OT. 'Spotlight' reasonably heavily tipped for a best film Oscar. Very watchable about the Boston Globe exposing the widespread paedophilia in the catholic clergy in Boston and the cover up by the all powerful Catholic church.
Unlikely to win in my opinion but interestingly in the US (or possibly just Boston) there's a three year statute of limitations for sex crimes.
'If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now'
Well you are assuming that speech was a serious platform. Given the incredibly easy way all those proposals have been dropped, that's open to serious doubt.
But even if we do assume they were serious, despite those proposals being dumped and replaced by empty formulae, you and the other europhiles are desperate to stay in.
I'm not 'desperate' to stay in. Britain could get by comfortably enough outside the EU but I believe that membership - even on current conditions - is in the UK's interest. It'd be good deal more in our interests were it reformed along the lines Cameron originally suggested - but then it'd be in all the member states' interests too. Perhaps they'll come round to it at some point: domestic pressure must have some effect eventually.
RUBIO RISING ...the real message to come out of Iowa is the rise of Marco Rubio ..in the next seven days before NH he is sure to get a blaze of endorsements from big donors like Sheldon Aldenson and big names like Romney and McCain ...it's not over yet but the writing is clearly on the wall for anyone paying attention
I am sure the GOP base in New Hampshire are just waiting to endorse a candidate backed by McCain and Romney who have lost the last two general elections. Rubio polled third and came third even if he polled a little higher than expected, he now has to win in New Hampshire or at least beat Cruz for second to match the expectations the media are putting on him
Rubio will now unify the establishment lane and steamroll to victory ; he will win NH and Nevada too .....this has been on the cards for months and would have been clear to anyone able to read between the lines
RUBIO WILL BE THE NEXT US PRESIDENT .....frame this comment for posterity
There is no way Rubio is odds on GOP favourite, he polled third and came third. The real winner of the night is Cruz who is now Trump's main rival for the nomination. Unless Rubio beats Trump in New Hampshire or at least beats Cruz for second place he will be running for the bronze medal
You are a bloody fool ; I have been predicting for months that Rubio will not only become the nominee , but will CRUSH Hillary
It will not even dawn upon you that Rubio has won the presidency until he's in the White House with his feet upon the desk smoking a victory cigar ...get a clue Sherlock !
You are jumping the gun as Rubio has to win the nomination first before he even gets to face Hillary and while Hillary is now favourite she is no absolute certainty for the Democratic nomination either
RUBIO RISING ...the real message to come out of Iowa is the rise of Marco Rubio ..in the next seven days before NH he is sure to get a blaze of endorsements from big donors like Sheldon Aldenson and big names like Romney and McCain ...it's not over yet but the writing is clearly on the wall for anyone paying attention
Cromwell is always right about everything. I know this because he (or she) uses CAPITALS.
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
Rubio will now unify the establishment lane and steamroll to victory ; he will win NH and Nevada too .....this has been on the cards for months and would have been clear to anyone able to read between the lines
RUBIO WILL BE THE NEXT US PRESIDENT .....frame this comment for posterity
Tip: I discount anyone shrill who posts with capital letters.
There is no way Rubio is odds on GOP favourite, he polled third and came third. The real winner of the night is Cruz who is now Trump's main rival for the nomination. Unless Rubio beats Trump in New Hampshire or at least beats Cruz for second place he will be running for the bronze medal
The plausible path to the nomination from here for Cruz is difficult.
If it had been 35% Cruz, 30% Trump, with Rubio on 15%, then he would have had a good shot. But not now. Unless he pulls it out the bag with a win in South Carolina, it's all over for him.
Trump, on the other hand, is not holed below the waterline. He should still win New Hampshire by a good margin. Likewise South Carolina on the 20th and Nevada on the 23rd. For this reason, you should be backing Trump because his price will surely come in from here.
Looking forward to Super Tuesday, it's likely that Cruz will have had three losses in a row. That being said, Cruz should play well in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee. But he'll need to win most of these, because these are the evangelical seats where he should poll best.
And what of Rubio: he needs to be a solid second in New Hampshire, and then - ideally - to overtake Cruz in Nevada and South Carolina. I think it is a fair bet that he does that.
So, I'd put Trump still at 50% for the nomination, with Rubio c. 40%, and with 10% the field (mostly Cruz!).
I agree Trump was overhyped and overvalued until now, now the reverse is true and the media and punters are writing him off too early, he is now the value bet
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
I'm a convinced EFTA/EEA supporter. But when I read the frothing-Leavers on here, I find myself being drawn towards Remain.
Shame for Sanders, failing to win one of the whitest states in the Midwest means the end of the road for him. The FBI appear determined to help though.
Trump wins NH then SC and he should be back on course, Iowa is always an oddity and one of his weakest states.
Sanders pushed Hillary to the wire though and he should win New Hampshire next week
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
I find Remainers tend to drive me towards Leave, and vice-versa.
Mr. Herdson, do you think it will also be in our interest in 5, 10, 20 years?
That's the problem I have. The eurozone having a QMV critical mass, by a long way, is not in our national interest.
I don't think that the Eurozone is the monolithic bloc that some sceptics portray it as. Greece and Germany have very different ideas about the way forward. The main dividing line remains the north/south (or, if you prefer givers and takers) one rather than currency usage, and is likely to remain so.
Cameron and Hammond should be looking to get as close as possible to Merkel's successor to complete the Single market in services.
But as with all policy, it needs to be kept under review. If things do turn decisively against Britain's interest and it seems too unlikely that they'll turn back again then we'd have to look at withdrawal. I know that sceptics believe we've reached that point already and fair enough; it's their right to that call. I disagree but I'm not a True Believer; I've come to my conclusion from a practical rather than ideological viewpoint.
I'd an extended discussion elsewhere yesterday trying to point out the downside of insulting others re the EU ref.
I received a torrent of but Vote Leave are the wrong sort of Leave. No matter how often I noted there's only one Leave box on the ballot, it didn't register. Squabbling with their own fellow supporters seemed more important.
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
I'm a convinced EFTA/EEA supporter. But when I read the frothing-Leavers on here, I find myself being drawn towards Remain.
Her appeal is generational. Hillary’s voters were venerable and female; Sanders got something in the region of 91 per cent of young caucus goers. If only old women voted in November, Clinton would have it in the bag – but the franchise is a little wider than retired school teachers and defrocked nuns.
Her Majesty's problem is that she’s exhausted - in the political, rather than physical, sense. She’s tarred by the email scandal. Trump has trashed her husband’s reputation. She’s tried to be all things to all people too often for anyone to believe anything she says anymore. And it just feels like she’s been around forever. Someday we shall discover that Hillary is immortal and has been running for office since 4000BC. When they crack open that hidden tomb in Tutankhamun’s pyramid, they’ll find a Vote Hillary hieroglyph chiseled into the wall: “Making Egypt Great Again!”
Mr. Herdson, but we aren't getting another vote in the foreseeable future. None is on the table and the gap from the last to the current one is around 40 years.
The eurozone is not a monolithic bloc, but it is in the interest of all of them to have the UK gouged for money to help prop up their decrepit lunacy of a currency when the crisis rears its ugly head again.
Mr. G, could be worse. He could be campaigning to leave the EU but use the euro
Miss Plato, true believers hate heretics more than heathens.
Which worked dreadfully well when it came to saving Byzantium from the Turks. Or not...
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
RUBIO RISING ...the real message to come out of Iowa is the rise of Marco Rubio ..in the next seven days before NH he is sure to get a blaze of endorsements from big donors like Sheldon Aldenson and big names like Romney and McCain ...it's not over yet but the writing is clearly on the wall for anyone paying attention
Already a hot contender for 2016's "Most transparent ramping" award
Le Pen, Hollande and Sarkozy are all incredibly unpopular. And I mean Corbyn levels of unpopularity for each of them. Net "bonne opinion" vs "mauvaise opinion" are:
Le Pen -45 Hollande -48 Sarkozy -53
There are French politicians where the people have positive opinions (Juppe and Macron), but I thought it astonishing that the three most likely people for their party's nomination are three of the most unpopular politicians in the whole of Europe.
It's also worth mentioning just how unpopular Sarkozy is with the general public. In a hypothetical Sarkozy, Macron first round, he gets just 18% of first choices, and Les Republicans are third. With Juppe as the candidate, then irrespective of the Socialist candidate, Les Republicans come first, four points clear of the FN.
Shame for Sanders, failing to win one of the whitest states in the Midwest means the end of the road for him. The FBI appear determined to help though.
Trump wins NH then SC and he should be back on course, Iowa is always an oddity and one of his weakest states.
Sanders pushed Hillary to the wire though and he should win New Hampshire next week
My thoughts on Sanders;
Sanders is an old style Leftist from one of the whitest states and is simply unaware that the modern Democratic party is now the coalition of the fringes. His Congressional career has focused on economic and foreign policy issues rather than race.
While most polls show him close or leading in Iowa and with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire, these are amongst the whitest states in the Union. In contrast, in South Carolina over half of the Democratic primary voters are black. And there Clinton enjoys a 71% margin among black voters and 34% lead over Sanders.
Nationwide polls show Sanders and Clinton neck and neck among whites, but Clinton has a consistent 40-50 point lead among non-white voters. Non-whites dominate the Democratic primaries in states that have high non-white populations and GOP dominance amongst white voters. These states include the Deep South, Texas, and Arizona. And the four states with the most delegates, including Texas, Florida, New York, and California have a high enough non-white population that it’s impossible for Sanders to win with his pitiful non-white share.
Clinton, however, is the default Democratic candidate, and unless there is a Jesse Jackson or Obama to vote for, blacks and most other non-whites will vote for the default candidate due to their lack of civic/political engagement. If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he could very well be seen as a serious candidate and some non-whites will follow him, but it would not be because they are attracted to his message or movement.
Unfortunately, neither he nor his supporters recognize that Vermont-style politics is only compatible with the demographics of Vermont.
In regards to evangelicals and Trump, the South is different to the rest of the country, their evangelicals are more mainstream America. I have read Trump does badly in Utah, presumably Mormons don't like him, who would be more like Iowa evangelicals in being outsiders.
I see Hilary has won by "5" votes in Iowa. How likely is this to be wrong ?
695 - 700
I really don't understand the counting. In the republican vote there was something like 130K votes. Was there really less than 1500 Democrats?
Isn't that the number of precincts?
Not sure maybe. I have not seen any raw voting numbers for the Democrats. It certainly isn't the number of delegates because there are only 44 in the State and I presume they will be split 22 all.
Mr. Meeks, if there had been a genuine ability for non-eurozone countries to resist the QMV critical mass of the eurozone and protection for financial services, it would have given me pause for thought.
The current deal does neither.
You may as well point out that those previously in favour of Remain are still in favour of Remain. Cameron's deal, such as it is, has been largely priced in.
Shame for Sanders, failing to win one of the whitest states in the Midwest means the end of the road for him. The FBI appear determined to help though.
Trump wins NH then SC and he should be back on course, Iowa is always an oddity and one of his weakest states.
Sanders pushed Hillary to the wire though and he should win New Hampshire next week
My thoughts on Sanders;
Sanders is an old style Leftist from one of the whitest states and is simply unaware that the modern Democratic party is now the coalition of the fringes. His Congressional career has focused on economic and foreign policy issues rather than race.
While most polls show him close or leading in Iowa and with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire, these are amongst the whitest states in the Union. In contrast, in South Carolina over half of the Democratic primary voters are black. And there Clinton enjoys a 71% margin among black voters and 34% lead over Sanders.
Nationwide polls show Sanders and Clinton neck and neck among whites, but Clinton has a consistent 40-50 point lead among non-white voters. Non-whites dominate the Democratic primaries in states that have high non-white populations and GOP dominance amongst white voters. These states include the Deep South, Texas, and Arizona. And the four states with the most delegates, including Texas, Florida, New York, and California have a high enough non-white population that it’s impossible for Sanders to win with his pitiful non-white share.
Clinton, however, is the default Democratic candidate, and unless there is a Jesse Jackson or Obama to vote for, blacks and most other non-whites will vote for the default candidate due to their lack of civic/political engagement. If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he could very well be seen as a serious candidate and some non-whites will follow him, but it would not be because they are attracted to his message or movement.
Unfortunately, neither he nor his supporters recognize that Vermont-style politics is only compatible with the demographics of Vermont.
In regards to evangelicals and Trump, the South is different to the rest of the country, their evangelicals are more mainstream America. I have read Trump does badly in Utah, presumably Mormons don't like him, who would be more like Iowa evangelicals in being outsiders.
I would agree Hillary will likely beat him now overall
Miss Plato, some people do seem to take a fundamentalist view that those who have different opinions are heretics
Mr. 1000, then listen to the calm, measured, reasonable Leave posts by me, Morris Dancer.
The majority of Leavers on this site are sensible. I might mention Casino Royale, or MaxPB, or Richard Tyndall. (And if I didn't mention you, it doesn't mean I don't respect your views.)
But there are some people who veer between insane and boring. Froth, froth, Cameron betrayal, froth, froth.
Off topic, Cameron likely to get a claimable "red card" deal. Legislation stopped if 55% of parliaments opposed - a chamber of parliament gets one vote, so HoL and HoC would get two votes:
In practice this means ~16 EU member states would have to join forces, but given there are only 9 non-eurozone member states, it'd require 7 eurozone members to tango with them to exercise it.
So I'm not sure how this protects non-eurozone countries from the eurozone acting as a bloc.
Can we change to an octocameral legislature, that way we'd get 8 votes? Could divide the HoL into the House of Barons, House of Earls, House of Bishops....
(How is the system fair to countries with unicameral systems?)
I suggest this is a quick fudge by some in the EU to appear to give Cameron what he wants. Something which can be quietly scrapped later. With everything else that is going on, many of them must be sick to death of his posturing.
It wasn't posturing though. In fact, we are where we are because of Merkel's stupid posturing.
If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now, more capable of dealing with the migrant crisis (Cameron talked in his speech of greater powers for the Eurozone as a quid pro quo for protection of those not in it, but the same principle applies to Schengen). They didn't engage with it and now not only is the Union as badly run as ever but they risk losing an important member (and its cash) and seeing the whole project take two massive - possibly terminal - hits to its momentum.
So you're keen, perhaps desperate, to stay part of something that is "as badly run as ever".
At this stage in the negotiations I still stick to my prediction of a 57% leave vote..This is based on nothing other than sniffing the wind..talking down at the pub..reading as many websites as possible..reading what the MSM has to say..listening and reading the EU press..looking at what is on the table..and last but certainly not least...the Migrant situation...which can only get worse..
I agree, but it's also worth noting lots of, ahem, normal people are totally pro- or anti-EU. The intransigent bugger segment of the electorate is quite hefty. And they're probably their own side's worst enemy.
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
News reporting on this on the morning programmes were all along the lines of Brussels will allow us to do this or Brussels will allow us to do that.... Etc etc.
Brussels constantly allowing or not allowing is one of the main problems here.
Mr. Herdson, but we aren't getting another vote in the foreseeable future. None is on the table and the gap from the last to the current one is around 40 years.
The eurozone is not a monolithic bloc, but it is in the interest of all of them to have the UK gouged for money to help prop up their decrepit lunacy of a currency when the crisis rears its ugly head again.
The UK has done well enough avoiding landing liability for the Eurozone bailouts. No reason that can't continue: there's no power in the existing rules to force payment directly from the UK.
I do have a concern about the EU's attitude to the City and the potential for that to be used as a convenient tax source. If they try it, we simply have to kick up stink, say No. It won't be popular but I can't imagine they wouldn't expect that sort of response. Besides, unless there's a massive Remain vote, I wouldn't expect the EU to be so provocative.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
Mr. Herdson, did we not end up contributing towards eurozone bailouts through the use of general EU funds to which we contribute?
As for protection and kicking up a stink, that assumes that we always have a government that would do that (Blair threw away half the rebate, Brown gave away multiple vetoes, and would Miliband/Corbyn do anything to stop the EU?) and that we don't find ourselves over a barrel some other way.
Mr. Herdson, did we not end up contributing towards eurozone bailouts through the use of general EU funds to which we contribute?
As for protection and kicking up a stink, that assumes that we always have a government that would do that (Blair threw away half the rebate, Brown gave away multiple vetoes, and would Miliband/Corbyn do anything to stop the EU?) and that we don't find ourselves over a barrel some other way.
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
Context is everything. Maybe they're familiar with some of your other postings?
Mr. Herdson, but we aren't getting another vote in the foreseeable future. None is on the table and the gap from the last to the current one is around 40 years.
The eurozone is not a monolithic bloc, but it is in the interest of all of them to have the UK gouged for money to help prop up their decrepit lunacy of a currency when the crisis rears its ugly head again.
The UK has done well enough avoiding landing liability for the Eurozone bailouts. No reason that can't continue: there's no power in the existing rules to force payment directly from the UK.
I do have a concern about the EU's attitude to the City and the potential for that to be used as a convenient tax source. If they try it, we simply have to kick up stink, say No. It won't be popular but I can't imagine they wouldn't expect that sort of response. Besides, unless there's a massive Remain vote, I wouldn't expect the EU to be so provocative.
Plato..one regular poster on PB once called me a Xenophobic little Englander..who hated Britain ..even though I lived in Italy and have traveled all over the world..sometimes they get a little confused..
Plato..one regular poster on PB once called me a Xenophobic little Englander..who hated Britain ..even though I lived in Italy and have traveled all over the world..
Mr. Herdson, forcing payment indirectly costs us just as much...
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
I do have a concern about the EU's attitude to the City and the potential for that to be used as a convenient tax source. If they try it, we simply have to kick up stink, say No. It won't be popular but I can't imagine they wouldn't expect that sort of response. Besides, unless there's a massive Remain vote, I wouldn't expect the EU to be so provocative.
Well, I'm lucky to be able to wind down my position at break even (well, a small profit; but that will cover commission, cost of capital, etc.). I underestimated how much momentum Rubio could get from being third.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It is not possible to control migration within the EU. The fundamental principle that guided its creation was: The free movement of goods, services and people.
Anyone who seeks reform that means changing that principle doesn't want reform, they want exit.
Personally, I think my ability to go to any country in the EU, and to live and work without restriction is the sole thing it has achieved that I wholeheartedly approve of. I find the creeping infringement in sovereignty, that will only get worse as the Eurozone seeks to integrate, the most negative.
And while I support (wholeheartedly) the free movement of people, I do believe that states should be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens, not just in terms of benefits, but other things too. So, I think it would be OK to subsidise businesses that train up low skilled Brits, for example.
I will therefore be voting Leave, because I believe we can get the best of the EU - i.e. access to 300 million consumers - for much lower cost, and without the same infringement of sovereignty. However, if we lose the free movement of people, I shall feel I have been royally conned by Leave.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
I agree with those who say that Cameron's Bloomberg speech was an intelligent and practical way forward for the EU but his timing was absolutely lousy. The continent is in the middle of an existential crisis with immigration, the idiocy of Merkel and the collapse of Schengen. It really is not the time for shoving deckchairs about.
This has given Cameron a problem because he is being driven by a domestic timetable, not an EU one. The result appears to be a somewhat fringe package which does not address the concerns he identified himself in his speech.
I suspect that a major problem is France. I think the French accept that the EZ has to be more deeply integrated but are concerned that it is lacking any kind of democratic control, a scenario which gives Germany almost total say. They want a EZ Parliament and a range of other institutions which will give the non Germanic EZ members a chance to influence policy. I have no doubt that the French think if the UK were to leave the major road bloc to these kinds of reforms would disappear and the few other non EZ countries can be given a stark choice: follow the UK out to the EEA or join the Euro.
This ambivalence means that the negotiations with the UK have been pretty desultory. I really don't think they care, if anything they may prefer a Brexit. Germany, on the other hand, sees the second largest payer who generally support them on market liberalisation going out the door and are concerned. But Merkel's grip on the EU is not what it was, she is damaged goods.
I'm surprised how the whole EU thing has become about Cameron, he has supporters who will justify and defend him regardless of whether or not they feel he's got a good deal. My concern is that the debate over EU membership has evaporated into a vote over whether or not Cameron stays on as PM, regardless of your stance that's not healthy. I was anti EU long before Cameron became PM, I'd want out regardless of who was PM, I don't believe everybody feels that way.
Thoughts after getting up early to watch the fall-out...
*If there wasn't Trump, Cruz would be the scary one *Rubio is nicely placed, needs a big success in the next few primaries *They are ALL trying to play the underdog *Sanders is doing to Clinton the same sort of thing Corbyn did to Burnham/Cooper *Clinton has more than a faint dash of the Ed Milibands about her.
Glad to see my suggest Rubio punt wasn't wildly out - it wasn't just the poll but Cruz pivot to attack him that hinted there was a Rubio surge. Making him odds on seems exaggerated but he should probably now be less than 2-1. Only thing: has he come under as intense scrutiny as the front-runners up to now?
I'd love Sanders to have a chance and the score draw in Iowa certainly keeps him in the picture, but the lack of organisation and spending after NH looks a problem - he's betting the farm on momentum after a runaway win in NH, and that may not be enough.
Mr. Herdson, did we not end up contributing towards eurozone bailouts through the use of general EU funds to which we contribute?
As for protection and kicking up a stink, that assumes that we always have a government that would do that (Blair threw away half the rebate, Brown gave away multiple vetoes, and would Miliband/Corbyn do anything to stop the EU?) and that we don't find ourselves over a barrel some other way.
There was six or seven billion Euros in a dormant programme that we had contributed to. The Eurozone tried to use this money to help pay for a bailout (it's interesting to note that the EU actually has relatively little financial flexibility: any state would simply have been able to issue a few bonds). We kicked up a fuss, and as a result, some other way of plugging the hole was found.
Thoughts after getting up early to watch the fall-out...
*If there wasn't Trump, Cruz would be the scary one *Rubio is nicely placed, needs a big success in the next few primaries *They are ALL trying to play the underdog *Sanders is doing to Clinton the same sort of thing Corbyn did to Burnham/Cooper *Clinton has more than a faint dash of the Ed Milibands about her.
Rather feel that Cruz is scarier than Trump. Trump is saying what he believes he needs to say to get elected; Cruz is saying what he’s saying because he believes it.
Glad to see my suggest Rubio punt wasn't wildly out - it wasn't just the poll but Cruz pivot to attack him that hinted there was a Rubio surge. Making him odds on seems exaggerated but he should probably now be less than 2-1. Only thing: has he come under as intense scrutiny as the front-runners up to now?
I'd love Sanders to have a chance and the score draw in Iowa certainly keeps him in the picture, but the lack of organisation and spending after NH looks a problem - he's betting the farm on momentum after a runaway win in NH, and that may not be enough.
He's odds on now Nick !
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
He has negotiated nothing. Lots of hot air and end result is EU decide if it is an emergency. Usual absolute merde from these pathetic cretins, just assume everyone is stupid.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
'It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.'
Well of course its possible that the PM will unveil a dramatic package that effectively addresses all the main concerns of eurosceptics, and indeed the concerns he himself set out at the start of this process, despite there being zero evidence for this proposition and indeed weeks of briefings that point the other way.
The migrant crisis has been unlucky for Cameron. As others have stated, he doesn't get much mindshare with his peers in Europe, and events have rendered his already weak demands pretty thin gruel. Europe has some potentially terminal afflictions and Britain is complaining that its knees hurt, it has a headache and it remembers when it was all fields round here.
Off to see The Big Short later, presumably the details will have been published by the time I get back. I'm sure I'll be accused of being close-minded, but even as trailed its disappointing. Let's hope the journos have got it wrong.
Peruse the rest of the report and it reads less like a parliamentary inquiry and more like a pulp psychological thriller. A chief executive who “appeared to captivate some of the most senior political figures in the land”. Allegations of “violence, drug taking and sexual abuse”. Stories of “holidays to Ibiza, a spa, and a first-class flight to New York”. Cover-ups, conspiracies and the mysterious loss of 87 filing cabinets of evidence.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
He has negotiated nothing. Lots of hot air and end result is EU decide if it is an emergency. Usual absolute merde from these pathetic cretins, just assume everyone is stupid.
Not enough honey in the porrige to sweeten you this morning again, I see!
I agree with those who say that Cameron's Bloomberg speech was an intelligent and practical way forward for the EU but his timing was absolutely lousy. The continent is in the middle of an existential crisis with immigration, the idiocy of Merkel and the collapse of Schengen. It really is not the time for shoving deckchairs about.
This has given Cameron a problem because he is being driven by a domestic timetable, not an EU one. The result appears to be a somewhat fringe package which does not address the concerns he identified himself in his speech.
I suspect that a major problem is France. I think the French accept that the EZ has to be more deeply integrated but are concerned that it is lacking any kind of democratic control, a scenario which gives Germany almost total say. They want a EZ Parliament and a range of other institutions which will give the non Germanic EZ members a chance to influence policy. I have no doubt that the French think if the UK were to leave the major road bloc to these kinds of reforms would disappear and the few other non EZ countries can be given a stark choice: follow the UK out to the EEA or join the Euro.
This ambivalence means that the negotiations with the UK have been pretty desultory. I really don't think they care, if anything they may prefer a Brexit. Germany, on the other hand, sees the second largest payer who generally support them on market liberalisation going out the door and are concerned. But Merkel's grip on the EU is not what it was, she is damaged goods.
Don't you think Cameron's problem was calling the referendum in the first place? He's never going to recommend anything other than 'Remain' so what was his motivation?
I can think of only two possibilities.
Either to hold a gun to Europe's head to get concessions. A pretty shoddy method of diplomacy and likely to be seen as such by the rest of Europe who will in future want a long spoon in their deaings with us.
Or a PR stunt to try to win the last election by getting UKIPers to switch to Tory. in other words an expensive and time consuming ruse for which the UK is going to pay dearly.
Off topic, Cameron likely to get a claimable "red card" deal. Legislation stopped if 55% of parliaments opposed - a chamber of parliament gets one vote, so HoL and HoC would get two votes:
In practice this means ~16 EU member states would have to join forces, but given there are only 9 non-eurozone member states, it'd require 7 eurozone members to tango with them to exercise it.
So I'm not sure how this protects non-eurozone countries from the eurozone acting as a bloc.
Can we change to an octocameral legislature, that way we'd get 8 votes? Could divide the HoL into the House of Barons, House of Earls, House of Bishops....
(How is the system fair to countries with unicameral systems?)
I suggest this is a quick fudge by some in the EU to appear to give Cameron what he wants. Something which can be quietly scrapped later. With everything else that is going on, many of them must be sick to death of his posturing.
It wasn't posturing though. In fact, we are where we are because of Merkel's stupid posturing.
If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now, more capable of dealing with the migrant crisis (Cameron talked in his speech of greater powers for the Eurozone as a quid pro quo for protection of those not in it, but the same principle applies to Schengen). They didn't engage with it and now not only is the Union as badly run as ever but they risk losing an important member (and its cash) and seeing the whole project take two massive - possibly terminal - hits to its momentum.
So you're keen, perhaps desperate, to stay part of something that is "as badly run as ever".
I'm puzzled by that stance
The economic and strategic benefits of membership are still net positive as against non-membership. They could be a lot bigger with reform.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
He has negotiated nothing. Lots of hot air and end result is EU decide if it is an emergency. Usual absolute merde from these pathetic cretins, just assume everyone is stupid.
Half the population are below average intelligence.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Four major elections/referendums, four wins. I'd not turn down that record of failure.
Cameron.."A serial Failure"..How deluded can MG be..Cammo is in his second term as PM of the UK....how is success rated in boggy Ayrshire...the land of the victorious 45ERS
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
Unfortunately, as I have to sleep at night (unlike some on here it seems) and have a life to live (ditto), I'm only just catching up with the overnight comings and goings.
The Cruz win in Iowa was a slight surprise to me as I thought he would be a close second and Rubio did better than I expected though I hope the Mods won't allow any individual to crow too much about they predicted it.
It's pretty much game over for the others. For NH, the question will be whether Cruz can make an impact in a more liberally-minded state or whether it will be Trump vs Rubio. It certainly looks as though it will be three to choose from well into the spring.
On the Democrat side, Hillary has done pretty well in my view to force out a draw against Bernie and while she'll probably lose NH she'll likely sweep the southern states.
So to matters EU and even last night the pro-Cameron spinning was underway as No.10 and others were telling us all about Dave's "victory" and his "groundbreaking" reform package. As with many others on here, I suspect the Devil will be in the detail. As someone else said, Cameron has been unlucky (which isn't like him) in that at a time of peace and calm, what he is proposing would be welcomed and probably positively and constructively debated but the EU is in crisis and has a huge humanitarian crisis on its borders. Cameron's ideas seem irrelevant and small in that context.
The EU isn't in a mood to talk about its own identity and what it can do to sweet-talk the British electorate.
Mr. Herdson, forcing payment indirectly costs us just as much...
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
I certainly wouldn't want to be complacent.
Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance. Delors embedded socialism in the Commission: government by regulation and standardisation. It's a mission it's taken to heart but it doesn't have to be that way. The single market needs to be a market - properly monitored but allowed to let its own natural dynamics generate improvements not just in goods and services but in pay and conditions and quality too. That was the pre-Delors belief and with the right pressure in the right places, could be again. The growing support for sceptic ECR parties will help in that respect, particularly given the threats from the also-growing phobic EFDD and ultra-phobic ENF groups.
TGOHF..If that's all Cammo can deliver then he deserves to lose..and we have the right to tell the EU where to go. in my opinion we would soon be followed by a few others...
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It is not possible to control migration within the EU. The fundamental principle that guided its creation was: The free movement of goods, services and people.
Anyone who seeks reform that means changing that principle doesn't want reform, they want exit.
Personally, I think my ability to go to any country in the EU, and to live and work without restriction is the sole thing it has achieved that I wholeheartedly approve of. I find the creeping infringement in sovereignty, that will only get worse as the Eurozone seeks to integrate, the most negative.
And while I support (wholeheartedly) the free movement of people, I do believe that states should be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens, not just in terms of benefits, but other things too. So, I think it would be OK to subsidise businesses that train up low skilled Brits, for example.
I will therefore be voting Leave, because I believe we can get the best of the EU - i.e. access to 300 million consumers - for much lower cost, and without the same infringement of sovereignty. However, if we lose the free movement of people, I shall feel I have been royally conned by Leave.
While I understand the effect of freedom of movement in the EU, how much would have occurred without the EU?
Is it not also a spin off from Globalisation that people move to different locations where the need, prospect, reward and potential are greatest?
The economies that will suffer are those that are isolationist and keep talent out.
I think there are claims that the EU has had a mighty and large effect in various areas which are dubious to false, such as the EU is responsible for Peace, Freedom of Movement, and a general improvement for the ex eastern block nations. All these things could have happened to the same or a greater extent without the EU.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Four major elections/referendums, four wins. I'd not turn down that record of failure.
At a push, one of those was a score-draw, won on penalties.
Off topic, Cameron likely to get a claimable "red card" deal. Legislation stopped if 55% of parliaments opposed - a chamber of parliament gets one vote, so HoL and HoC would get two votes:
In practice this means ~16 EU member states would have to join forces, but given there are only 9 non-eurozone member states, it'd require 7 eurozone members to tango with them to exercise it.
So I'm not sure how this protects non-eurozone countries from the eurozone acting as a bloc.
Can we change to an octocameral legislature, that way we'd get 8 votes? Could divide the HoL into the House of Barons, House of Earls, House of Bishops....
(How is the system fair to countries with unicameral systems?)
I suggest this is a quick fudge by some in the EU to appear to give Cameron what he wants. Something which can be quietly scrapped later. With everything else that is going on, many of them must be sick to death of his posturing.
It wasn't posturing though. In fact, we are where we are because of Merkel's stupid posturing.
If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now, more capable of dealing with the migrant crisis (Cameron talked in his speech of greater powers for the Eurozone as a quid pro quo for protection of those not in it, but the same principle applies to Schengen). They didn't engage with it and now not only is the Union as badly run as ever but they risk losing an important member (and its cash) and seeing the whole project take two massive - possibly terminal - hits to its momentum.
So you're keen, perhaps desperate, to stay part of something that is "as badly run as ever".
I'm puzzled by that stance
The economic and strategic benefits of membership are still net positive as against non-membership. They could be a lot bigger with reform.
What are strategic benefits? The economic benefits are debatable, subtract memberships fees, guess at what trade we would lose if we leave.
This is a very specific question for Remainers:
If we leave the EU what will EU countries stop buying from us?
TGOHF..If that's all Cammo can deliver then he deserves to lose..and we have the right to tell the EU where to go. in my opinion we would soon be followed by a few others...
To be fair - he couldn't realistically get much more - if the EU was a sensible org there wouldn't be a referendum to leave. Its about as much as could be wrung out of these chumps - and it isn't much at all. I'd expect to see plenty of Cons coming out for leave now.
We are travelling on a red EU bus headed towards ever closer union. David Cameron's "brilliant negotiation skills" have persuaded the EU to allow us to repaint the bus blue, but it is still the same bus headed to the same destination.
Given how little reform Cameron has asked for and apparently received I really don't know why he bothered, it certainly doesn't look like it will change many minds one way or the other.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
We will know in a couple of hours. Dave started out asking for very little so it is safe to conclude he will not get a great deal. I really doubt we will see reform of CAP and all the other things he had previously wanted.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Well, there's
The 2010 GE The AV referendum SindyRef The 2015 GE
Any others you'd like to add?
He's seen four Labour leaders, five Lib Dems, several UKIP changes (difficult to keep track) and two from the SNP......which of them would you say had been more successful?
Comments
Unlikely to win in my opinion but interestingly in the US (or possibly just Boston) there's a three year statute of limitations for sex crimes.
That's the problem I have. The eurozone having a QMV critical mass, by a long way, is not in our national interest.
2 photos suggesting Cammo with a bit of paper and Chamberlain's peace for our time.
Simon Richards @simplysimontfa 7 mins7 minutes ago
Embedded image permalink
5 retweets 2 likes
Reply Retweet 5
Like 2
There are legitimate criticisms of the deal but people making Chamberlain/Nazi comparisons divert attention from those criticisms to their own hyperbole.
It's so beyond rational. This lady is also an NHS religionist.
Today we get to hear about the "EU deal" - damp squib or game changer?
I don't care about the US. I care about the UK
Can we not have a thread on the biggest political issue in the UK for a generation...?
Cameron and Hammond should be looking to get as close as possible to Merkel's successor to complete the Single market in services.
But as with all policy, it needs to be kept under review. If things do turn decisively against Britain's interest and it seems too unlikely that they'll turn back again then we'd have to look at withdrawal. I know that sceptics believe we've reached that point already and fair enough; it's their right to that call. I disagree but I'm not a True Believer; I've come to my conclusion from a practical rather than ideological viewpoint.
Mr. 1000, then listen to the calm, measured, reasonable Leave posts by me, Morris Dancer.
I received a torrent of but Vote Leave are the wrong sort of Leave. No matter how often I noted there's only one Leave box on the ballot, it didn't register. Squabbling with their own fellow supporters seemed more important.
Bizarre.
695 - 700
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12135253/Iowa-caucus-a-revolution-is-taking-place-in-American-politics.html
The eurozone is not a monolithic bloc, but it is in the interest of all of them to have the UK gouged for money to help prop up their decrepit lunacy of a currency when the crisis rears its ugly head again.
Mr. G, could be worse. He could be campaigning to leave the EU but use the euro
Miss Plato, true believers hate heretics more than heathens.
Which worked dreadfully well when it came to saving Byzantium from the Turks. Or not...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/coin-toss-decides-clinton-sanders-tie-iowa-precinct-article-1.2517022
The key take away is that...
Le Pen, Hollande and Sarkozy are all incredibly unpopular. And I mean Corbyn levels of unpopularity for each of them. Net "bonne opinion" vs "mauvaise opinion" are:
Le Pen -45
Hollande -48
Sarkozy -53
There are French politicians where the people have positive opinions (Juppe and Macron), but I thought it astonishing that the three most likely people for their party's nomination are three of the most unpopular politicians in the whole of Europe.
It's also worth mentioning just how unpopular Sarkozy is with the general public. In a hypothetical Sarkozy, Macron first round, he gets just 18% of first choices, and Les Republicans are third. With Juppe as the candidate, then irrespective of the Socialist candidate, Les Republicans come first, four points clear of the FN.
Sanders is an old style Leftist from one of the whitest states and is simply unaware that the modern Democratic party is now the coalition of the fringes. His Congressional career has focused on economic and foreign policy issues rather than race.
While most polls show him close or leading in Iowa and with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire, these are amongst the whitest states in the Union. In contrast, in South Carolina over half of the Democratic primary voters are black. And there Clinton enjoys a 71% margin among black voters and 34% lead over Sanders.
Nationwide polls show Sanders and Clinton neck and neck among whites, but Clinton has a consistent 40-50 point lead among non-white voters. Non-whites dominate the Democratic primaries in states that have high non-white populations and GOP dominance amongst white voters. These states include the Deep South, Texas, and Arizona. And the four states with the most delegates, including Texas, Florida, New York, and California have a high enough non-white population that it’s impossible for Sanders to win with his pitiful non-white share.
Clinton, however, is the default Democratic candidate, and unless there is a Jesse Jackson or Obama to vote for, blacks and most other non-whites will vote for the default candidate due to their lack of civic/political engagement. If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he could very well be seen as a serious candidate and some non-whites will follow him, but it would not be because they are attracted to his message or movement.
Unfortunately, neither he nor his supporters recognize that Vermont-style politics is only compatible with the demographics of Vermont.
In regards to evangelicals and Trump, the South is different to the rest of the country, their evangelicals are more mainstream America. I have read Trump does badly in Utah, presumably Mormons don't like him, who would be more like Iowa evangelicals in being outsiders.
The current deal does neither.
You may as well point out that those previously in favour of Remain are still in favour of Remain. Cameron's deal, such as it is, has been largely priced in.
But there are some people who veer between insane and boring. Froth, froth, Cameron betrayal, froth, froth.
I'm puzzled by that stance
I agree, but it's also worth noting lots of, ahem, normal people are totally pro- or anti-EU. The intransigent bugger segment of the electorate is quite hefty. And they're probably their own side's worst enemy.
Brussels constantly allowing or not allowing is one of the main problems here.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
As for protection and kicking up a stink, that assumes that we always have a government that would do that (Blair threw away half the rebate, Brown gave away multiple vetoes, and would Miliband/Corbyn do anything to stop the EU?) and that we don't find ourselves over a barrel some other way.
I do have a concern about the EU's attitude to the City and the potential for that to be used as a convenient tax source. If they try it, we simply have to kick up stink, say No. It won't be popular but I can't imagine they wouldn't expect that sort of response. Besides, unless there's a massive Remain vote, I wouldn't expect the EU to be so provocative.
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
How naive
Anyone who seeks reform that means changing that principle doesn't want reform, they want exit.
Personally, I think my ability to go to any country in the EU, and to live and work without restriction is the sole thing it has achieved that I wholeheartedly approve of. I find the creeping infringement in sovereignty, that will only get worse as the Eurozone seeks to integrate, the most negative.
And while I support (wholeheartedly) the free movement of people, I do believe that states should be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens, not just in terms of benefits, but other things too. So, I think it would be OK to subsidise businesses that train up low skilled Brits, for example.
I will therefore be voting Leave, because I believe we can get the best of the EU - i.e. access to 300 million consumers - for much lower cost, and without the same infringement of sovereignty. However, if we lose the free movement of people, I shall feel I have been royally conned by Leave.
This has given Cameron a problem because he is being driven by a domestic timetable, not an EU one. The result appears to be a somewhat fringe package which does not address the concerns he identified himself in his speech.
I suspect that a major problem is France. I think the French accept that the EZ has to be more deeply integrated but are concerned that it is lacking any kind of democratic control, a scenario which gives Germany almost total say. They want a EZ Parliament and a range of other institutions which will give the non Germanic EZ members a chance to influence policy. I have no doubt that the French think if the UK were to leave the major road bloc to these kinds of reforms would disappear and the few other non EZ countries can be given a stark choice: follow the UK out to the EEA or join the Euro.
This ambivalence means that the negotiations with the UK have been pretty desultory. I really don't think they care, if anything they may prefer a Brexit. Germany, on the other hand, sees the second largest payer who generally support them on market liberalisation going out the door and are concerned. But Merkel's grip on the EU is not what it was, she is damaged goods.
Although, of course, eventually, luck runs out. You just hope it’s after victory!
*If there wasn't Trump, Cruz would be the scary one
*Rubio is nicely placed, needs a big success in the next few primaries
*They are ALL trying to play the underdog
*Sanders is doing to Clinton the same sort of thing Corbyn did to Burnham/Cooper
*Clinton has more than a faint dash of the Ed Milibands about her.
I'd love Sanders to have a chance and the score draw in Iowa certainly keeps him in the picture, but the lack of organisation and spending after NH looks a problem - he's betting the farm on momentum after a runaway win in NH, and that may not be enough.
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
698 - 697
Well of course its possible that the PM will unveil a dramatic package that effectively addresses all the main concerns of eurosceptics, and indeed the concerns he himself set out at the start of this process, despite there being zero evidence for this proposition and indeed weeks of briefings that point the other way.
What probability would you give such an outcome?
The migrant crisis has been unlucky for Cameron. As others have stated, he doesn't get much mindshare with his peers in Europe, and events have rendered his already weak demands pretty thin gruel. Europe has some potentially terminal afflictions and Britain is complaining that its knees hurt, it has a headache and it remembers when it was all fields round here.
Off to see The Big Short later, presumably the details will have been published by the time I get back. I'm sure I'll be accused of being close-minded, but even as trailed its disappointing. Let's hope the journos have got it wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12134804/Too-many-of-our-charities-are-nothing-of-the-sort.html
... and elections.
I can think of only two possibilities.
Either to hold a gun to Europe's head to get concessions. A pretty shoddy method of diplomacy and likely to be seen as such by the rest of Europe who will in future want a long spoon in their deaings with us.
Or a PR stunt to try to win the last election by getting UKIPers to switch to Tory. in other words an expensive and time consuming ruse for which the UK is going to pay dearly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11492933/Alex-Salmond-Ill-bring-down-the-Tories-and-install-Miliband.html
Unfortunately, as I have to sleep at night (unlike some on here it seems) and have a life to live (ditto), I'm only just catching up with the overnight comings and goings.
The Cruz win in Iowa was a slight surprise to me as I thought he would be a close second and Rubio did better than I expected though I hope the Mods won't allow any individual to crow too much about they predicted it.
It's pretty much game over for the others. For NH, the question will be whether Cruz can make an impact in a more liberally-minded state or whether it will be Trump vs Rubio. It certainly looks as though it will be three to choose from well into the spring.
On the Democrat side, Hillary has done pretty well in my view to force out a draw against Bernie and while she'll probably lose NH she'll likely sweep the southern states.
So to matters EU and even last night the pro-Cameron spinning was underway as No.10 and others were telling us all about Dave's "victory" and his "groundbreaking" reform package. As with many others on here, I suspect the Devil will be in the detail. As someone else said, Cameron has been unlucky (which isn't like him) in that at a time of peace and calm, what he is proposing would be welcomed and probably positively and constructively debated but the EU is in crisis and has a huge humanitarian crisis on its borders. Cameron's ideas seem irrelevant and small in that context.
The EU isn't in a mood to talk about its own identity and what it can do to sweet-talk the British electorate.
People aged 65 to 79 in the UK report highest levels of personal #wellbeing https://t.co/hnptSPVGL1
Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance. Delors embedded socialism in the Commission: government by regulation and standardisation. It's a mission it's taken to heart but it doesn't have to be that way. The single market needs to be a market - properly monitored but allowed to let its own natural dynamics generate improvements not just in goods and services but in pay and conditions and quality too. That was the pre-Delors belief and with the right pressure in the right places, could be again. The growing support for sceptic ECR parties will help in that respect, particularly given the threats from the also-growing phobic EFDD and ultra-phobic ENF groups.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6902029/MP-Daniel-Hannan-says-David-Cameron-benefits-fight-isnt-real.html
A bulging net for this early in the morning malcolm!
*Cameryoons.
Is it not also a spin off from Globalisation that people move to different locations where the need, prospect, reward and potential are greatest?
The economies that will suffer are those that are isolationist and keep talent out.
I think there are claims that the EU has had a mighty and large effect in various areas which are dubious to false, such as the EU is responsible for Peace, Freedom of Movement, and a general improvement for the ex eastern block nations. All these things could have happened to the same or a greater extent without the EU.
This is a very specific question for Remainers:
If we leave the EU what will EU countries stop buying from us?
Given how little reform Cameron has asked for and apparently received I really don't know why he bothered, it certainly doesn't look like it will change many minds one way or the other.
The 2010 GE
The AV referendum
SindyRef
The 2015 GE
Any others you'd like to add?
He's seen four Labour leaders, five Lib Dems, several UKIP changes (difficult to keep track) and two from the SNP......which of them would you say had been more successful?