.....
You are the one that daily brings up the price of oil, unionists are fixated on it. It is not a concern for Scotland or SNP supporters. Methinks you doth protest too much.
you do not get anything sillier. Let us say less than accurate at best.
Would you describe $110 oil as 'less than accurate' too?
I would call the loyalist governments $142 even more 'less than accurate' and Cameron's $200 Billion the biggest LIE of all. Given their traits Tories are unable to call anyone out on even alleged whoppers given they are the champions at lying.
The shorter reply was funnier...the edited longer rant just illustrates your insecurity.....
You are the one that daily brings up the price of oil, unionists are fixated on it. It is not a concern for Scotland or SNP supporters. Methinks you doth protest too much.
Yes, I vote we bring up the millstone (no, not the Ed stone) more often.
Despite him barely ever turning up, Labour blew £223,572 on David Axelrod’s firm AKPD. They spent another £563,973 on polling from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and £184,609 on Michael Sheehan’s debate coaching
Jeez...£200k on debate coaching. I'm in the wrong business. And Ed still f##ked them up. And £600k on polling that was either wrong or they hid from Ed throughout the process.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
James Forsyth thinks Cameron will push back the referendum - if it gets really bad - to March 2017.
He obviously wants to win it.
But the longer he delays the more likely he is to lose. Cf indyref. Because the fear factor lessens over time, and people start to think Sod It.
That's what happened in Scotland.
I agree Cameron would dearly love to get this out the way.
Of course, the key difference in Scotland with the indyref was a fixed date for the vote and no nebulous 'renegotiation' to confuse matters of yes/no (albeit you can argue The Vow in the final 96 hours was an attempt to do so) and we knew turnout would be very high.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
"I find that the FSB (Russian Security Service) operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin" the report concludes.
Rubbish the government have dissembling from day one on this case, hiding evidence and concocting a narrative, and that continued until 2015 when Cameron needed a cheap propaganda victory he could sell to the public in light of embarrassments elsewhere. No surprise the number of loons on here who lap it up, for their own reasons, quite obviously.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
The Alison Pearson article was the most interesting to me, as it shows how someone who isn't strongly committed to either side can react. It's not just (or even mainly) the behaviour of the immigrants that made the issue so toxic. It's the willingness of the authorities to lie about it.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
James Forsyth thinks Cameron will push back the referendum - if it gets really bad - to March 2017.
He obviously wants to win it.
What's the lead time for a referendum 5/6 weeks ? Too late for June already as there is no EU deal.
I don't know. Sounds about right.
Cameron also has to decide whether to declare victory to the TV cameras based upon a signed piece of paper straight after walking out of an EU conference in Feb/March, or wait until it's written in blood as a treaty amendment/rider signed by all other 27 EU heads of government.
I think he'll do the former and hope the latter is achieved by September when he holds the vote. Probably.
A former adviser to Alex Salmond has described SNP politicians as “Thatcher’s children”, claiming they are in the top one per cent pay bracket.
He went on to say that the recent Nationalist financial “scandals” had revealed the SNP to be “just like other British parties – composed of self-starting entrepreneurial types, Thatcher’s children to a person”.
Mr. Borough, disagree. Got to keep working to define Corbyn as the lunatic he is. The Conservatives were very effective with Miliband, although it must be the said the bacon-thwarted monolith-enthusiast didn't exactly help himself.
Like it or not, personal abuse of the Labour leader has been part of the Tory playbook since at least Gordon Brown and that is not going to change when Corbyn is replaced, and if David Miliband had beaten Ed, replace bacon with bananas, and the attacks on their father would have been exactly the same.
No mention of Bullingdon . top hats or pigs?
How very un-selfaware..
Glass houses and stones come to mind..
The posh stuff perhaps, to a point, but most of the Eton and all of the pigs stuff came from the Conservative side.
The people wearing pig masks at demos are Tories?
They are probably not Labour either but the book they read was commissioned by a leading Tory donor.
Yes it was started by Ashcroft's book, but each person wearing those masks is indulging in a quite gross personal attack.
But I think it's a given that there will be attempts to taint every party leader's personal brand. It's an ugly thing but inevitable because the stature of the leader is the biggest asset a party has. If the opposing side don't attack that they aren't really trying (or they think you don't matter - see Tim Farron).
Lovingputin1983 has already explained this to us: there was no reason for the Russians to kill Litvenko, and it is far more likely the US intelligence agencies did this in an attempt to frame the Russians.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
Given the problems in Europe with Islamic extremism, and the lengths governments are having to go to in trying to integrate people from the subcontinent who don't want to, does anyone doubt it was a bad idea to allow so much Muslim immigration?
If we could snap our fingers and magically have a lot less without hurting anyone's feelings or having to admit in public that Enoch Powell called it right, I reckon 90% of people would do it
So here we have the opportunity, for once, to actually be pro active and stop our country becoming subjected to Cologne style north African imported filth, & to stop England having "refugee" camps that look like something from the Middle Eastern medieval period, are people really going to close their eyes and ears and hope it goes away or wont happen here? Because it wont go away, it will happen here, and no one will be to blame for allowing it other than those who vote to REMAIN
As for Cameron trying to delay or bring forward the date of the ref to make sure we cant be influenced by the inevitable consequences of the Migrant crisis, that is so crooked and filthy that I cant believe he would do it
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal
What is the EEA?
The EEA joins together the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) and the three EEA/EFTA States (Liechtenstein,Iceland, and Norway) in a Single Market with about 496 million [people], where the same basic rules apply to all participating States. The citizens of all 30 EEA Member States have the right to move freely within the entire EEA, to live, work, establish companies, invest, and acquire real estate (often referred to as the “four freedoms”). Article 4 of the EEA Agreement also prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality (principle of non-discrimination).
What about Switzerland?
It is neither part of the EU, nor the EEA, but it has a free movement agreement with the EU and EEA
Despite him barely ever turning up, Labour blew £223,572 on David Axelrod’s firm AKPD. They spent another £563,973 on polling from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and £184,609 on Michael Sheehan’s debate coaching
Jeez...£200k on debate coaching. I'm in the wrong business. And Ed still f##ked them up. And £600k on polling that was either wrong or they hid from Ed throughout the process.
Sheehan’s not Sheen. AFAIK, worked closely with Barack Obama. Does PR and speech writing.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
Lovingputin1983 has already explained this to us: there was no reason for the Russians to kill Litvenko, and it is far more likely the US intelligence agencies did this in an attempt to frame the Russians.
... So here we have the opportunity, for once, to actually be pro active and stop our country becoming subjected to Cologne style north African imported filth, & to stop England having "refugee" camps that look like something from the Middle Eastern medieval period, are people really going to close their eyes and ears and hope it goes away or wont happen here? Because it wont go away, it will happen here, and no one will be to blame for allowing it other than those who vote to REMAIN
And those who support Leave with an EEA-style deal, of course.
you do not get anything sillier. Let us say less than accurate at best.
Would you describe $110 oil as 'less than accurate' too?
I would call the loyalist governments $142 even more 'less than accurate' and Cameron's $200 Billion the biggest LIE of all. Given their traits Tories are unable to call anyone out on even alleged whoppers given they are the champions at lying.
The shorter reply was funnier...the edited longer rant just illustrates your insecurity.....
It is not a concern for Scotland or SNP supporters. Methinks you doth protest too much.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
Oh, I think it was intended to send a very big warning.
... So here we have the opportunity, for once, to actually be pro active and stop our country becoming subjected to Cologne style north African imported filth, & to stop England having "refugee" camps that look like something from the Middle Eastern medieval period, are people really going to close their eyes and ears and hope it goes away or wont happen here? Because it wont go away, it will happen here, and no one will be to blame for allowing it other than those who vote to REMAIN
And those who support Leave with an EEA-style deal, of course.
Still undecided I See Richard! I thought maybe 2015 was your year of pretending to be neutral but ramping REMAIN and this year you might do the opposite for balance?
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
Sir Robert Owen concludes that they probably did not understand the nature of the poison they had been given.....
Looks like the Germans and French are finally realising Brexit is a possibility:
"Brexit would be a 'disaster' for Europe, warn France and Germany German finance minister urges UK to stay in EU as Prime Minister set to urge businesses to support the In campaign"
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
I very much doubt a trial would shed any light one way or the other.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
It was not the FSB. It was the CIA attempting to frame the FSB.
If you can't see that, there's really no hope for you.
Still undecided I See Richard! I thought maybe 2015 was your year of pretending to be neutral but ramping REMAIN and this year you might do the opposite for balance?
Sigh... Of all the stupid things people say about me, saying I'm ramping for Remain is the silliest of all. I've spent the last five years giving the Leave side good advice, which it has ignored. That's hardly my fault.
As to my personal poisiton, the incoherence of the Leave side is pushing me back towards Remain. As I've said many times, I don't think an EEA-style deal is worth the hassle and loss of influence. Basically we'd still be stuck with the majority of the things which are most disagreeable about the EU, so what's the advantage?
Your position seems to be driven by migration of non-EU citizens. Quite what difference leaving the EU would make to that is a mystery.
An attempt by Labour to attack Zac Goldsmith for "gross hypocrisy" over the London Living Wage (LLW) backfired today after it was revealed Sadiq Khan had himself recently advertised for a job paying below the official recommended hourly rate.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
Oh, I think it was intended to send a very big warning.
"It doesn't matter where you run to: we will find you. No-one can protect you from us.
If you cross us, we will not only kill you but make you suffer terribly too."
Looks like the Germans and French are finally realising Brexit is a possibility:
"Brexit would be a 'disaster' for Europe, warn France and Germany German finance minister urges UK to stay in EU as Prime Minister set to urge businesses to support the In campaign"
Actually, we'd be doing them a favour, if they only had eyes to see it. They want to integrate politically. British people don't want this. The two philosophies can't be reconciled.
... So here we have the opportunity, for once, to actually be pro active and stop our country becoming subjected to Cologne style north African imported filth, & to stop England having "refugee" camps that look like something from the Middle Eastern medieval period, are people really going to close their eyes and ears and hope it goes away or wont happen here? Because it wont go away, it will happen here, and no one will be to blame for allowing it other than those who vote to REMAIN
And those who support Leave with an EEA-style deal, of course.
The question to be put does not allow one to distinguish between complete withdrawal and a Norway style agreement.
Voting to REMAIN however is a clear green light to the EU for further integration. LEAVE is more uncertain, but REMAIN is certainly more of the same, and further of the same (I appreciate Dave may well get some renegotiations), but it's the equivalent of breaking to get through a 30 Mph speed trap in a village before heading up to 60 through the road ahead.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
I'd like to know that we will be able to control our borders if we vote to Leave before considering it. If we end up agreeing some kind of free movement deal within the EEA, how will that materially improve on the current situation?
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
It was not the FSB. It was the CIA attempting to frame the FSB.
If you can't see that, there's really no hope for you.
Good morning all. Robert is a mere neophyte conspiracy theorist; clearly not been paying attention in class.
It was SIS false-flagging as Mossad impersonating the CIA attempting to frame the FSB. Fortunately there are those on the Internet, endowed with mental powers we can only guess at, who can see through these tawdry deceptions. Where would we be without them?
And those who support Leave with an EEA-style deal, of course.
Sigh... Of all the stupid things people say about me, saying I'm ramping for Remain is the silliest of all. I've spent the last five years giving the Leave side good advice, which it has ignored. That's hardly my fault.
Haha so pompous I love it!
As you wish. I am not bothered to argue with people who have fixed views on the subject, or those who don't for that matter. Everyone's entitled to their opinion
Looks like the Germans and French are finally realising Brexit is a possibility:
"Brexit would be a 'disaster' for Europe, warn France and Germany German finance minister urges UK to stay in EU as Prime Minister set to urge businesses to support the In campaign"
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
James Forsyth thinks Cameron will push back the referendum - if it gets really bad - to March 2017.
He obviously wants to win it.
But the longer he delays the more likely he is to lose. Cf indyref. Because the fear factor lessens over time, and people start to think Sod It.
That's what happened in Scotland.
I'd agree with that. Also, he'll look frit if he's got a deal in February but isn't prepared to put it to a vote for 16 months or more.
I think the scale of the migrant crisis might play for him, though there are a huge number of variables. Political pressure across the continent is such that I don't think they can do nothing for six months; they have to take action. Apart from potentially stemming the flow, that will also demonstrate the value of working together.
But that does assume that they get their act together which is an assumption somewhat against precedent.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
I'd like to know that we will be able to control our borders if we vote to Leave before considering it. If we end up agreeing some kind of free movement deal within the EEA, how will that materially improve on the current situation?
Well you KNOW we won't have control of our borders if you vote to remain. There are arguments for Remain, but this isn't one of them. LEAVE brings about the possibility. That is as far as we can project our opinion via the referendum.
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone.
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
You do talk a lot of bullshit when it comes to the EU. I have no doubt you are a committed europhile like Cameron, and your lofty pretensions to even-mindedness, "let's hear all the arguments", are just swithering cant.
Specifically, you keep saying the LEAVE campaign won't tell us what the UK would actually do if it LEAVES. What Britain would look like in ten years, say.
But the REMAIN campaign can't tell us either. They can't guarantee that the ECJ won't continue to nibble at our freedoms, or indeed devour great chunks, they can't guarantee that human rights judges won't continuously erode our sovereignty, they can't guarantee the EU won't backtrack on any agreement and decide to punish the City after all, they can't even guarantee that our present opt-outs will remain in force - see how our Schengen opt-out becomes worthless now that the EU has decided we have to take migrants by quota, or else.
The REMAIN camp is as mendacious and incoherent as LEAVE. However, there is one big difference. With LEAVE you know that's it. We're out. The EU can no longer deprive us of any more sovereignty, and if, for example, we choose to close our borders, then that's what we can and will do.
If we still can't control our borders on leaving and we suffer the economic/financial harms you identified in your first post, surely Leave is a worse option than Remain?
An attempt by Labour to attack Zac Goldsmith for "gross hypocrisy" over the London Living Wage (LLW) backfired today after it was revealed Sadiq Khan had himself recently advertised for a job paying below the official recommended hourly rate.
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
It was not the FSB. It was the CIA attempting to frame the FSB.
If you can't see that, there's really no hope for you.
Good morning all. Robert is a mere neophyte conspiracy theorist; clearly not been paying attention in class.
It was SIS false-flagging as Mossad impersonating the CIA attempting to frame the FSB. Fortunately there are those on the Internet, endowed with mental powers we can only guess at, who can see through these tawdry deceptions. Where would we be without them?
Come off it. It was SPECTRE.
Edit - damn: just seen that Casino Royale (appropriately) has already made the joke.
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone. .
You do talk a lot of bullshit when it comes to the EU. I have no doubt you are a committed europhile like Cameron, and your lofty pretensions to even-mindedness, "let's hear all the arguments", are just swithering cant.
Specifically, you keep saying the LEAVE campaign won't tell us what the UK would actually do if it LEAVES. What Britain would look like in ten years, say.
But the REMAIN campaign can't tell us either. They can't guarantee that the ECJ won't continue to nibble at our freedoms, or indeed devour great chunks, they can't guarantee that human rights judges won't continuously erode our sovereignty, they can't guarantee the EU won't backtrack on any agreement and decide to punish the City after all, they can't even guarantee that our present opt-outs will remain in force - see how our Schengen opt-out becomes worthless now that the EU has decided we have to take migrants by quota, or else.
The REMAIN camp is as mendacious and incoherent as LEAVE. However, there is one big difference. With LEAVE you know that's it. We're out. The EU can no longer deprive us of any more sovereignty, and if, for example, we choose to close our borders, then that's what we can and will do.
You are 100% right
Every time the establishment wants to introduce mass immigration or something that the public don't want, they portray those who see through thir plans as scaremongers, racists etc etc
Look at the Labour govt and A8 accession...
2004 "There will only be 10-15, 000"
When there were nearly a million
"But theyre all such hard workers"
What will happen is that all the arguments Farage, Hannan , Carswell put forward will be correct, as will be clear once we have voted to REMAIN, but the Government in 2020, be it Lab or Tory, will say "Ah but the Syrians are adding so much to society!" "Who would clean the hospital floors at weekends if it wasn't for people like Mohammed El Enghazi?" while ignoring Rotherham/Lee Rigby/7/7 style crimes by saying "We had rape/murder/inbred cousin marriage etc before we voted to REMAIN didn't we?"
"I find that the FSB (Russian Security Service) operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin" the report concludes.
Rubbish the government have dissembling from day one on this case, hiding evidence and concocting a narrative, and that continued until 2015 when Cameron needed a cheap propaganda victory he could sell to the public in light of embarrassments elsewhere. No surprise the number of loons on here who lap it up, for their own reasons, quite obviously.
I can only presume that you agree with Putin that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the USSR. Comrade.
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone.
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
You do talk a lot of bullshit when it comes to the EU. I have no doubt you are a committed europhile like Cameron, and your lofty pretensions to even-mindedness, "let's hear all the arguments", are just swithering cant.
Specifically, you keep saying the LEAVE campaign won't tell us what the UK would actually do if it LEAVES. What Britain would look like in ten years, say.
But the REMAIN campaign can't tell us either. They can't guarantee that the ECJ won't continue to nibble at our freedoms, or indeed devour great chunks, they can't guarantee that human rights judges won't continuously erode our sovereignty, they can't guarantee the EU won't backtrack on any agreement and decide to punish the City after all, they can't even guarantee that our present opt-outs will remain in force - see how our Schengen opt-out becomes worthless now that the EU has decided we have to take migrants by quota, or else.
The REMAIN camp is as mendacious and incoherent as LEAVE. However, there is one big difference. With LEAVE you know that's it. We're out. The EU can no longer deprive us of any more sovereignty, and if, for example, we choose to close our borders, then that's what we can and will do.
I used to remember the days when you were PB's most committed Europhile, urging ever closer Union to combat the rise of China.
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
If we still can't control our borders on leaving and we suffer the economic/financial harms you identified in your first post, surely Leave is a worse option than Remain?
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone.
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
If we still can't control our borders on leaving and we suffer the economic/financial harms you identified in your first post, surely Leave is a worse option than Remain?
I think that Pulpstar expressed it best in the last post.
We know that things aren't going to get any better within the EU. The political leaders of most EU member states will never cease to be committed to pursuing European political integration for its own sake - unless insurgent right and left wing parties come to power, which could generate different problems. And, we'll be dragged along with this, kicking and screaming, so long as we remain within the EU.
Leaving the EU at least gives us the opportunity to negotiate a better relationship with the others/
Very popular with the Russian secret services. It's a horribly callous way of killing someone. Plainly, they wanted Litvinenko to suffer the agonies of the damned before he died.
The Polonium was quite dangerous to other people as well, including those who administered it, and they would probably not have been aware of the risk they were taking.
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
Expected to be detected and expected it to be obvious (but not provable) who had done it.
Good. Now tell these ignorant f##kers to get on with doing some learning, for instance to start with why the computer room is called Rhodes i.e The Univ Rhodes Computer Room, off the Main Quad, was set up in 1983 after donations from a group of Univ’s former Rhodes Scholars to mark the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Rhodes Trust.
Good.
I do wonder if the Rhodes scholarship has disciplinary procedures - are the protesters bringing the fund into disrepute with their antics?
Would be quite poetic if the leader had his funding withdrawn after being so vocal.
Just because people make a bad argument don't mean they should have their funding cuts. I might not support what they say but I'll defend to death their right to say it!!
It would probably be a mistake for the scholarship to withdraw funding from people who say things it does not like, but it would not actually be wrong, per se, no one is saying they cannot say these things. People are free to accept the consequences of their words and actions. If someone is saying, for example, that every monument or memorial to a particular person was a racist tool of oppression, that in essence everything the person touched was soiled and should be erased from the earth, then presumably they could not protest the removing of a grant, as it was set up by a racist from ill gotten deeds. People who provide money to others are not obliged to continue doing so if those people are ungrateful - it would not be punishment, just no longer being generous.
"What Brexit would look like for Britain - Life outside the EU could be very good for us"
As always from Dan, a good article. To my mind he's the most persuasive of the Leave side, and he's definitely got the right tone.
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
You do talk a lot of bullshit when it comes to the EU. I have no doubt you are a committed europhile like Cameron, and your lofty pretensions to even-mindedness, "let's hear all the arguments", are just swithering cant.
Specifically, you keep saying the LEAVE campaign won't tell us what the UK would actually do if it LEAVES. What Britain would look like in ten years, say.
But the REMAIN campaign can't tell us either. They can't guarantee that the ECJ won't continue to nibble at our freedoms, or indeed devour great chunks, they can't guarantee that human rights judges won't continuously erode our sovereignty, they can't guarantee the EU won't backtrack on any agreement and decide to punish the City after all, they can't even guarantee that our present opt-outs will remain in force - see how our Schengen opt-out becomes worthless now that the EU has decided we have to take migrants by quota, or else.
The REMAIN camp is as mendacious and incoherent as LEAVE. However, there is one big difference. With LEAVE you know that's it. We're out. The EU can no longer deprive us of any more sovereignty, and if, for example, we choose to close our borders, then that's what we can and will do.
If we still can't control our borders on leaving and we suffer the economic/financial harms you identified in your first post, surely Leave is a worse option than Remain?
If we can't control our borders after leaving, that is purely down to the incompetence of our own government.
On this and other issues, politicians like the EU because it gives them a convenient scapegoat for failure to deliver.
DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT FREE MOVEMENT MEANS THAT ANY NON EU MIGRANTS WHO GO TO GERMANY, LIKE, SAY, OOH, ONE MILLION SYRIANS, CAN THEN MOVE ON TO THE UK, IN TIME?
Of course you know this. You aren't stupid. You're a liar.
I do know that those who become German citizens, in a few years time, can do so if we remain in the EU. I also know that if, as many on the Leave side argue, we leave the EU but sign up to an EEA-style deal, the situation will be identical in that respect.
Of course, we can't know how many migrants will get German citizenship in a few years' time; I'd guess not very many, judging by the Turkish experience. Quite why those who do - who by that time will be fully German-speaking and with family and connections in Germany - would then want to come to the UK in large numbers is also unclear to me.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
I'd like to know that we will be able to control our borders if we vote to Leave before considering it. If we end up agreeing some kind of free movement deal within the EEA, how will that materially improve on the current situation?
Well you KNOW we won't have control of our borders if you vote to remain. There are arguments for Remain, but this isn't one of them. LEAVE brings about the possibility. That is as far as we can project our opinion via the referendum.
The four freedoms are an essential part of signing up to the EEA, but we drop out of ECJ jurisdiction and all the EU's political institutions. Further, there is an emergency brake ability although there would be consequences if it was invoked.
EFTA only aligned with the four freedoms relatively recently and I think there would be scope for a bespoke bilateral deal for the UK here using that as a base.
Either way we have more options than if we Remain inside the EU. No-one can force the UK to accept continent wide free movement if we're outside the EU and the decision becomes a political one to trade off against how much access we want to the single market.
"I find that the FSB (Russian Security Service) operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin" the report concludes.
Rubbish the government have dissembling from day one on this case, hiding evidence and concocting a narrative, and that continued until 2015 when Cameron needed a cheap propaganda victory he could sell to the public in light of embarrassments elsewhere. No surprise the number of loons on here who lap it up, for their own reasons, quite obviously.
I can only presume that you agree with Putin that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the USSR. Comrade.
Is LondonBob named in honour of Robert Maxwell, rumoured KGB spy?
Michael Foot got it right over the Falklands – Jeremy’s casual throwaway comment just goes to show that no British Sovereign Territory would be safe under a Corbyn premiership.
Matt Singh That non-voter strategy. Remember, highest turnout in last 40 years: 1992. Lowest turnout since univ franchise: 2001 https://t.co/4ReME6nXSw
A Labour source told the Telegraph: "What's happening is that John McDonnell and Seamus Milne are having a massive battle for control of the Leader's office.
"Simon Fletcher has been camping out in Labour's Head office and trying to negotiate a settlement.
"This is all about a power struggle in Jeremy Corbyn's office and Jeremy is losing.
"The King is weak and the courtiers are taking over. Now the sensible people are leaving."
DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT FREE MOVEMENT MEANS THAT ANY NON EU MIGRANTS WHO GO TO GERMANY, LIKE, SAY, OOH, ONE MILLION SYRIANS, CAN THEN MOVE ON TO THE UK, IN TIME?
Of course you know this. You aren't stupid. You're a liar.
I do know that those who become German citizens, in a few years time, can do so if we remain in the EU. I also know that if, as many on the Leave side argue, we leave the EU but sign up to an EEA-style deal, the situation will be identical in that respect.
Of course, we can't know how many migrants will get German citizenship in a few years' time; I'd guess not very many, judging by the Turkish experience. Quite why those who do - who by that time will be fully German-speaking and with family and connections in Germany - would then want to come to the UK in large numbers is also unclear to me.
You cannot really be that naive. The UK is the first choice of migrants in about 95% of cases. Life is a lot easier here for them than anywhere else, including Germany, because of the language and the less restrictive employment regulations.
You're going from mendacity to outright moronism. Britain already attracts zillions of EU migrants. Why? Because of the English language, mainly, but also because of our welfare system, high employment, established foreign communities, and so on
For some reason you think these pull factors will magically exert no influence over Syrians or Afghans or Nigerians or Kurds, when we know for a fact that many of these people speak one foreign language, if any. English.
Cf the Somalians who moved from Holland to the UK. Did they learn Dutch? No. They came to England instead.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
You cannot really be that naive. The UK is the first choice of migrants in about 95% of cases. Life is a lot easier here for them than anywhere else, including Germany, because of the language and the less restrictive employment regulations.
Actually, at the moment Germany is the first choice, but I agree that probably will not last.
However, that isn't the point. The point is that, in order to become German citizens in a few years' time, they have to be settled in and integrated into Germany. So it's not a question of their first choice now, it's a question of the position of that sub-set of them who eventually get German citizenship.
Edit: The other significant point is that, after (IIRC) five years, any migrants who are resident in Germany but don't have citizenship (which will be the vast majority of them) will be free to go to another EU state, but NOT the UK - we have an opt-out on that.
"I find that the FSB (Russian Security Service) operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin" the report concludes.
Rubbish the government have dissembling from day one on this case, hiding evidence and concocting a narrative, and that continued until 2015 when Cameron needed a cheap propaganda victory he could sell to the public in light of embarrassments elsewhere. No surprise the number of loons on here who lap it up, for their own reasons, quite obviously.
I can only presume that you agree with Putin that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the USSR. Comrade.
Putin is clearly mistaken here. The greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the British Empire.
Labour MPs accused Jeremy Corbyn’s allies of “thuggery” today after one of London’s most respected political figures unexpectedly left his post in the party’s senior leadership team.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
That's not something I'd considered. If there is no Parliamentary majority for leaving the EU, how exactly does one go about it?
DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT FREE MOVEMENT MEANS THAT ANY NON EU MIGRANTS WHO GO TO GERMANY, LIKE, SAY, OOH, ONE MILLION SYRIANS, CAN THEN MOVE ON TO THE UK, IN TIME?
Of course you know this. You aren't stupid. You're a liar.
I do know that those who become German citizens, in a few years time, can do so if we remain in the EU. I also know that if, as many on the Leave side argue, we leave the EU but sign up to an EEA-style deal, the situation will be identical.
Of course, we can't know how many migrants will get German citizenship in a few years' time; I'd guess not very many, judging by the Turkish experience. Quite why those who do - who by that time will be fully German-speaking and with family and connections in Germany - would then want to come to the UK in large numbers is also unclear to me.
You're going from mendacity to outright moronism. Britain already attracts zillions of EU migrants. Why? Because of the English language, mainly, but also because of our welfare system, high employment, established foreign communities, and so on
For some reason you think these pull factors will magically exert no influence over Syrians or Afghans or Nigerians or Kurds, when we know for a fact that many of these people speak one foreign language, if any. English.
Cf the Somalians who moved from Holland to the UK. Did they learn Dutch? No. They came to England instead.
In order to Corbynterpret [v] one must first consider 1. Whether the Labour leader brought up the disputed view himself (invariably not) 2. Whether the Labour leader clearly said ‘yes’ after somebody asked him whether he held this view (invariably not) and 3. Whether the Labour leader clearly said ‘no’ after somebody asked him if he held this view (invariably not). Thereafter, you’ll just have to wing it. These are debates which can be neither won nor lost.
Thats why the push to have the referendum before the summer kicks in - imagine holding it in September after a repeat of last August at Calais.
Even if they have it in June it might not be early enough to avoid the migrant issue tilting millions towards LEAVE
We're only in January and it's already simmering pretty fiercely
Until a few months ago I was moderately sure I'd vote REMAIN. I think LEAVE will damage us economically in the short term, and also damage London in the medium term (in the long term we'd probably prosper just fine, but I'm impatient by nature).
However I now see no way of controlling our borders, and securing our nation, other than LEAVE and in the end that issue trumps all others, so I am now veering towards LEAVE.
How many other swing voters feel the same?
I'd like to know that we will be able to control our borders if we vote to Leave before considering it. If we end up agreeing some kind of free movement deal within the EEA, how will that materially improve on the current situation?
Well you KNOW we won't have control of our borders if you vote to remain. There are arguments for Remain, but this isn't one of them. LEAVE brings about the possibility. That is as far as we can project our opinion via the referendum.
The four freedoms are an essential part of signing up to the EEA, but we drop out of ECJ jurisdiction and all the EU's political institutions. Further, there is an emergency brake ability although there would be consequences if it was invoked.
EFTA only aligned with the four freedoms relatively recently and I think there would be scope for a bespoke bilateral deal for the UK here using that as a base.
Either way we have more options than if we Remain inside the EU. No-one can force the UK to accept continent wide free movement if we're outside the EU and the decision becomes a political one to trade off against how much access we want to the single market.
Question I have about the EEA plan: would there be a majority in Parliament for it?
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
You cannot really be that naive. The UK is the first choice of migrants in about 95% of cases. Life is a lot easier here for them than anywhere else, including Germany, because of the language and the less restrictive employment regulations.
Actually, at the moment Germany is the first choice, but I agree that probably will not last.
However, that isn't the point. The point is that, in order to become German citizens in a few years' time, they have to be settled in and integrated into Germany. So it's not a question of their first choice now, it's a question of the position of that sub-set of them who eventually get German citizenship.
Edit: The other significant point is that, after (IIRC) five years, any migrants who are resident in Germany but don't have citizenship (which will be the vast majority of them) will be free to go to another EU state, but NOT the UK - we have an opt-out on that.
Many will bide their time, having learnt enough German to get by, before hot footing it over here as soon as possible. The language is the key.
Comments
Jim Pickard
In case you missed my profile of Seumas Milne last week https://t.co/GJkarMXIW6
Carbyn is in Putins pocket, and ISIS and Hezbollah and Argentina's. Anyone's who is anti West.
He obviously wants to win it.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putins-stomach-kiss-sparks-talk-and-jokes/204085.html
http://order-order.com/2016/01/20/labour-spent-4700-on-hatties-pink-bus/
Jeez...£200k on debate coaching. I'm in the wrong business. And Ed still f##ked them up. And £600k on polling that was either wrong or they hid from Ed throughout the process.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/when-will-the-eu-referendum-happen-48581.html
If it looks bad enough to make a 2016 referendum unwinnable then I think it's unwinnable in 2017 too.
If you fail you can invoke Human Rights to a family life and apply it to any credible relative already here to avoid deportation.
If that fails the UK still may be unable to deport you to your EU point of entry, or your country of origin due to the Dublin convention and destroyed documents.
But you have to get here first.
Given all of that what possible disincentive is there for millions of migrants to not attempt to make their way to Calais and then attempt to storm the Tunnel night after night?
But, note that he fudges the most important question of all. In fact, he doesn't even fudge it, he completely ignores it. Judging by the elephant-in-the-room omission, he seems to be arguing for a tailored EEA-style deal, which is fair enough and coherent. Whether it's worth the hassle and loss of influence is a matter of opinion, but if that is the consensus alternative of the Leave side, then at least we'd know what we're being asked to choose.
Poison is a woman's method of murder.
Of course, the key difference in Scotland with the indyref was a fixed date for the vote and no nebulous 'renegotiation' to confuse matters of yes/no (albeit you can argue The Vow in the final 96 hours was an attempt to do so) and we knew turnout would be very high.
On the EU ref we have uncertainty on all three.
Cameron also has to decide whether to declare victory to the TV cameras based upon a signed piece of paper straight after walking out of an EU conference in Feb/March, or wait until it's written in blood as a treaty amendment/rider signed by all other 27 EU heads of government.
I think he'll do the former and hope the latter is achieved by September when he holds the vote.
Probably.
But I think it's a given that there will be attempts to taint every party leader's personal brand. It's an ugly thing but inevitable because the stature of the leader is the biggest asset a party has. If the opposing side don't attack that they aren't really trying (or they think you don't matter - see Tim Farron).
If we could snap our fingers and magically have a lot less without hurting anyone's feelings or having to admit in public that Enoch Powell called it right, I reckon 90% of people would do it
So here we have the opportunity, for once, to actually be pro active and stop our country becoming subjected to Cologne style north African imported filth, & to stop England having "refugee" camps that look like something from the Middle Eastern medieval period, are people really going to close their eyes and ears and hope it goes away or wont happen here? Because it wont go away, it will happen here, and no one will be to blame for allowing it other than those who vote to REMAIN
As for Cameron trying to delay or bring forward the date of the ref to make sure we cant be influenced by the inevitable consequences of the Migrant crisis, that is so crooked and filthy that I cant believe he would do it
The EEA joins together the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) and the three EEA/EFTA States (Liechtenstein,Iceland, and Norway) in a Single Market with about 496 million [people], where the same basic rules apply to all participating States. The citizens of all 30 EEA Member States have the right to move freely within the entire EEA, to live, work, establish companies, invest, and acquire real estate (often referred to as the “four freedoms”). Article 4 of the EEA Agreement also prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality (principle of non-discrimination).
What about Switzerland?
It is neither part of the EU, nor the EEA, but it has a free movement agreement with the EU and EEA
https://eumovement.wordpress.com/eu-countries/
LEAVErs ok with that?
I can't fully decide whether the FSB expected to get away with the murder undetected, or they expected it to be detected and to serve as a warning to other defectors. I think the latter is more probable, as if the FSB had wanted to be undetected something more commonly used as a poison would have been easier to deny. But unless a trial is held we'll never really know.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-austria-serbia-idUSKCN0UY1QH
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZHlawCXEAAy791.jpg:large
"Brexit would be a 'disaster' for Europe, warn France and Germany
German finance minister urges UK to stay in EU as Prime Minister set to urge businesses to support the In campaign"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/12112039/Davos-2016-David-Cameron-Brexit-EU-referendum-WEF-live.html
If you can't see that, there's really no hope for you.
As to my personal poisiton, the incoherence of the Leave side is pushing me back towards Remain. As I've said many times, I don't think an EEA-style deal is worth the hassle and loss of influence. Basically we'd still be stuck with the majority of the things which are most disagreeable about the EU, so what's the advantage?
Your position seems to be driven by migration of non-EU citizens. Quite what difference leaving the EU would make to that is a mystery.
An attempt by Labour to attack Zac Goldsmith for "gross hypocrisy" over the London Living Wage (LLW) backfired today after it was revealed Sadiq Khan had himself recently advertised for a job paying below the official recommended hourly rate.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/01/21/sadiq-khan-s-living-wage-attack-on-zac-goldsmith-backfires
If you cross us, we will not only kill you but make you suffer terribly too."
It makes Blofeld look like a softy.
Voting to REMAIN however is a clear green light to the EU for further integration. LEAVE is more uncertain, but REMAIN is certainly more of the same, and further of the same (I appreciate Dave may well get some renegotiations), but it's the equivalent of breaking to get through a 30 Mph speed trap in a village before heading up to 60 through the road ahead.
It was SIS false-flagging as Mossad impersonating the CIA attempting to frame the FSB. Fortunately there are those on the Internet, endowed with mental powers we can only guess at, who can see through these tawdry deceptions. Where would we be without them?
Breaking: 22-year-old man from Maidenhead, Berkshire, arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism
As you wish. I am not bothered to argue with people who have fixed views on the subject, or those who don't for that matter. Everyone's entitled to their opinion
France, Germany et al need to recognise that Britain might actually leave if they are to be incentivised to offer Britain a new deal.
I think the scale of the migrant crisis might play for him, though there are a huge number of variables. Political pressure across the continent is such that I don't think they can do nothing for six months; they have to take action. Apart from potentially stemming the flow, that will also demonstrate the value of working together.
But that does assume that they get their act together which is an assumption somewhat against precedent.
LEAVE brings about the possibility. That is as far as we can project our opinion via the referendum.
Edit - damn: just seen that Casino Royale (appropriately) has already made the joke.
John Rentoul
Michael Foot, speaking for the nation https://t.co/vRnl9zDVmO https://t.co/VDO4W7gRVL
Every time the establishment wants to introduce mass immigration or something that the public don't want, they portray those who see through thir plans as scaremongers, racists etc etc
Look at the Labour govt and A8 accession...
2004 "There will only be 10-15, 000"
When there were nearly a million
"But theyre all such hard workers"
What will happen is that all the arguments Farage, Hannan , Carswell put forward will be correct, as will be clear once we have voted to REMAIN, but the Government in 2020, be it Lab or Tory, will say "Ah but the Syrians are adding so much to society!" "Who would clean the hospital floors at weekends if it wasn't for people like Mohammed El Enghazi?" while ignoring Rotherham/Lee Rigby/7/7 style crimes by saying "We had rape/murder/inbred cousin marriage etc before we voted to REMAIN didn't we?"
However,as I said, that would be a mistake.
On this and other issues, politicians like the EU because it gives them a convenient scapegoat for failure to deliver.
Of course, we can't know how many migrants will get German citizenship in a few years' time; I'd guess not very many, judging by the Turkish experience. Quite why those who do - who by that time will be fully German-speaking and with family and connections in Germany - would then want to come to the UK in large numbers is also unclear to me.
EFTA only aligned with the four freedoms relatively recently and I think there would be scope for a bespoke bilateral deal for the UK here using that as a base.
Either way we have more options than if we Remain inside the EU. No-one can force the UK to accept continent wide free movement if we're outside the EU and the decision becomes a political one to trade off against how much access we want to the single market.
Inside the EU it's not even up for negotiation.
Mapped: Which country has the most immigrants? https://t.co/uc9XLnKXVs https://t.co/I04bWl5wIW
That non-voter strategy. Remember, highest turnout in last 40 years: 1992. Lowest turnout since univ franchise: 2001
https://t.co/4ReME6nXSw
If the referendum goes Leave then presumably the Government will repeal the European Communities Act (and whatever else). It might put EEA accession in the same bill or a separate one. I think there'd be a large majority for the ECA repeal as people will be wary of seeming to obstruct the referendum result. What about the EEA part though?
I assume there are Conservative ultras who would see it as an attempt to engineer Remain by the back door. So there might not be a blue majority for it.
Would any opposition party help out? The temptation to let the Conservatives fight it out among themselves would be huge. Also, it wouldn't be hard to justify voting against the EEA accession: not in the referendum, Leave should mean Leave, what about workers' rights, what about Scotland etc etc.
However, that isn't the point. The point is that, in order to become German citizens in a few years' time, they have to be settled in and integrated into Germany. So it's not a question of their first choice now, it's a question of the position of that sub-set of them who eventually get German citizenship.
Edit: The other significant point is that, after (IIRC) five years, any migrants who are resident in Germany but don't have citizenship (which will be the vast majority of them) will be free to go to another EU state, but NOT the UK - we have an opt-out on that.