''From what I can glean Dave has not done a good job here and the weight challenged lady is warming her vocals on my vote.... ''
What decided me for leave was Tim Bell interviewed on the news last night. He said the EU has become everything that Lady Thatcher (PBUH) feared that it would. And so I am voting out.
I don't expect any clear-cut victory for either side nationally anyway. There will be plenty of scope for the incoming PM after Cameron loses to say "the country is split, there is no clear groundswell to leave, the people want us to go for a better deal".
That might be taking peoples desire not to have a Corbyn government to extremes. The largely euro-sceptic Tory membership and grass-roots would be incandescent if a Tory prime minister took that line, they are pretty pissed off with Cameron about it, but giving him a pass for the time being because he is seen as a winner. An incoming PM without that track record would be taking his life in his hands to even consider it.... in any case the chances are that the next Tory leader will be from the euro-sceptic wing anyway.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep: Cam's "red card" is equivalent of a referee only being able to send off a footballer if more than half his team mates agree.
That so-called deal is so disappointing - it will be interesting to see how the polls move on the back of it. For those who are tempted to back Leave, now is possibly the time to put your money down. DYOR.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep: Cam's "red card" is equivalent of a referee only being able to send off a footballer if more than half his team mates agree.
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
I don't get your point.
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
They didn't make Ireland vote again either, the Irish government made Ireland vote again. If the UK votes leave, several previously unavailable rabbits will pop out of carefully concealed hats, and the usual suspects will jump on planes to Downing Street and ask Cameron if he really wants to throw all this away now he has these new improved concessions. Cameron now a revealed Europhile, who wants to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, will them find a pretext to ask the people again in light of these new offerings.. in reality it would sail through parliament because LAB/LD/SNP would support the motion if it meant that having another chance to stay in the EU.
Why would any Conservative leader be willing to use Lab/LD/SNP votes to overrule their own Eurosceptic right? They would destroy their own party.
It will only happen if there is something close to a majority from the Conservative ranks alone - ie, just a handful of rebels - and very strong support from the public.
O'Malley acted as a bit of a spoiler in the Democrat polling tbh.
It appears his supporters broke for Sanders but who knows ?
Logically, they would as both O'Malley and Bernie are to the left of Hillary.
Part of the reason Iowa is so hard to poll is such a high proportion of caucus goers are first timers.
You mean everyone tries it once and then most people think "Why the f... did I just spend an evening in an overheated room with a bunch of sweaty obsessives?"
I guess its not a big surprise many here are underwhelmed, but the feeling out there in the country, where people are less concerned/aligned/clued up, might be rather different.
Let's say the 'deal' goes down as badly as predicted on here. We are six weeks before a referendum and its 55/35 for leave, the rest don't knows.
Do you really think there won;t be a last ditch initiative to sweeten the offer?
Of course there will be.
But that's different from a UK government being made to rerun the referendum by the EU. Or, for that matter, the UK government choosing to ignore the results of the referendum.
If we vote to Leave, we will invoke Article 50, and we will leave the EU.
As the regional breakdowns make clear, it will be the ranting Daily Mail readers in Middle England who take us out. London - our capital city and almost a city state in itself - will heavily vote to Remain, Scotland and Wales and presumably NI will also healthily vote Remain.
I don't expect any clear-cut victory for either side nationally anyway. There will be plenty of scope for the incoming PM after Cameron loses to say "the country is split, there is no clear groundswell to leave, the people want us to go for a better deal".
Any PM who concocted that plan, would be physically dragged out of office.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
I think that in general, the leadership of the Conservative Party think that Blair's government was a good government, whereas the rank and file think it was a bad government.
Nah.
I think the leadership thinks that what Blair *promised* to do was good, but what Brown *actually* did was bad. The membership focuses on the *actual outcome* and doesn't focus on the words.
So if you look at free schools or welfare reform or economic rationality these are all things that Blair promised but failed to deliver. Cameron is en route to delivering them
So all the diehard Leavers don't like the proposed deal? I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
So all the Europhile Remainers are trying to dress up this vacuous piece of non-committal tinsel as something of substance and a solid basis of our continuing membership. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
So all the diehard Leavers don't like the proposed deal? I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
The deal has no substance and the minor concessions do not stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny.
I placed a ridiculously large bet on remain winning last night in anticipation of there being at least something remotely sellable. There isn't. Leave at 3.25 is excellent value.
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed. The other EU countries are quite willing to try to be reasonably accommodating, but they have basically had enough of endless haggling with the Brits. If we say no, they'll say fine, goodbye. Remember that when we've left just ONE member can veto our coming back.
It's like a difficult marriage where both sides are a bit exasperated but don't quite want to call it off. If one party walks out, then says, "Actually, let's argue about it some more, I might come back", it's human nature to say "Enough already".
If they'd accepted even the hint of haggling earlier, we wouldn't be in a position where it became endless. It was only endless because they were so contemptuous of anyone suggesting reform and so it drags on and on and on. Their attitude was viciously dismissive, then grudging, and it's what turned me from an Inner into an Outer - the EU mentality is just poisonous to genuine change.
So yes, they have had enough of our haggling, but there were good reasons why the haggling was endless, and since we won't stop haggling afterwards, better for us and them to part ways. We will be a bitter voice moaning and preventing them from their utopia, and they will continue to impose as much as they can because all institutions try to control more and more over time, until perpetuation of the institution is the soled defining goal.
That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
Have I missed something, or have Rubio, Trump and Cruz all come out of this with 7 or 8 delegates each (Cruz has the 8)?
So as far as actually winning the primaries overall things are basically even, delegates wise.
The delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire are insignificant imo, narrative and performance relative to expectations are key.
I see Rubio did best on being trusted on economic issues. This surely bodes well for him in long run, when people start to think about what is almost always the key election issue.
I break even on Rubio. Considering upping this slightly now, but might await NH.
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
I don't get your point.
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
They didn't make Ireland vote again either, the Irish government made Ireland vote again. If the UK votes leave, several previously unavailable rabbits will pop out of carefully concealed hats, and the usual suspects will jump on planes to Downing Street and ask Cameron if he really wants to throw all this away now he has these new improved concessions. Cameron now a revealed Europhile, who wants to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, will them find a pretext to ask the people again in light of these new offerings.. in reality it would sail through parliament because LAB/LD/SNP would support the motion if it meant that having another chance to stay in the EU.
No.
In the event of a Leave, I expect the vast majority of Europhile LibDems, Labourites and the like to support the results of the referendum. Not because it was what they wanted, but because they are political realists who realise it would be suicidal to vote against the will of the British people.
Furthermore, any Conservative MP who attempted to subvert the result of the referendum would be deselected.
So all the diehard Leavers don't like the proposed deal? I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
There's nothing in there. Literally. It's just waffle dressed up to look like something substantive without actually making any real changes.
Yes they have promised not to introduce transaction charges on non-Euro based trade within the single market, but that wasn't really a real threat anyway.
The red card is a stupid concept and they've called it that to make it look like a veto when it is nothing like that.
The benefits changes were trialled as the change that everyone would really care about, but in reality it is just the same emergency brake that already exists with one (unimportant) person recognising that immigration to the UK is quite high and our benefits system isn't fit for purpose. That's our problem though, if we made all benefits payable after 12 months of contributions then we wouldn't have any issues really.
I can't see a single change in the way that the EU will function or our relationship with it
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed 100%.
And I think people peddling Leave means Maybe, are either deluded or lying.
Worse, I think people from both sides are guilty of pushing this for different reasons. Some Remain-ers are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming there is a mandate for another vote in the event of a close Out. Some Leave-ers are hoping to get a few undecideds to vote Out in the chance of more concessions.
Remember boys and girls. Leave means Leave.
It can always be renegotiated. If the EU came to us, post a leave vote, and said "we'll give each voter Eur1 million in shiny new coins if you have another referendum if you vote yes" then I suspect there would be another referendum and a yes vote
... That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
To be fair to our EU friends, it's hardly their fault that the UK signed and ratified a solemn treaty, which took years to negotiate, and now wants to change it. You can understand why they are not entirely enamoured of the UK's approach.
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
Benefits: Less than I expected, although this is academic anyway if the alternative to Remain is an EEA-style deal, which would be the same as what we currently have.
Does the EEA-style deal really cover benefits? I'd be astounded if Switzerland gave that up.
The EEA allows free movement to work (i.e. no work permit) not freedom to turn up with an intention of looking for work or an intention of not looking for work
So in summary then on the EU "new deal", I think the verdict will be that Cameron has secured us some concessions and a bit of wriggle room we don't currently have on free movement. Good, but not quite what he pitched for.
As for everything else, we have some platitudes and possibly helpful changes to give us a bit more leverage to not be completely screwed over going forward - but most of those platitudes are, i'm afraid to say, already there in many of the EU texts, treaties, communiques etc. And in most cases, the EU institutions just ride roughshod over them and say they have complied.
So why will things be any different going forward?
The vote, should it actually happen, boils down to "you will have the EU set up you currently have, but with a bit more scope for limiting inward migration - take it or leave it".
My fear is that by voting "Remain" I am now implicitly endorsing all that the EU currently does and endorsing the "new deal". I don't want to do that.
Help.... ?
vote Leave. That's pretty much the analysis I did (plus the fact that their actions have shown they have no compunction about trying to take from the UK to address their own issues - eg on FTT).
Fundamentally, we have different interests and objectives than the rest of Europe. We'd be better neighbours than partners.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed 100%.
And I think people peddling Leave means Maybe, are either deluded or lying.
Worse, I think people from both sides are guilty of pushing this for different reasons. Some Remain-ers are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming there is a mandate for another vote in the event of a close Out. Some Leave-ers are hoping to get a few undecideds to vote Out in the chance of more concessions.
Remember boys and girls. Leave means Leave.
It can always be renegotiated. If the EU came to us, post a leave vote, and said "we'll give each voter Eur1 million in shiny new coins if you have another referendum if you vote yes" then I suspect there would be another referendum and a yes vote
Sure, if the public clearly wanted a second referendum it would probably happen. I think that would be very hard to engineer though I concede that your €1m proposal has potential.
To be fair to our EU friends, it's hardly their fault that the UK signed and ratified a solemn treaty, which took years to negotiate, and now wants to change it. You can understand why they are not entirely enamoured of the UK's approach.
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
I agree with that, which is why this whole renegotiation charade has been pointless. We are in effect back to the referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty that Labour denied us. Cameron has been wasting his and our time.
The EEA allows free movement to work (i.e. no work permit) not freedom to turn up with an intention of looking for work or an intention of not looking for work
It's exactly the same EU directive. There is no difference in this respect.
One thing which is widely misunderstood is that freedom of movement for EU citizens is not absolute - they can't come here in order to claim benefits, it has to be to work, to look for work (for a limited period), to study, or to live here on their own means. Exactly the same rules apply to EU-EEA migration.
In practice, of course, the vast majority come here to work (or study).
Have I missed something, or have Rubio, Trump and Cruz all come out of this with 7 or 8 delegates each (Cruz has the 8)?
So as far as actually winning the primaries overall things are basically even, delegates wise.
The delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire are insignificant imo, narrative and performance relative to expectations are key.
I see Rubio did best on being trusted on economic issues. This surely bodes well for him in long run, when people start to think about what is almost always the key election issue.
I break even on Rubio. Considering upping this slightly now, but might await NH.
Indeed. The breakdown by voting group shows only Trump and Rubio are viable across all three groups (very conservative, somewhat conservative and moderate). That would indicate that this will soon be a two horse race. At that point, I think Rubio wins.
Benefits: Less than I expected, although this is academic anyway if the alternative to Remain is an EEA-style deal, which would be the same as what we currently have.
Does the EEA-style deal really cover benefits? I'd be astounded if Switzerland gave that up.
The EEA allows free movement to work (i.e. no work permit) not freedom to turn up with an intention of looking for work or an intention of not looking for work
It's the same but there are a few important differences, within the EEA a country can set terms of "self-sufficiency" after a period of time, if a person cannot show they are self-sufficient they are told to go back to their home country.
Also, the Swiss will never have the same issues over benefits as we do, their system is wholly contributory and they have no concept of in-work benefits or credits. You literally can't claim there if you haven't contributed for a minimum of 12 months. Plus they have incredibly harsh sentencing for benefit fraud. I read in a local paper in Basel that a Turkish migrant had cheated the system and claimed 3x the amount he was entitled to so he ended up with 10 years in prison and a deportation order for his family because they were no longer self-sufficient without his income.
So in summary then on the EU "new deal", I think the verdict will be that Cameron has secured us some concessions and a bit of wriggle room we don't currently have on free movement. Good, but not quite what he pitched for.
As for everything else, we have some platitudes and possibly helpful changes to give us a bit more leverage to not be completely screwed over going forward - but most of those platitudes are, i'm afraid to say, already there in many of the EU texts, treaties, communiques etc. And in most cases, the EU institutions just ride roughshod over them and say they have complied.
So why will things be any different going forward?
The vote, should it actually happen, boils down to "you will have the EU set up you currently have, but with a bit more scope for limiting inward migration - take it or leave it".
My fear is that by voting "Remain" I am now implicitly endorsing all that the EU currently does and endorsing the "new deal". I don't want to do that.
So all the diehard Leavers don't like the proposed deal? I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
I for one really want(ed) genuine reform. Not least because staggering on like this with a whirligig of overlapping authorities of Presidents of Councils, the Commission, Heads of Govt, European parliament, Euro/Non Euro, etc is just turning Europe into a 21st Century Holy Roman Empire. Everyone from states nobody gives a stuff about in N America or Asia can pretend they're part of something bigger, lots of people get nice pretend titles, and all the while the larger powers within it and those without do what they want anyway and the whole shebang becomes a meaningless charade, slowly disappearing into irrelevance down an elegantly embroidered plughole. Not Holy, Roman, or an Empire I think was Napoleon's epitaph for it.
The Euro's a grade one car crash (as some of us foretold), the CAP is nothing less than slush to grease the wheels of many that want them greased, the external borders of Schengen are porous to a laughable extent, and without border control you cannot have a functioning state/states (as all anarchists, agitators, and assorted hangers on in Calais well know).
Now we were never going to get all I wanted to try to correct the worse excesses I feel but I was genuinely open to persuasion. However, a brake where you have to ask people travelling in the other cars around you if you can use it is as much use as a chocolate teapot, and we all know it. I struggle to see how what Dave has got is enough, it does, at first reports, seem just too thin an offering.
... That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
To be fair to our EU friends, it's hardly their fault that the UK signed and ratified a solemn treaty, which took years to negotiate, and now wants to change it. You can understand why they are not entirely enamoured of the UK's approach.
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
Oh horseshit. Bits of treaties and agreements are regularly ignored or circumvented when they become inconvenient, most recently the Dublin agreement on Refugees, also solemnly entered into and then thrown in the bin within seconds when it became awkward, ditto the Schengen Agreement, now dead in all but name. The EU is happy to bend all sorts of rules when it suits them, not when it suits us. The French regularly ignore the rulings of the ECJ with next to no comeback - as Stalin might have said, "How many divisions does the ECJ have?"
It's the same but there are a few important differences, within the EEA a country can set terms of "self-sufficiency" after a period of time, if a person cannot show they are self-sufficient they are told to go back to their home country..
No. It's exactly the same.
We've been through all this zillions of times. It's the same EU directive.
... That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
To be fair to our EU friends, it's hardly their fault that the UK signed and ratified a solemn treaty, which took years to negotiate, and now wants to change it. You can understand why they are not entirely enamoured of the UK's approach.
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
Probably right. So we'll stick that on Brown's long long charge sheet too?
Look quickly, it appears as though South Carolina is Winner-Takes-All (rather than the proportional(ish) manner in which Iowa and New Hampshire allocate delegates. Given this, surely Trump is still looking good - he's come out of Iowa on par with Cruz and Rubio, will do likewise or better from New Hampshire and is currently leading the SC polls by a margin. Given SC has a delegate count of 47 to Iowa's 27 and NH's 20 then I don't see anything other than a comfortable Trump lead on delegates going into Super Tuesday (all of whom's states award proportionally - so a tie overall still leaves Trump in a lead).
It's the same but there are a few important differences, within the EEA a country can set terms of "self-sufficiency" after a period of time, if a person cannot show they are self-sufficient they are told to go back to their home country..
No. It's exactly the same.
We've been through all this zillions of times. It's the same EU directive.
But it is adjudicated by the EFTA court, not the ECJ. An important difference because one is not a trumped up organisation with a huge political agenda.
... That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
To be fair to our EU friends, it's hardly their fault that the UK signed and ratified a solemn treaty, which took years to negotiate, and now wants to change it. You can understand why they are not entirely enamoured of the UK's approach.
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
Oh horseshit. Bits of treaties and agreements are regularly ignored or circumvented when they become inconvenient, most recently the Dublin agreement on Refugees, also solemnly entered into and then thrown in the bin within seconds when it became awkward, ditto the Schengen Agreement, now dead in all but name. The EU is happy to bend all sorts of rules when it suits them, not when it suits us. The French regularly ignore the rulings of the ECJ with next to no comeback - as Stalin might have said, "How many divisions does the ECJ have?"
Yup, the ECJ is a real snake in the grass. I would've allowed for a lot if that lot had had their wings clipped.
If May does declare for Leave I expect her odds to come in rapidly and supersede Boris as 2nd favourite for next PM after Osborne and next Tory leader.
Reading the 'Draft Decision of the Heads of State' statement, I'm not entirely clear how much is restatement and making more explicit that [current EU policy is understood to give the UK what it wants anyway] and how much changes EU policy by adding new line items.
Section D on Benefits is the only one that clearly divides 'Implementation of Current EU Rules' and new proposals.
Section C on Sovereignty is simply a clarification on what ever closer union and subsidiarity are meant to mean, with the point that the EU can only have powers conferred on it by Treaties agreed by all a strong statement of fact. Point 3, the red card bit, does seem to have some substance, but my question would be how often does draft EU legislation actually overreach the powers conferred on it, so how often would this really come into play?
Section B on competitiveness seem like some woolly words declaring an intent to reduce red tape.
Section A on Euro governance also seem to restate a lot of what is already understood - my only thought would be whether the 'full reimbursement' of money taken for emergency support of the Euro from pots contributed by non-Euro members is something that already exists in some form or is it new?
Overall, it solidifies my impression of the EU, not as something which has been 'done unto us' as much Eurosceptic talk would have us believe, but something that we already participate in very largely on our own terms - if and when the EU annoys you, then the finger of blame should be directly squarely at UK governments for what they have more than willingly agreed to over the years, including entry. And the fact that the UK already sits at one side on many of the EU more crisis hit policies - the Euro, asylum/Schengen, is a testament to the ability of the UK not to agree to anything it simply doesn't want.
If the club simply doesn't do any of what you want it to achieve, no amount of flexibility will say 'remain' and that's all good. However, in terms of how the club has treated the UK as a member over the years, I cannot see the justification for any exit based simply on grievance at how the club operates.
The EEA allows free movement to work (i.e. no work permit) not freedom to turn up with an intention of looking for work or an intention of not looking for work
In practice, of course, the vast majority come here to work (or study).
Leading to a potential scenario of Remain followed by no change in the number of EU immigrants. What is Lab's position on it all? Presumably Jezza (will it be he?) won't lead off on all these bl**din' immigrants.
I think most people are scratching their heads because although it is a nudge, for the reason you state, benefits restriction wouldn't necessarily affect immigration numbers.
Look quickly, it appears as though South Carolina is Winner-Takes-All (rather than the proportional(ish) manner in which Iowa and New Hampshire allocate delegates. Given this, surely Trump is still looking good - he's come out of Iowa on par with Cruz and Rubio, will do likewise or better from New Hampshire and is currently leading the SC polls by a margin. Given SC has a delegate count of 47 to Iowa's 27 and NH's 20 then I don't see anything other than a comfortable Trump lead on delegates going into Super Tuesday (all of whom's states award proportionally - so a tie overall still leaves Trump in a lead).
South Carolina is winner takes all - the only one which is before March 15. It has 50 delegates, so nice but still not enough to end the race in favour of the winner.
FWIW, here are the states before 'winner takes all' comes into effect on March 15. State, primary/caucus type, delegates:
Iowa Closed caucus 30 New Hampshire Modified primary 23 South Carolina Open primary 50 Nevada Closed caucus 30 Alabama Open primary 50 Alaska Closed caucus 28 Arkansas Open primary 40 Georgia Modified primary 76 Massachusetts Modified primary 42 Minnesota Open caucus 38 North Carolina Modified primary 72 Oklahoma Closed primary 43 Tennessee Open primary 58 Texas Open primary 155 Vermont Open primary 16 Virginia Open primary 49 Wyoming Closed caucus 29 Kansas Closed caucus 40 Kentucky Closed primary 45 Louisiana Closed primary 46 Hawaii Closed caucus 19 Mississippi Open primary 39 Michigan Closed primary 59 Puerto Rico Open primary 23
'My fear is that by voting "Remain" I am now implicitly endorsing all that the EU currently does and endorsing the "new deal". I don't want to do that.'
That's what the PM and his chums in the EU want you to do Bob. So don't vote the way they want.
Richard N's spinning of this deal has to be his lowest point yet. This 'deal' is everything we have been warning of on here for the last several weeks - i.e. nothing at of any substance.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
After some previous referendums the EU has gone back to renegoiate with countries and then there has been another referendum on the new terms.
Comments
What decided me for leave was Tim Bell interviewed on the news last night. He said the EU has become everything that Lady Thatcher (PBUH) feared that it would. And so I am voting out.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep: Cam's "red card" is equivalent of a referee only being able to send off a footballer if more than half his team mates agree.
DYOR.
It will only happen if there is something close to a majority from the Conservative ranks alone - ie, just a handful of rebels - and very strong support from the public.
I guess its not a big surprise many here are underwhelmed, but the feeling out there in the country, where people are less concerned/aligned/clued up, might be rather different.
So as far as actually winning the primaries overall things are basically even, delegates wise.
I think the leadership thinks that what Blair *promised* to do was good, but what Brown *actually* did was bad. The membership focuses on the *actual outcome* and doesn't focus on the words.
So if you look at free schools or welfare reform or economic rationality these are all things that Blair promised but failed to deliver. Cameron is en route to delivering them
I expected more, but very happy Remain has such a poor case here. The EU clearly don't want to sweet talk us into staying.
I hope other Leavers will now stop moaning about Cameron and get on with campaigning for Out.
Even the most die-hard Europhile would surely concede that Cameron has got very little from his negotiation.
Time to Go.
I placed a ridiculously large bet on remain winning last night in anticipation of there being at least something remotely sellable. There isn't. Leave at 3.25 is excellent value.
So yes, they have had enough of our haggling, but there were good reasons why the haggling was endless, and since we won't stop haggling afterwards, better for us and them to part ways. We will be a bitter voice moaning and preventing them from their utopia, and they will continue to impose as much as they can because all institutions try to control more and more over time, until perpetuation of the institution is the soled defining goal.
That's not good for either of us, but I for one am sick of their goddamned attitude about our goddamned attitude. Quite clearly, they would prefer we had never raised anything at any point - as such, there is little point trusting their genuineness in wanting to meet any of our concerns, because they don't share them, and will never share them, and so any proposals will just be to stop us moaning, which is a fruitless endeavour.
I break even on Rubio. Considering upping this slightly now, but might await NH.
In the event of a Leave, I expect the vast majority of Europhile LibDems, Labourites and the like to support the results of the referendum. Not because it was what they wanted, but because they are political realists who realise it would be suicidal to vote against the will of the British people.
Furthermore, any Conservative MP who attempted to subvert the result of the referendum would be deselected.
If yes, do we know when the PM will come out with if he recommends it or not?
http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Rubio/
Yes they have promised not to introduce transaction charges on non-Euro based trade within the single market, but that wasn't really a real threat anyway.
The red card is a stupid concept and they've called it that to make it look like a veto when it is nothing like that.
The benefits changes were trialled as the change that everyone would really care about, but in reality it is just the same emergency brake that already exists with one (unimportant) person recognising that immigration to the UK is quite high and our benefits system isn't fit for purpose. That's our problem though, if we made all benefits payable after 12 months of contributions then we wouldn't have any issues really.
I can't see a single change in the way that the EU will function or our relationship with it
The time to get this right was before Lisbon was agreed.
Hopefully some more baubles will be dangled our way before the final draft.
The EEA allows free movement to work (i.e. no work permit) not freedom to turn up with an intention of looking for work or an intention of not looking for work
Fundamentally, we have different interests and objectives than the rest of Europe. We'd be better neighbours than partners.
One thing which is widely misunderstood is that freedom of movement for EU citizens is not absolute - they can't come here in order to claim benefits, it has to be to work, to look for work (for a limited period), to study, or to live here on their own means. Exactly the same rules apply to EU-EEA migration.
In practice, of course, the vast majority come here to work (or study).
Also, the Swiss will never have the same issues over benefits as we do, their system is wholly contributory and they have no concept of in-work benefits or credits. You literally can't claim there if you haven't contributed for a minimum of 12 months. Plus they have incredibly harsh sentencing for benefit fraud. I read in a local paper in Basel that a Turkish migrant had cheated the system and claimed 3x the amount he was entitled to so he ended up with 10 years in prison and a deportation order for his family because they were no longer self-sufficient without his income.
Get right out of town!
The Euro's a grade one car crash (as some of us foretold), the CAP is nothing less than slush to grease the wheels of many that want them greased, the external borders of Schengen are porous to a laughable extent, and without border control you cannot have a functioning state/states (as all anarchists, agitators, and assorted hangers on in Calais well know).
Now we were never going to get all I wanted to try to correct the worse excesses I feel but I was genuinely open to persuasion. However, a brake where you have to ask people travelling in the other cars around you if you can use it is as much use as a chocolate teapot, and we all know it. I struggle to see how what Dave has got is enough, it does, at first reports, seem just too thin an offering.
We've been through all this zillions of times. It's the same EU directive.
(Paywall)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4680230.ece
If May does declare for Leave I expect her odds to come in rapidly and supersede Boris as 2nd favourite for next PM after Osborne and next Tory leader.
So I think now is the time to back her.
You can get 10/1 on May as next PM on Betfair.
DYOR, as PfP always says.
So what’s different in US politics this morning from yesterday morning ? (Numbered tweets follow …)
1) The Republican donor elite now has a clearer idea where to direct money - and assurance they won’t have to make their peace w Cruz.
2) Religious GOPers have at last found a candidate able to articulate their vision and make proper use of their clout.
3) The conventional metrics of politics - money & organization - continue to matter. Obvi, I know, but yesterday you heard doubts
4) On the D side: the resistance to Hillary Clinton remains strong, but …
5) Bernie Sanders is not an adequate alternative to win even Iowa, one of the (if not THE) most promising states for Clinton resistance
Section D on Benefits is the only one that clearly divides 'Implementation of Current EU Rules' and new proposals.
Section C on Sovereignty is simply a clarification on what ever closer union and subsidiarity are meant to mean, with the point that the EU can only have powers conferred on it by Treaties agreed by all a strong statement of fact. Point 3, the red card bit, does seem to have some substance, but my question would be how often does draft EU legislation actually overreach the powers conferred on it, so how often would this really come into play?
Section B on competitiveness seem like some woolly words declaring an intent to reduce red tape.
Section A on Euro governance also seem to restate a lot of what is already understood - my only thought would be whether the 'full reimbursement' of money taken for emergency support of the Euro from pots contributed by non-Euro members is something that already exists in some form or is it new?
Overall, it solidifies my impression of the EU, not as something which has been 'done unto us' as much Eurosceptic talk would have us believe, but something that we already participate in very largely on our own terms - if and when the EU annoys you, then the finger of blame should be directly squarely at UK governments for what they have more than willingly agreed to over the years, including entry. And the fact that the UK already sits at one side on many of the EU more crisis hit policies - the Euro, asylum/Schengen, is a testament to the ability of the UK not to agree to anything it simply doesn't want.
If the club simply doesn't do any of what you want it to achieve, no amount of flexibility will say 'remain' and that's all good. However, in terms of how the club has treated the UK as a member over the years, I cannot see the justification for any exit based simply on grievance at how the club operates.
I think most people are scratching their heads because although it is a nudge, for the reason you state, benefits restriction wouldn't necessarily affect immigration numbers.
FWIW, here are the states before 'winner takes all' comes into effect on March 15. State, primary/caucus type, delegates:
Iowa Closed caucus 30
New Hampshire Modified primary 23
South Carolina Open primary 50
Nevada Closed caucus 30
Alabama Open primary 50
Alaska Closed caucus 28
Arkansas Open primary 40
Georgia Modified primary 76
Massachusetts Modified primary 42
Minnesota Open caucus 38
North Carolina Modified primary 72
Oklahoma Closed primary 43
Tennessee Open primary 58
Texas Open primary 155
Vermont Open primary 16
Virginia Open primary 49
Wyoming Closed caucus 29
Kansas Closed caucus 40
Kentucky Closed primary 45
Louisiana Closed primary 46
Hawaii Closed caucus 19
Mississippi Open primary 39
Michigan Closed primary 59
Puerto Rico Open primary 23
That's what the PM and his chums in the EU want you to do Bob. So don't vote the way they want.
Richard N's spinning of this deal has to be his lowest point yet. This 'deal' is everything we have been warning of on here for the last several weeks - i.e. nothing at of any substance.
After some previous referendums the EU has gone back to renegoiate with countries and then there has been another referendum on the new terms.