Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I'm not so sure. I work in finance (but not for a bank), and when the topic comes up and I mention that I'm for leave there is genuine surprise. I also met somebody else in the same sector who feels the same way, but wouldn't say so in a discussion forum because she thought she would be alone.
It might be just a City thing; would be good to hear Charles' view.
Away from here, politics rarely comes up in conversations I have. But when it does, it seems pretty much everyone I know (largely from the northern suburban middle classes in their 30s and 40s) takes the standard Guardian view of the world. So I'm expecting to be pretty much alone as an outer. I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
For that matter, should we be seeking to regain sovereignty over the whole of Ireland? Our territorial claim to it is of more recent provenance than Argentina's over the Falklands, and it's closer. It would also meet Jeremy Corbyn's preferred objective of a united Ireland, though not by the route he's envisaged to date.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
If this debate has proved one thing, it's that europhiles have absolutely no answer to the migration problem/issue - they don't even properly understand it. They do understand, however, that it could be fatal to their cause.
The LEAVERS need to play this carefully, and not come over too Heinrich Himmlerish, but events, the migration crisis above all else, are very much on their side.
It may not matter than LEAVE is led by a cabal of painted buffoons, if REMAIN are truly so clueless on this utterly dominant subject.
Later.
The "undecideds" are attempting to muddy the waters with "ah but what happens if we leave" nonsense, knowing that Leave means humiliation for Dave. Of course millions will, metaphorically, stand on the breakwater at Dover, look at the camps in Calais and ignore the nuances of the EEA, ECHR, ECJ, etc etc and decide they've had enough.
Somebody earlier referred to the camps in Kent where people are desperate to reach the Continent, a bit like all those Americans who drowned trying to reach Cuba on rafts.
Why "Undecideds" in quotes? Are you implying there are no genuine undecideds?
It's also perfectly fair for someone who is undecided to ask what happens if we leave. In fact, it's sensible, particularly if they also ask what happens if we stay.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
For that matter, should we be seeking to regain sovereignty over the whole of Ireland? Our territorial claim to it is of more recent provenance than Argentina's over the Falklands, and it's closer. It would also meet Jeremy Corbyn's preferred objective of a united Ireland, though not by the route he's envisaged to date.
Isn't there still a valid Papal Bull saying we Brits should invade Ireland to civilise the natives?
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
I'd imagine Corbo wanted to keep Gibraltar British until Franco left office and now he would give it back.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
The only good card "Remain" have left is Cameron.
Yes. Imagine anyone else (with the possible exception of BoJo) leading the REMAIN campaign. Osborne, Miliband, May, Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Major, Corbyn, Salmond, Clegg...
REMAIN would lose under all these.
All those europhile lefties who slag off Cameron should thank their luckies he is at the helm.
Absolutely. And I think Cameron will generate a Remain upswing when he unveils his deal. I think that will be the time to back Leave though as the effect won't last (which is just a hunch tbh).
But it could last long enough to win the vote
Presumably Cam's plan is to bring home the EU bacon and a shiny new deal (ludicrously overblown, of course) then have a very quick campaign on the back of it, before LEAVE get the chance to thoroughly deconstruct.
However this sensible plan (from a europhile perspective) is in danger of being utterly blown away by the migration THING.
I think you are right about all of that.
It will be quite a tour de force if he pulls it off.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
Does Corbyn think that Kalingrad should be returned to Lithuania?
This is what happens if you dare suggest considering NOT giving BOTH your votes to the SNP:
@bellacaledonia Drowning under the sea of negativity against Bella. Going to take some time off social media to consider best options.
There is but one true faith......
Bella Caledonia is a RISE front, masquerading as a non-partisan Independence grouping. They've been exposed and face the consequence.
The split vote strategy can only be effective if the List vote goes to the greens, the idiots at Bella are trying to muddy the water in the highly implausible hope of sneaking a RISE nutter into Holyrood.
The hard left has had their chance, they got representatives in the first two parliaments. They made an utter mess of it. They even had one of their MSPs go "on the sick" for 18 months.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
Does Corbyn think that Kalingrad should be returned to Lithuania?
James McHale The working class are the salt of the earth when voting Labour. But start voting UKIP and suddenly you're a homophobic, xenophobic racist!
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
In which case, what about Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?
Irrelevant to the point.
No. Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar? Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
Does Corbyn think that Kalingrad should be returned to Lithuania?
This would be a great question for a journalist to ask him.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
The only good card "Remain" have left is Cameron.
CDM - I agree. In my view, this is the #1 problem for LEAVE - for many, voting LEAVE doesn't fit with the way they view themselves. LEAVE need to find a way of making people feel good about voting out - something the SNP have managed very well over the last 20 years. I fear there may not be enough time to effect this change.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I think you're right, especially when you consider that Tories are likely to make up the largest section of Leavers and they are used to being shy! To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
The only good card "Remain" have left is Cameron.
CDM - I agree. In my view, this is the #1 problem for LEAVE - for many, voting LEAVE doesn't fit with the way they view themselves. LEAVE need to find a way of making people feel good about voting out - something the SNP have managed very well over the last 20 years. I fear there may not be enough time to effect this change.
The referendum might well be decided in the next few weeks, when the electoral commission decides who the official Leave campaign is.
If it is Leave.EU then Leave is going to disappear up its own arse.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I'm not so sure. I work in finance (but not for a bank), and when the topic comes up and I mention that I'm for leave there is genuine surprise. I also met somebody else in the same sector who feels the same way, but wouldn't say so in a discussion forum because she thought she would be alone.
It might be just a City thing; would be good to hear Charles' view.
Away from here, politics rarely comes up in conversations I have. But when it does, it seems pretty much everyone I know (largely from the northern suburban middle classes in their 30s and 40s) takes the standard Guardian view of the world. So I'm expecting to be pretty much alone as an outer. I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
It's a huge age differential isn't it? There's a clear divide between pensioners clearly favouring OUT and 18-34s solidly in. You clearly move in hip and trendy circles.
IN will win if they can persuade the baby-boomers their children's security is protected staying in and convince 20 somethings that they need to vote this time.
OUT will win if they persuade enough younger voters that the global world they've grown up in isn't under threat from leaving, and it'll make their jobs more secure. To do this, they are going to have to commit to what OUT looks like, and deal with the EEA question once and for all.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I think you're right, especially when you consider that Tories are likely to make up the largest section of Leavers and they are used to being shy! To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
Hannan is hated by lefties, I have no idea why: except perhaps that they fear him, as a very eloquent, reasonable, persuasive eurosceptic, the thinking man's Nigel Farage, as it were
He should lead the campaign. He's a great speaker and clearly a decent chap, most voters won't give a toss that Guardianistas abhor him.
Remember this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
He's eloquent, but lefties like him because he criticised the NHS, and Dave slapped him down for that.
BTW I notice on the previous thread one or two were shedding crocodile tears over the spy that Putin had killed, he was a Russian spy ffs, not a Salvation Army volunteer.
On Topic: Everyone knows the difference between a Caesarean section birth and a natural birth. I'm sure Cruz was a natural born American. ;-)
'Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.' Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
'We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1.' Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998) JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins. 'There are "two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.'
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the judgment. 'The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed to its power under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.'
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
Corbyn: "It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we could get into some enormous conflict with Argentina about the islands just off it."
The Islands that are 300 miles away?
He can't even get his facts straight.
To be fair, it is ridiculous that we could get into some conflict there. Argentina's navy manages to sink by itself these days. It's in nothing like a fit state for combat.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I'm not so sure. I work in finance (but not for a bank), and when the topic comes up and I mention that I'm for leave there is genuine surprise. I also met somebody else in the same sector who feels the same way, but wouldn't say so in a discussion forum because she thought she would be alone.
It might be just a City thing; would be good to hear Charles' view.
Away from here, politics rarely comes up in conversations I have. But when it does, it seems pretty much everyone I know (largely from the northern suburban middle classes in their 30s and 40s) takes the standard Guardian view of the world. So I'm expecting to be pretty much alone as an outer. I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
Hardly surprising that 30-40-something liberal middle classes are REMAIN. in fact that is the core REMAIN vote.
The old, the Tory, the WWC, the metro-libertarian are the core LEAVERS.
True, Sean. ''Liberal' is the key thing there. I think the point that I was making was that in my rather dull, middle-class suburb - this is Sale; this is Manchester half-way out, where people set up home when they have families because it's not run by Manchester City Council* and because the schools are good and there are parks and low crime rates and general owner-occupation and Council Tax is low - that people are almost as Guardianista as they are in Chorlton. I suppose I'm a metro-libertarian. But I don't know any others. My next door but one neighbour is a Tory voter, but he's very much of the Ken Clarke mold.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I think you're right, especially when you consider that Tories are likely to make up the largest section of Leavers and they are used to being shy! To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
Hannan is hated by lefties, I have no idea why: except perhaps that they fear him, as a very eloquent, reasonable, persuasive eurosceptic, the thinking man's Nigel Farage, as it were
He should lead the campaign. He's a great speaker and clearly a decent chap, most voters won't give a toss that Guardianistas abhor him.
I agree; one of the very few Leavers who would worry the Remain camp. Not a premier league choice, but given the absence of star quality on the Leave side, they could do a lot worse.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I think you're right, especially when you consider that Tories are likely to make up the largest section of Leavers and they are used to being shy! To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
Hannan is hated by lefties, I have no idea why: except perhaps that they fear him, as a very eloquent, reasonable, persuasive eurosceptic, the thinking man's Nigel Farage, as it were
He should lead the campaign. He's a great speaker and clearly a decent chap, most voters won't give a toss that Guardianistas abhor him.
I agree; one of the very few Leavers who would worry the Remain camp. Not a premier league choice, but given the absence of star quality on the Leave side, they could do a lot worse.
I'm still waiting for one of the big hitting Remainers to take on Nigel in a televised debate, after he demolished Clegg I can't imagine they'll be queuing up.
A dog owner who told a woman her Jack Russell was attacking her because it "doesn't like Muslims" has been convicted of racially aggravated harassment.
Fiona Connolly's dog had run up to Candice Legister and chew at her dress as she walked through Little Wormwood Scrubs Park in Chelsea, southwest London.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I'm not so sure. I work in finance (but not for a bank), and when the topic comes up and I mention that I'm for leave there is genuine surprise. I also met somebody else in the same sector who feels the same way, but wouldn't say so in a discussion forum because she thought she would be alone.
It might be just a City thing; would be good to hear Charles' view.
Away from here, politics rarely comes up in conversations I have. But when it does, it seems pretty much everyone I know (largely from the northern suburban middle classes in their 30s and 40s) takes the standard Guardian view of the world. So I'm expecting to be pretty much alone as an outer. I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
Hardly surprising that 30-40-something liberal middle classes are REMAIN. in fact that is the core REMAIN vote.
The old, the Tory, the WWC, the metro-libertarian are the core LEAVERS.
'To be fair, it is ridiculous that we could get into some conflict there. Argentina's navy manages to sink by itself these days. It's in nothing like a fit state for combat.
Britain also has HMS Dauntless, which is a serious piece of kit, apparently.
BTW I notice on the previous thread one or two were shedding crocodile tears over the spy that Putin had killed, he was a Russian spy ffs, not a Salvation Army volunteer.
You're not too bothered by foreign powers irradiating parts of London then? Or executing people here.
@David_Cameron · 6m6 minutes ago I made clear in my speech at #WEF - an EU renegotiation deal needs to be right for the UK. I'm in no hurry to do a deal in February.
"earlier, speaking to journalists, Mr Valls cast doubt on the idea that the British government would secure agreement on a package of reforms to keep Britain in the EU, at the next EU summit in February — suggesting that negotiations would “need more time”."
The referendum might well be decided in the next few weeks, when the electoral commission decides who the official Leave campaign is.
If it is Leave.EU then Leave is going to disappear up its own arse.
I'm not sure about that. I agree with those who have been saying that immigration is the Leave side's most potent political argument (leaving aside the point that it may be a bogus argument, and certainly is if we end up in an EEA-style deal). Angela Merkel is doing a much better job of pushing UK voters towards Brexit than anyone in either Leave campaign.
Given that, it's a bit hard to say which of the two campaign groups would be the more effective. Leave.EU is more divisive, less professional, and looks a bit dodgy, but it has the most potent argument at the centre of its offering. VoteLeave are more gentlemanly, and come over as more sane, but are hampered from making that potent argument because they presumably don't actually believe it or think it will taint the Leave side.
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
"A Cologne imam has said the victims of the New Years Eve mob sex attacks had themselves to blame because they wore perfume. Sami Abu-Yusuf added that he was not surprised the girls were sexually assaulted, groped and raped, because of the way they dressed"
The referendum might well be decided in the next few weeks, when the electoral commission decides who the official Leave campaign is.
If it is Leave.EU then Leave is going to disappear up its own arse.
I'm not sure about that. I agree with those who have been arguing that immigration is the Leave side's most potent political argument (leaving aside the point that it may be a bogus argument, and certainly is if we end up in an EEA-style deal). Angela Merkel is doing a much better job of pushing UK voters towards Brexit than anyone in either Leave campaign.
Given that, it's a bit hard to say which of the two campaign groups would be the more effective. Leave.EU is more divisive, less professional, and looks a bit dodgy, but it has the most potent argument at the centre of its offering. VoteLeave are more gentlemanly, and come over as more sane, but are hampered from making that potent argument because they presumably don't actually believe it or think it will taint the Leave side.
Exactly.
and for all the criticism of UKIPs campaign methods and their number of MPs, it cannot be argued that 5 years ago, them winning the Euros and getting 13% of the vote at a GE would have been laughed at on here.. in fact it was and I did quite well out of it in betting terms (only to give it all back and more by backing seats).
They increased their vote share (and absolute vote?) by more than any other party, so I'd be careful to write off their campaign too soon just because it didn't suit ones personal taste
The referendum might well be decided in the next few weeks, when the electoral commission decides who the official Leave campaign is.
If it is Leave.EU then Leave is going to disappear up its own arse.
I'm not sure about that. I agree with those who have been arguing that immigration is the Leave side's most potent political argument (leaving aside the point that it may be a bogus argument, and certainly is if we end up in an EEA-style deal). Angela Merkel is doing a much better job of pushing UK voters towards Brexit than anyone in either Leave campaign.
Given that, it's a bit hard to say which of the two campaign groups would be the more effective. Leave.EU is more divisive, less professional, and looks a bit dodgy, but it has the most potent argument at the centre of its offering. VoteLeave are more gentlemanly, and come over as more sane, but are hampered from making that potent argument because they presumably don't actually believe it or think it will taint the Leave side.
Is less about immigration and more the tactics, strategy and the collegiate approach of the campaign.
If it Leave.EU then it is going to use the UKIP model and people to run the campaign (sans Carswell) Vote Leave is much broader based.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I think you're right, especially when you consider that Tories are likely to make up the largest section of Leavers and they are used to being shy! To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
Hannan is hated by lefties, I have no idea why: except perhaps that they fear him, as a very eloquent, reasonable, persuasive eurosceptic, the thinking man's Nigel Farage, as it were
He should lead the campaign. He's a great speaker and clearly a decent chap, most voters won't give a toss that Guardianistas abhor him.
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
A dog owner who told a woman her Jack Russell was attacking her because it "doesn't like Muslims" has been convicted of racially aggravated harassment.
Fiona Connolly's dog had run up to Candice Legister and chew at her dress as she walked through Little Wormwood Scrubs Park in Chelsea, southwest London.
I'm not excusing the dog owner, but the whole thing seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Is it really a worthwhile use of police and court time, dealing with petty insults from thick drunkards?
@David_Cameron · 6m6 minutes ago I made clear in my speech at #WEF - an EU renegotiation deal needs to be right for the UK. I'm in no hurry to do a deal in February.
"earlier, speaking to journalists, Mr Valls cast doubt on the idea that the British government would secure agreement on a package of reforms to keep Britain in the EU, at the next EU summit in February — suggesting that negotiations would “need more time”."
It would be a mistake to let it slip past June. The vote needs to be this year; September or October work as well as (if not better than) June. Next year, on the other hand, creates a load more hostages to fortune as well as giving Leave more time to organise.
It would be a mistake to let it slip past June. The vote needs to be this year; September or October work as well as (if not better than) June. Next year, on the other hand, creates a load more hostages to fortune as well as giving Leave more time to organise.
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
@David_Cameron · 6m6 minutes ago I made clear in my speech at #WEF - an EU renegotiation deal needs to be right for the UK. I'm in no hurry to do a deal in February.
"earlier, speaking to journalists, Mr Valls cast doubt on the idea that the British government would secure agreement on a package of reforms to keep Britain in the EU, at the next EU summit in February — suggesting that negotiations would “need more time”."
Hmm. Does sound that way. That's bad for Remain.
Suggests there is something substantive to talk about, of cours
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
Yes I agree with you completely on the second point.. It has crossed my mind that the whole "good cop/bad cop" thing between Carswell/VL and Farage/L.EU was a put up... I doubt it but I think it is perfect actually
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
It would be a mistake to let it slip past June. The vote needs to be this year; September or October work as well as (if not better than) June. Next year, on the other hand, creates a load more hostages to fortune as well as giving Leave more time to organise.
I think September is much more likely.
To clarify, I should have said "It would be a mistake to let the negotiations slip past June"
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
It would be a mistake to let it slip past June. The vote needs to be this year; September or October work as well as (if not better than) June. Next year, on the other hand, creates a load more hostages to fortune as well as giving Leave more time to organise.
I think September is much more likely.
To clarify, I should have said "It would be a mistake to let the negotiations slip past June"
As a matter of interest, in what way do you think September / October work better than June?
On the other hand OGH, maybe we should make Trump an honorary Brit and invite him to start a new party over here & to run for PM, notwithstanding that the people who have signed the petition banning him wouldn't vote him.
"earlier, speaking to journalists, Mr Valls cast doubt on the idea that the British government would secure agreement on a package of reforms to keep Britain in the EU, at the next EU summit in February — suggesting that negotiations would “need more time”."
And yet when the EU needs something, such as a change in the Dublin agreement to enable refugees to be waved through and dumped on others, it can be done yesterday.
Do other posters think there will be a 'shy Leave' vote? I'm thinking back to the Irish gay marriage vote, which saw the antis do better than the polls suggested, probably because the political classes and the media lined up behind the pro position.
I think some people will support leave but be reluctant to admit it for fear of being thought a kipper. What do people think?
I'm not so sure. I work in finance (but not for a bank), and when the topic comes up and I mention that I'm for leave there is genuine surprise. I also met somebody else in the same sector who feels the same way, but wouldn't say so in a discussion forum because she thought she would be alone.
It might be just a City thing; would be good to hear Charles' view.
Away from here, politics rarely comes up in conversations I have. But when it does, it seems pretty much everyone I know (largely from the northern suburban middle classes in their 30s and 40s) takes the standard Guardian view of the world. So I'm expecting to be pretty much alone as an outer. I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
It's a huge age differential isn't it? There's a clear divide between pensioners clearly favouring OUT and 18-34s solidly in. You clearly move in hip and trendy circles.
IN will win if they can persuade the baby-boomers their children's security is protected staying in and convince 20 somethings that they need to vote this time.
OUT will win if they persuade enough younger voters that the global world they've grown up in isn't under threat from leaving, and it'll make their jobs more secure. To do this, they are going to have to commit to what OUT looks like, and deal with the EEA question once and for all.
The old folk were taught history and are proud of the British story. They don't want to be absorbed into some European state. If the young were taught any British history it was about how evil we were. Anyway they spend too much time looking at their smart phones to think about anything else.
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
It would be a mistake to let it slip past June. The vote needs to be this year; September or October work as well as (if not better than) June. Next year, on the other hand, creates a load more hostages to fortune as well as giving Leave more time to organise.
I think September is much more likely.
To clarify, I should have said "It would be a mistake to let the negotiations slip past June"
As a matter of interest, in what way do you think September / October work better than June?
More focus for the campaign. A June vote would come off the back of a lot of elections in May, which will be a distraction for the Remainers (most of whom have a strong interest in them), while UKIP will prioritise the referendum and can probably run one off the back of the other anyway.
There are, of course, risks both ways to delay, particularly re the migrant crisis but then there's a risk in going early as well if it does mean forcing the negotiations and distracting from a migrant solution.
My main concerns are the same as the articles: the cost - the figures in the initial report were rather optimistic IMO, and the throughput of people is woefully low.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
They think LEAVE should ignore immigration and the refugee crisis and focus on micro analysing EU treaties etc
You can see whole threads here with posters poring over treaties to see what we can and can't do.
Meanwhile cornerstone principles turn to ash when the EU is threatened, as we now see with the Dublin treaty.
We are being lined up as a dumping ground for German folly. A landfill for their policy catastrophe.
How can people who devote a lot of time to arguing the merits of mass immigration, and downplaying the problems it brings, reconcile that with having to look at any cost as if they are a shrewdie who only ever wins arguments, when the argument most likely to appeal to voters (as backed by the polls) is the fear of immigration and violence??
A tricky one...
An immigration led strategy will be great for achieving 35% of the vote.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
Its the only chance LEAVE have of winning
No, it will guarantee a loss.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
Good plan. Now how can you make it happen?
I chat to Matthew Elliott from time to time and do a little to help out - hosted BfB's Winter Party 12 months ago. Don't have the spare cash at the moment to funnel too much money their way though.
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.
All 5 previously known deaths from Polonium poisoning, including Irene Curie, were accidental. Although there has been speculation that Arafat was poisoned by polonium. Which is interesting as Litvinenko traveled to Israel in October 2006 where it is alleged that he gave information regarding Yukos to Leonid Nevzlin, the former deputy head of Yukos relating to the deaths of former Yukos workers and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Litivnenko was also looking into organised crime in Russia and all that implies for that angle.
Personally I still believe the smuggling gone wrong hypothesis that Andrew Jay Epstein deduced.
My main concerns are the same as the articles: the cost - the figures in the initial report were rather optimistic IMO, and the throughput of people is woefully low.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
On that principle what is Cameron's position on the Crimea (and Donbass and Kharkov and Odessa), or must we bow to the hangups of the loons on that issue?
Didn't someone try something similar over 100 years ago?
The results of any accident will be spectacularly bad.
There have been lots of funny experiments, including the tracked hovercraft near me, or the French Aerotrain. The most promising, Maglev, has had a massive number of problems.
And your point about safety is well put. The failure modes are many, and the energies large.
I remember the Germans saying that their Maglev system was perfectly safe, and couldn't crash ...
BTW I notice on the previous thread one or two were shedding crocodile tears over the spy that Putin had killed, he was a Russian spy ffs, not a Salvation Army volunteer.
You're not too bothered by foreign powers irradiating parts of London then? Or executing people here.
Correct, I've far more important things to worry about.
My main concerns are the same as the articles: the cost - the figures in the initial report were rather optimistic IMO, and the throughput of people is woefully low.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
My main concerns are the same as the articles: the cost - the figures in the initial report were rather optimistic IMO, and the throughput of people is woefully low.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
What is the advantage over flying?
None, really. Depending on your view, it's either designed to kill off the HSR scheme they've got going, or for use on Mars. I cannot see it really working where they've planned.
I wonder what price you could get on 'no referendum vote under Cameron'. You could see the calendar drifting endlessly as the situation in Europe disintegrates further in the summer and remain looks less and less likely.
This time next year the back benchers start to seriously lose patience and Cameron will hold a leadership election in the summer, before he has to do what he can not do. Hold a referendum and lose.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
On that principle what is Cameron's position on the Crimea (and Donbass and Kharkov and Odessa), or must we bow to the hangups of the loons on that issue?
The Crimea does not want to remain British. Thats because its never been British and is not a British responsibility.
Toulon’s president, Mourad Boudjellal, has written to Aviva Premiership chiefs about the possibility of his reigning European champions joining English rugby’s flagship domestic competition
The unveiling was troubled from the start. Those behind the stunt hadn’t realized the stone’s chief quality -- its mass -- would be a problem. Miliband was supposed to reveal it inside a school hall, but the floor wasn’t strong enough to support it, forcing him to pose for pictures outside, against a gray sky.
Even in the car park, there was a danger of damage to the ground, meaning the slab needed a special weight-distributing frame that appeared in the background of the pictures and gave the scene the air of a construction site.
Miliband also had to circle the school in his bus while the party negotiated with the local Green Party candidate, Jake Bowers, who had got into the school grounds with his horse and cart and refused to move out of the shot. He only did after he was promised a meeting with the Labour leader, according to “Why the Tories Won,” a book about the election by Tim Ross.
...David Cameron, on a campaign visit to Nuneaton, central England, had to be shown photographs to prove the stunt wasn’t a joke. “They can’t actually have done this, can they?” he asked staff.
My main concerns are the same as the articles: the cost - the figures in the initial report were rather optimistic IMO, and the throughput of people is woefully low.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
What is the advantage over flying?
None, really. Depending on your view, it's either designed to kill off the HSR scheme they've got going, or for use on Mars. I cannot see it really working where they've planned.
The timeline of 36 months to first passengers seems very ambitious to me. It'll take longer, but around 2040 there'll be a good few running at a profit. Whether we see one in this country any time in the next few decades is another matter, after the 2020s are dominated by HS2 delays, budgets being busted and overruns future Gov'ts may give it a miss even if it is shown to be the "correct" transport solution for us.
@TelePolitics: David Cameron tells new Argentinian President: 'Absolutely clear' Falkland Islands want to remain British https://t.co/dJRVctM2kq
On that principle what is Cameron's position on the Crimea (and Donbass and Kharkov and Odessa), or must we bow to the hangups of the loons on that issue?
You appear a little confused, the Falklands are British territory, the others mentioned are not.
Comments
Funnily enough can still remember my first ever film there it was Flesh Gordon
I accept that this view is not representative, There must, somewhere, be hidden reserves of outers somewhere (or LEAVE wouldn't be at 40% and above in the polls) just as there are hidden reserves of other Conservative voters and UKIP voters somewhere. But either they don't move in my circles, or they do and they keep quiet.
Gibraltar is just off Spain and the Channel Islands are just off France. If you want to negotiate with Argentina about Falklands sovereignty then why not with Spain about Gibraltar?
Corbyn should make his views on that clear.
It's also perfectly fair for someone who is undecided to ask what happens if we leave. In fact, it's sensible, particularly if they also ask what happens if we stay.
It will be quite a tour de force if he pulls it off.
Ahh yes, I see your point. Yes Corbyn should.
The split vote strategy can only be effective if the List vote goes to the greens, the idiots at Bella are trying to muddy the water in the highly implausible hope of sneaking a RISE nutter into Holyrood.
The hard left has had their chance, they got representatives in the first two parliaments. They made an utter mess of it. They even had one of their MSPs go "on the sick" for 18 months.
The working class are the salt of the earth when voting Labour. But start voting UKIP and suddenly you're a homophobic, xenophobic racist!
To have any chance however, Leavers need a forceful, eloquent and convincing leader .... Dan Hannan looks very much the part,but would he be acceptable to non-Tories in the same way as Boris would have been, before seemingly chickening out of the fray?
If it is Leave.EU then Leave is going to disappear up its own arse.
On principle of ever closer union, specifically Schengen, PM: we never went for approach of taking down our borders &in my op' we never will
Miss Plato, the UKIP wet dream scenario is now actually a plausible possibility.
UK votes to Remain.
EU alters rules so we get a quota of X migrants or suffer financial and other penalties.
Cameron gets replaced by someone rubbish enough to beat Corbyn but not compelling enough to keep voters from going for a populist purple vote.
There's a clear divide between pensioners clearly favouring OUT and 18-34s solidly in. You clearly move in hip and trendy circles.
IN will win if they can persuade the baby-boomers their children's security is protected staying in and convince 20 somethings that they need to vote this time.
OUT will win if they persuade enough younger voters that the global world they've grown up in isn't under threat from leaving, and it'll make their jobs more secure. To do this, they are going to have to commit to what OUT looks like, and deal with the EEA question once and for all.
Perhaps I could ask her if she would have Nationalised the Railways in the 40s
Tom Harris
.@TotalPolitics Only a political neophyte would claim that Tony Blair's "predicament" in the PLP was remotely similar to Corbyn's.
National press ABCs, December 2015: Cut price Daily Star grows sales and hurts Daily Mirror https://t.co/1wUAPSVbg2
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
'We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1.' Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins.
'There are "two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.'
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the judgment.
'The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed to its power under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.'
[my emphases]
I suppose I'm a metro-libertarian. But I don't know any others. My next door but one neighbour is a Tory voter, but he's very much of the Ken Clarke mold.
The surgeon gave my father the choice of before and after the end of the tax year...
Fiona Connolly's dog had run up to Candice Legister and chew at her dress as she walked through Little Wormwood Scrubs Park in Chelsea, southwest London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12112681/Dog-owner-claimed-animal-attacked-woman-as-it-doesnt-like-Muslims.html
Britain also has HMS Dauntless, which is a serious piece of kit, apparently.
I made clear in my speech at #WEF - an EU renegotiation deal needs to be right for the UK. I'm in no hurry to do a deal in February.
Timetable slipping, I think.
Especially coupled with this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/414be6be-c035-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product
"earlier, speaking to journalists, Mr Valls cast doubt on the idea that the British government would secure agreement on a package of reforms to keep Britain in the EU, at the next EU summit in February — suggesting that negotiations would “need more time”."
Given that, it's a bit hard to say which of the two campaign groups would be the more effective. Leave.EU is more divisive, less professional, and looks a bit dodgy, but it has the most potent argument at the centre of its offering. VoteLeave are more gentlemanly, and come over as more sane, but are hampered from making that potent argument because they presumably don't actually believe it or think it will taint the Leave side.
But it could repel a lot of the marginal voters.
It's an important theme, and needs to be explored, but shouldn't set the tone for the whole discussion.
"A 26-year-old Algerian asylum seeker has become the first suspect to be arrested over alleged sexual offences in Cologne on New Year's Eve."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35348949
"A Cologne imam has said the victims of the New Years Eve mob sex attacks had themselves to blame because they wore perfume. Sami Abu-Yusuf added that he was not surprised the girls were sexually assaulted, groped and raped, because of the way they dressed"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html
"Syrian migrants in Calais win green light to come to Britain
British court says the four men should be allowed to come here immediately in case with far-reaching implications"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12111377/Syrian-migrants-in-Calais-win-green-light-to-come-to-Britain.html
and for all the criticism of UKIPs campaign methods and their number of MPs, it cannot be argued that 5 years ago, them winning the Euros and getting 13% of the vote at a GE would have been laughed at on here.. in fact it was and I did quite well out of it in betting terms (only to give it all back and more by backing seats).
They increased their vote share (and absolute vote?) by more than any other party, so I'd be careful to write off their campaign too soon just because it didn't suit ones personal taste
But at the same time he supports the propagation of laughable propaganda that suggests just that e.g. the 'pure Goebbels' 3 million jobs claim.
If it Leave.EU then it is going to use the UKIP model and people to run the campaign (sans Carswell) Vote Leave is much broader based.
I actually think it is a good idea that there are two Leave campaigns - I wish they would stop taking potshots at each other and co-operate.
Leave.EU should focus on the 'UKIP voter' emphasis immigration, play under the radar screen.
Vote Leave should be the official face of the campaign, talk to business, work with the media and try to make voting leave acceptable
Suggests there is something substantive to talk about, of cours
He never fails to impress, even if he did lead the No2AV campaign.
Construction's started on a prototype Hyperloop.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35361093
A waste of money IMO, but we shall see.
notwithstanding that the people who have signed the petition banning him wouldn't vote him.
And yet when the EU needs something, such as a change in the Dublin agreement to enable refugees to be waved through and dumped on others, it can be done yesterday.
We're cursed.
There are, of course, risks both ways to delay, particularly re the migrant crisis but then there's a risk in going early as well if it does mean forcing the negotiations and distracting from a migrant solution.
As for a bet: how about a trip on it if it goes into full passenger service? (Making your way there is not included).
The results of any accident will be spectacularly bad.
Personally I still believe the smuggling gone wrong hypothesis that Andrew Jay Epstein deduced.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/PDFtheories.htm
What is the advantage over flying?
And your point about safety is well put. The failure modes are many, and the energies large.
I remember the Germans saying that their Maglev system was perfectly safe, and couldn't crash ...
For more info:
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf
https://twitter.com/UK_CAGE/status/690141031547998208
This time next year the back benchers start to seriously lose patience and Cameron will hold a leadership election in the summer, before he has to do what he can not do. Hold a referendum and lose.
Toulon’s president, Mourad Boudjellal, has written to Aviva Premiership chiefs about the possibility of his reigning European champions joining English rugby’s flagship domestic competition
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/21/toulon-president-serious-premiership
Even in the car park, there was a danger of damage to the ground, meaning the slab needed a special weight-distributing frame that appeared in the background of the pictures and gave the scene the air of a construction site.
Miliband also had to circle the school in his bus while the party negotiated with the local Green Party candidate, Jake Bowers, who had got into the school grounds with his horse and cart and refused to move out of the shot. He only did after he was promised a meeting with the Labour leader, according to “Why the Tories Won,” a book about the election by Tim Ross.
...David Cameron, on a campaign visit to Nuneaton, central England, had to be shown photographs to prove the stunt wasn’t a joke. “They can’t actually have done this, can they?” he asked staff.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/the-mystery-of-labour-s-two-ton-u-k-election-debacle-solved
Edited for clarity.