For the record everyone, if you are ever asked by an opinion pollster your view - say leave even if it's not. It'll help our negotiating position.
Cameron never had a negotiating position. All this time he's been saying he'd never recommend 'Leave' - to the point of invoking 'National security' against it. That's not negotiation.
The scary thing for me about this, is what if all these failures turn into successes - what if we get a bit more than these things? Will that then be all ok? When Cameron got elected to the leadership he was talking serious repatriation of powers. That's been whittled down to sawdust.
If leave jumps, he and the eurocrats will start panicking. That way even in the worst case scenario the federal dream will be watered down some more. Personally, I'm praying for a schengen collapse too sometime in the summer.
Border free travel around Europe has existed since the early 1950s. Even if the EU collapses (a non zero probability), Schengen or something like it will continue to exist, because the cost of securing very long land borders without meaningful geographic features is enormous.
Even at the height of the troubles, we realised that securing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland was not achievable at a sensible cost.
I think the cost/trade-off will become a more attractive when African & Middle Eastern migration refuses to subside. I may be wrong but I personally believe the current mass movement would still be occurring even if Syria achieved peace tomorrow. It can only go on for so long before something snaps.
Less than 50% of those arriving are from Syria or Iraq. Actually I will rephrase that less than 50% of those arriving are CLAIMING to be from Syria or Iraq, as it is pretty certain that not insignificant proportion of those are lying.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
For the record everyone, if you are ever asked by an opinion pollster your view - say leave even if it's not. It'll help our negotiating position.
Cameron never had a negotiating position. All this time he's been saying he'd never recommend 'Leave' - to the point of invoking 'National security' against it. That's not negotiation.
The scary thing for me about this, is what if all these failures turn into successes - what if we get a bit more than these things? Will that then be all ok? When Cameron got elected to the leadership he was talking serious repatriation of powers. That's been whittled down to sawdust.
If leave jumps, he and the eurocrats will start panicking. That way even in the worst case scenario the federal dream will be watered down some more. Personally, I'm praying for a schengen collapse too sometime in the summer.
Border free travel around Europe has existed since the early 1950s. Even if the EU collapses (a non zero probability), Schengen or something like it will continue to exist, because the cost of securing very long land borders without meaningful geographic features is enormous.
Even at the height of the troubles, we realised that securing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland was not achievable at a sensible cost.
I think the cost/trade-off will become a more attractive when African & Middle Eastern migration refuses to subside. I may be wrong but I personally believe the current mass movement would still be occurring even if Syria achieved peace tomorrow. It can only go on for so long before something snaps.
Less than 50% of those arriving are from Syria or Iraq. Actually I will rephrase that less than 50% of those arriving are CLAIMING to be from Syria or Iraq.
Exactly my point. So there is no reason to think this could not carry on for 5+ years unless something changes - with the thing that comes to mind first being national borders.
I have come to the conclusion that the EU would almost certainly be better off if Britain voted to leave. The shock of the vote of no confidence would be salutary and might actually get the EU movers and shakers to consider how to make meaningful reforms. And they'd be shot of a member which has unshakeable delusions of its own importance and suffers from crazed paranoia about the intentions of other member states towards it.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
As for this proposed renegotiation, it's a big meh from me. It doesn't really change the direction of my thinking at all.
As instinctive as it is to support the leader of my party, I cannot. Unless he swings around and campaigns for Leave.
I'll be voting leave in June, by the looks of it.
You are right - the PB commentariat makes Twitter look representative - and especially so today. Fortunately the voters take things in a more measured way.
Arrogant prick, suggesting that those who disagree with you are not measured.
The "Red Card" is ridiculous. The only scenario in which it could apply is if a majority of EU governments endorsed a proposal, and a majority of EU Parliaments rejected it. How likely is it that EU governments would endorse a proposal when their legislatures were opposed to it?
It's worse than that... they have to reject it within 8 weeks... what's that chance of getting 15 parliaments to timetable as substantive motion and pass it in 8 weeks.
What's the chance that 15 parliaments are even sitting during in any 8 week period? I would presume European parliamentary timetables are a bit like world football, trying to find even a couple of handfuls of weekends every year to play fixtures is nearly impossible (and still includes countries playing whose domestic leagues aren't active).
Why are PB REMAINers so keen for the UK to be run from Brussels?
The whole notion of asking other countries with zero interest in your voters what you can and can't do with policy seems to me to be strange. Why bother to have your own parliament?
"How do we use this red card, Prime Minister. Do we just veto laws?"
"Well, not exactly."
"You what?"
"No, we need to secure the support of 55% of member nations to go along with us."
"55?? What's that about? Why not 50%?"
"Not sure. Makes it a bit harder, but... anyway we need their agreement before we can veto any laws"
"But we can do that already, if most MEPs don't like a law it doesn't pass,"
"Yes but, uhm, this is sort of different, this is more, cough, uh the parliamentarians in the national capitals, not MEPs, at least I think so , and we only need 14 different countries to agree for very different reasons, to something we dislike, shouldn't be hard going aorund European parliaments,..."
Contd page 549 (subsection b)
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
In the sense that you want an explanation rather than comedy, the setup is similar to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, except that it's a bit different and not in a single building.
The idea is to prevent a set of countries in power now from implementing stuff that's not supported in the future. The sequence of events goes the Commission gets appointed/elected whatever and starts work on proposed legislation. About, what, three years later it starts coming down the pipe and the European Parliament says "yay". But the political consensus may have changed in the meantime: Europe was New Labour centre-left in the mid Noughties, and is center-right and Eurosceptic now. If the makeup of the national parliaments has changed sufficiently in the meantime (and it may do, because it always is) then they can abort the countdown, so to speak.
This idea was proposed by William Hague way back (before 2010, if memory serves) and I'm glad to see it come into fruition. Because people prioritise the present and forget the past this change will be presented as small beer, but it changes the way the EU runs and will make future legislation less likely (because all the food now has to be chewed by one more stomach).
The fact is, we have no idea how the public at large will react to what Dave has done, because Europe is down their list of priorities.
We'll just have to wait for the polls.
If the undecided on here are representative, I think they'll think it's a pile of shit, and still vote Remain.
Errr by being on here one pretty well fits the definition of unrepresentative.
No, by being on here you are a small part of what is representative. Certainly, those on here are self-selected by being excessively interested in politics, which is different from the electorate at large. But whether PB is unrepresentative on any particular issue cannot be measured on that basis alone.
The "Red Card" is ridiculous. The only scenario in which it could apply is if a majority of EU governments endorsed a proposal, and a majority of EU Parliaments rejected it. How likely is it that EU governments would endorse a proposal when their legislatures were opposed to it?
Yes, having looked further at it, my characterisation of the idea as 'interesting' on the previous thread was a bit generous.
Credit where credit is due, Richard: good on you for admitting to that.
Yes it does. We would no longer be subject to ECJ rulings and could take our cases to the much less partisan EFTA court.
The ECJ is where the majority of our problems with the EU stem.
That's too obscure an argument for the Leave side to attempt to use.
I wasn't talking in the abstract of making a case to Leave, I actually meant in practice there are advantages to being in the EEA that you have continually refused to recognise. Not being under ECJ jurisdiction would be a huge win for us, you refuse to recognise that because your flimsy case for Remain based on "protections for the City" means nothing and you are an embarrassed Europhile. At least Alastair has the decency to admit his position, you, on the other hand, want to look like you could be persuaded to vote Leave like Phil "us blues" Roberts used to post that he could be persuaded to vote Tory. Neither situation is plausible and yet you maintain this façade of being neutral when you are anything but.
As SandyRentool noted above:
Anyone who claims that they were a floater and now back Remain on the strength of this half-baked nothingness is either a) daft or b) less than fully honest.
You have claimed that you could be persuaded to vote Leave, this draft has no protections for the City. The "red card" is a joke. The non-EMU protections are a non-existent and there is literally nothing new on migrant benefits. The idea that you would ever vote to leave has been thoroughly discredited by your support of this draft document.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
What wins do you think Cameron has secured?
What I think he's secured is beside the point. In terms of campaigning, what matters is what can be packaged on to two sides of A5: "All the benefits of the single market while also addressing your concerns about benefit tourism, ever closer union and Eurozone domination"
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
The "Red Card" is ridiculous. The only scenario in which it could apply is if a majority of EU governments endorsed a proposal, and a majority of EU Parliaments rejected it. How likely is it that EU governments would endorse a proposal when their legislatures were opposed to it?
Yes, having looked further at it, my characterisation of the idea as 'interesting' on the previous thread was a bit generous.
It is potentially a serious error. An idea so full of crap that even the most blinkered of pro-Cameron europhilex (e.g. your twin brother, for whom you are often mistaken) can see that it's not worth the words wasted in discussing it. Which then leads you to question the rest.
It's going to fall apart under analysis and Cameron is going to look very shifty. He'd probably have been better off not even mentioning it.
O'Flynn nailed it with his football analogy...
We think of Red Cards as being an instant, loud "NO!" not a negotiating process.. Surprising PR fault by DC
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
Dunno. I think people have grown more and more cynical over time towards British politicians pretending that they've got some great deal out of the EU. I think there's very little here, and I think the response from Conservative-supporting media will be hostile.
I have to say, the front page of tomorrow's Sun will be interesting.
Ironically, while Cameron will have trouble with all the Tory rags, the Labour ones are entirely onside.
I have come to the conclusion that the EU would almost certainly be better off if Britain voted to leave. The shock of the vote of no confidence would be salutary and might actually get the EU movers and shakers to consider how to make meaningful reforms. And they'd be shot of a member which has unshakeable delusions of its own importance and suffers from crazed paranoia about the intentions of other member states towards it.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
As for this proposed renegotiation, it's a big meh from me. It doesn't really change the direction of my thinking at all.
Or, EU-fans' could face their worst nightmare that it could work brilliantly, and the monsters under the bed fail to materialise.
Some of you may remember a few weeks ago I listed Three Eurosceptic Fallacies and Three Eurosceptic Memes. The latter was subtitled "Eternal, Infinite, Immortal" after a line in Mass Effect 3. Since everybody here is coming out with #Meme2 and (some) with #Meme3 I'd thought I'd repost the Three Eurosceptic Memes again.
* #Meme1: The EU is an Eternal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly * #Meme2: The EU is a Infinite Villain. The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things * #Meme3: The EU is the Immortal Villain. Anything bad that might happen in a future EU must be presented as fact, no matter how improbable it is.
The reason they got no traction last time is because they are rubbish.
Actually, I thought they were pretty funny.
#Meme3 is probably the most prevalent, with some posters constantly harping on about Turkey joining the EU. Something that is at least an order of magnitude (and probably two orders of magnitude) less likely than the disintegration of the EU.
Thank you. Turkey will join the EU the day after St Augustine becomes chaste.
Section A on economic governance. Cameron has agreed to stand aside for future Eurozone treaties for no protection at all for non-Euro members. The draft even says non-Euro members can be treated differently as long as its for 'objective reasons'. Its clear France has won on not giving any ground to non-Euro nations.
Section B on competitiveness. Nothing new here. Its just another statement on member states working to improve it in future.
Section C on sovereignty. Clarified meaning of 'ever closer union' to say it don't necessarily mean further political integration, but no opt out for the UK. New red card system but would require 55% of parliaments to oppose majority of governments. Clearly will never happen.
Section D on free movement. A lot of stuff just reiterating existing situation. The new emergency brake would require decision by the EU council and automatically expires unless Council reapproves it. When applied it does not ban for four years but would gradually increase benefits for new workers over the four year period. The duration of the brake period has not been agreed.
Less than 50% of those arriving are from Syria or Iraq. Actually I will rephrase that less than 50% of those arriving are CLAIMING to be from Syria or Iraq.
Exactly my point. So there is no reason to think this could not carry on for 5+ years unless something changes - with the thing that comes to mind first being national borders.
The problem being that the southern borders of the EU belong to countries that don't have the money to control their borders properly, and can't be trusted to spend any money they are given for that purpose properly.
This inevitably leads to the EU Border Force idea, which is a political disaster waiting to happen, armed troops from foreign countries, potentially countries you have been at war with in living memory, paroling your countries borders, that very essence of that which makes you a nation state.
And then there will be a few incidents of trigger happy border guards, with people being wounded or killed for doing things which either are not unlawful in their country, or even if they are have tactic approval from significant segments of the population, and you have a political firestorm.
For the record everyone, if you are ever asked by an opinion pollster your view - say leave even if it's not. It'll help our negotiating position.
Cameron never had a negotiating position. All this time he's been saying he'd never recommend 'Leave' - to the point of invoking 'National security' against it. That's not negotiation.
The scary thing for me about this, is what if all these failures turn into successes - what if we get a bit more than these things? Will that then be all ok? When Cameron got elected to the leadership he was talking serious repatriation of powers. That's been whittled down to sawdust.
If leave jumps, he and the eurocrats will start panicking. That way even in the worst case scenario the federal dream will be watered down some more. Personally, I'm praying for a schengen collapse too sometime in the summer.
Border free travel around Europe has existed since the early 1950s. Even if the EU collapses (a non zero probability), Schengen or something like it will continue to exist, because the cost of securing very long land borders without meaningful geographic features is enormous.
Even at the height of the troubles, we realised that securing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland was not achievable at a sensible cost.
I think you're being a bit complacent on this issue. There's a difference between borderless travel and having the right to work. We have recent practical experience of this when the UK was one of the only parts of the EU where citizens of the new accession countries could work - they didn't have travel restrictions in the rest of the EU.
I was specifically addressing Pauly's stated desire for Schengen to collapse.
I was pointing out that border free travel has existed a lot longer than the EU, and is likely to substantially outlast it.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
Out only needs to say "nothing's changed".
Edit: Farage is in fact saying it on R4 as I type although I appreciate that might do more harm than good.
That really would be a stupid line because it implies that the entire renegotiation is a sham. While hardline Eurosceptics might well believe that, it won't persuade any floating voters, and those are the ones who'll determine the outcome.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
Now why the hell would an un-elected organisation be put in charge of a 2 year negotiation process? That would be a bigger affront to democracy than the EU.
It will most of all be because the Leave side hasn't come up with a plausible alternative.
Why isn't being an independent country 'a plausible alternative?' there are scores of them.
Leave's pitch should be a photo of Cameron with his begging bowl and a caption 'lets make our own decisions'.
I imagine the man in the street is wondering who the f8ck is Donald Tusk and why are we asking him what we can and can't do?
No, not Cameron. Osborne. People hate him anyway.
I also think the money aspect is good, we had a net-contribution of £9.5bn last year which is going up this year. A "9,500,000,000 reasons to leave" might be effective. Slightly dishonest as there are membership fees for the EEA, but they are much smaller.
Anyone on PB who's negotiated multi million deals knows, it's just devastating to lose and learn it was never serious despite all the dancing. That's my overwhelming take away from today. The EU simply doesn't want us to stay.
"The EU simply doesn't want us to stay." Perhaps there is a more profound interpretation on all of this. The EU is incapable of taking the right decisions. For example it has not solved the CAP problems. It has continued to have two meeting centres. It has not provided solutions that tackle the economic problems of Greece. etc etc. It has not responded to the challenges of the global economy and is falling behind others in levels of GDP. Since it cannot tackle any of these issues, why should it be able to make itself more attractive for us to remain? We, are looking for change, the EU does not want to alter the course it is on and change.
What I think he's secured is beside the point. In terms of campaigning, what matters is what can be packaged on to two sides of A5: "All the benefits of the single market while also addressing your concerns about benefit tourism, ever closer union and Eurozone domination"
None of it will stand up to even the slightest scrutiny though. Karl Rove might have been right in the age of controlled information, but he hasn't had a successful campaign since 2004.
For the record everyone, if you are ever asked by an opinion pollster your view - say leave even if it's not. It'll help our negotiating position.
Cameron never had a negotiating position. All this time he's been saying he'd never recommend 'Leave' - to the point of invoking 'National security' against it. That's not negotiation.
The scary thing for me about this, is what if all these failures turn into successes - what if we get a bit more than these things? Will that then be all ok? When Cameron got elected to the leadership he was talking serious repatriation of powers. That's been whittled down to sawdust.
If leave jumps, he and the eurocrats will start panicking. That way even in the worst case scenario the federal dream will be watered down some more. Personally, I'm praying for a schengen collapse too sometime in the summer.
Border free travel around Europe has existed since the early 1950s. Even if the EU collapses (a non zero probability), Schengen or something like it will continue to exist, because the cost of securing very long land borders without meaningful geographic features is enormous.
Even at the height of the troubles, we realised that securing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland was not achievable at a sensible cost.
I think the cost/trade-off will become a more attractive when African & Middle Eastern migration refuses to subside. I may be wrong but I personally believe the current mass movement would still be occurring even if Syria achieved peace tomorrow. It can only go on for so long before something snaps.
The costs of securing the internal borders in Europe are so far beyond the ability of European governments (already struggling to pay their bills) that it will not meaningfully be considered, except where there are obvious choke points: i.e. between Sweden and Denmark.
It's worth remembering that there are residential streets between the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, that cross the border. It is simply not plausible that the 6,000 roads that lead out of Germany to its neighbours each gets a guard post and a couple of soldiers.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
Now why the hell would an un-elected organisation be put in charge of a 2 year negotiation process? That would be a bigger affront to democracy than the EU.
My suggestion was a bit tongue in cheek. If Leave wins, the people doing the negotiating will mostly be people who supported Remain.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
Now why the hell would an un-elected organisation be put in charge of a 2 year negotiation process? That would be a bigger affront to democracy than the EU.
My suggestion was a bit tongue in cheek. If Leave wins, the people doing the negotiating will mostly be people who supported Remain.
You have claimed that you could be persuaded to vote Leave, this draft has no protections for the City. The "red card" is a joke. The non-EMU protections are a non-existent and there is literally nothing new on migrant benefits. The idea that you would ever vote to leave has been thoroughly discredited by your support of this draft document.
I don't think you are right that the non-EMU protections are non-existent, they are slightly better than I was expecting (which admittedly wasn't a huge amount). I had realistic expectations - as I've said zillions of times, the time to get this right was before Lisbon, but we have to start from where we are.
However, the reason I have moved back towards Remain is not particularly related to this document. It's the lack of an alternative. If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk.
Maybe there is some other option, but it seems not. Certainly the Leave side don't seem to have one. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in the subject. Odd, but that is how it is.
'Anyone who claims that they were a floater and now back Remain on the strength of this half-baked nothingness is either a) daft or b) less than fully honest.'
They would indeed - but I'm not sure anyone has actually claimed that yet.
Indeed, it's notable that the 'remainers' on here have been carefully avoiding tying themselves to the results of this sham renegotiation.
Instead, most of them have been arguing that the status quo is fine and they will vote to remain anyway. Or engaging in distraction tactics like attacking the approach of the Leave side or offering them (no doubt) heartfelt advice on doing a better job.
The PM's cheerleaders knew this was coming, even if they occasionally hinted that we might all get a nice surprise. The campaign for Remain was always going to be mostly about trying to scare the public with the fear of the unknown.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
The biggest problem here is complete failure to have any mechanism to protect non-Euro members. If the Eurozone integrates and bloc votes, they can do what they want. And Cameron has pledged not to interfere with their future integration too. Disaster.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
Section A on economic governance. Cameron has agreed to stand aside for future Eurozone treaties for no protection at all for non-Euro members. The draft even says non-Euro members can be treated differently as long as its for 'objective reasons'. Its clear France has won on not giving any ground to non-Euro nations.
What !? I didn't see that bit, he really is the heir to Blair. Giving away our influence over the future of the Eurozone, without having got any protections for our interest in return. Class.
Some of you may remember a few weeks ago I listed Three Eurosceptic Fallacies and Three Eurosceptic Memes. The latter was subtitled "Eternal, Infinite, Immortal" after a line in Mass Effect 3. Since everybody here is coming out with #Meme2 and (some) with #Meme3 I'd thought I'd repost the Three Eurosceptic Memes again.
* #Meme1: The EU is an Eternal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly * #Meme2: The EU is a Infinite Villain. The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things * #Meme3: The EU is the Immortal Villain. Anything bad that might happen in a future EU must be presented as fact, no matter how improbable it is.
The reason they got no traction last time is because they are rubbish.
Actually, I thought they were pretty funny.
#Meme3 is probably the most prevalent, with some posters constantly harping on about Turkey joining the EU. Something that is at least an order of magnitude (and probably two orders of magnitude) less likely than the disintegration of the EU.
Thank you. Turkey will join the EU the day after St Augustine becomes chaste.
For many people the two things are synonymous. With Turkey as a member the EU would necessarily need to become a kind of United Nations of Europe with no real substance.
The migration problems that the EU have are a great example of the EU's inability to tackle problems and instead just muddle along trying to cope with the outcomes and are too lazy to think how to tackle the underlying causes. The UK has done the deep thinking on this and has spent many millions to support the refugee camps. Most of the EU has instead not met the overseas aid commitments they signed up to and bemoans the fact that some of its members will not meet Schengen border commitments, yet will do nothing about it.
For the record everyone, if you are ever asked by an opinion pollster your view - say leave even if it's not. It'll help our negotiating position.
Cameron never had a negotiating position. All this time he's been saying he'd never recommend 'Leave' - to the point of invoking 'National security' against it. That's not negotiation.
The scary thing for me about this, is what if all these failures turn into successes - what if we get a bit more than these things? Will that then be all ok? When Cameron got elected to the leadership he was talking serious repatriation of powers. That's been whittled down to sawdust.
If leave jumps, he and the eurocrats will start panicking. That way even in the worst case scenario the federal dream will be watered down some more. Personally, I'm praying for a schengen collapse too sometime in the summer.
Border free travel around Europe has existed since the early 1950s. Even if the EU collapses (a non zero probability), Schengen or something like it will continue to exist, because the cost of securing very long land borders without meaningful geographic features is enormous.
Even at the height of the troubles, we realised that securing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland was not achievable at a sensible cost.
I think the cost/trade-off will become a more attractive when African & Middle Eastern migration refuses to subside. I may be wrong but I personally believe the current mass movement would still be occurring even if Syria achieved peace tomorrow. It can only go on for so long before something snaps.
The costs of securing the internal borders in Europe are so far beyond the ability of European governments (already struggling to pay their bills) that it will not meaningfully be considered, except where there are obvious choke points: i.e. between Sweden and Denmark.
It's worth remembering that there are residential streets between the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, that cross the border. It is simply not plausible that the 6,000 roads that lead out of Germany to its neighbours each gets a guard post and a couple of soldiers.
Then they are finished. They won't be able to slow the rate of people to a level such that they can integrate. They won't be able to register everyone to maintain security. I am just glad we are an Island, we should do everything to ensure we have as many hurdles between us and any future government ever trying to drag us into the inevitable clusterf***.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
''If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk. ''
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
What I think he's secured is beside the point. In terms of campaigning, what matters is what can be packaged on to two sides of A5: "All the benefits of the single market while also addressing your concerns about benefit tourism, ever closer union and Eurozone domination"
None of it will stand up to even the slightest scrutiny though. Karl Rove might have been right in the age of controlled information, but he hasn't had a successful campaign since 2004.
I think it's still true that each side has about 5 seconds to get their point across to the average person.
'he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will'
So you know its rubbish, we know its rubbish but you are quite happy as long as a simple majority of the voters can be hoodwinked by it. Great stuff David.
Plato, even if the rest of our compatriots vote to stay in the EU under this grasp-your-ankles-and-assume-the-position "renegotiation", we will both be able to wear our "Don't blame me, I voted to Leave..." T-shirts.
Oh, and if this is all he could achieve, today is a final nail in Osborne's leadership coffin.
''If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk. ''
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Most developed countries are in big trading blocs of one kind or another, mind. NAFTA, ASEAN, EEA, Russian Customs Union, Merctor, etc.
You have claimed that you could be persuaded to vote Leave, this draft has no protections for the City. The "red card" is a joke. The non-EMU protections are a non-existent and there is literally nothing new on migrant benefits. The idea that you would ever vote to leave has been thoroughly discredited by your support of this draft document.
I don't think you are right that the non-EMU protections are non-existent, they are slightly better than I was expecting (which admittedly wasn't a huge amount). I had realistic expectations - as I've said zillions of times, the time to get this right was before Lisbon, but we have to start from where we are.
However, the reason I have moved back towards Remain is not particularly related to this document. It's the lack of an alternative. If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk.
Maybe there is some other option, but it seems not. Certainly the Leave side don't seem to have one. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in the subject. Odd, but that is how it is.
If we vote Remain, we vote for a further diminution of our independence. A vote for Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote of confidence in its direction of travel.
So, for me, voting Leave is quite straightforward, as I do not wish to see further reductions in our independence, and I have no confidence in the EU or its direction of travel.
You have claimed that you could be persuaded to vote Leave, this draft has no protections for the City. The "red card" is a joke. The non-EMU protections are a non-existent and there is literally nothing new on migrant benefits. The idea that you would ever vote to leave has been thoroughly discredited by your support of this draft document.
I don't think you are right that the non-EMU protections are non-existent, they are slightly better than I was expecting (which admittedly wasn't a huge amount). I had realistic expectations - as I've said zillions of times, the time to get this right was before Lisbon, but we have to start from where we are.
However, the reason I have moved back towards Remain is not particularly related to this document. It's the lack of an alternative. If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk.
Maybe there is some other option, but it seems not. Certainly the Leave side don't seem to have one. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in the subject. Odd, but that is how it is.
They are absolutely non-existent. The only scenario in which they would be applicable is if the EU introduced a non-Euro transaction fee for trade within the single market to try and force non-Euro countries to take up the Euro. It is a situation that would never happen, so yes, we have protection from it, but it means nothing in the real world. In the real world we can still have EMU financial regulations forced onto us by QMV because we didn't get the FinReg veto.
As I said, there are some Remain supporters on here who are making a principled stand, you are not. You claim that there is some way you could be persuaded to vote to Leave, I haven't seen any evidence of this, you haven't even outlined what it would entail.
I am very clear, I don't think I could be persuaded to vote to remain and I think Dave's negotiation is a joke. I make no bones about it, I do think we would be be better off out of the EU and in the EEA. We get most of the advantages of being in the EU, pay less in membership fees, aren't under ECJ jurisdiction and can make free trade or trade promotion deals with any country we want.
REMAIN'S biggest problem is that so far it has not painted a convincing picture of what being in would look like.
Cameron has promised reform, whatever that was supposed to me. There has been precious little reform of CAP, or the EU's budget, and the law making. Both sides are offering pigs in pokes.
Further to the "Red Card" error by Cameron, my point was the use of that phrase implies we are a referee capable of giving the card, when we are no such thing
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
And then in 2017 when net migration edges past 450,000 completely unphased by any tinkering with benefits, Farage and the oddballs will be shown on the money.. again.
What I think he's secured is beside the point. In terms of campaigning, what matters is what can be packaged on to two sides of A5: "All the benefits of the single market while also addressing your concerns about benefit tourism, ever closer union and Eurozone domination"
None of it will stand up to even the slightest scrutiny though. Karl Rove might have been right in the age of controlled information, but he hasn't had a successful campaign since 2004.
I'm not sure it has changed all that much. I'm expecting a second-rate re-run of the Scottish referendum - lower turnout, less interest but much the same debate with far more heat than light. There'll be assertion, denial, contradiction and counter-assertion but very little hard fact.
Meanwhile, both Eurosceptics and Eurolefties will tweet happily to each other in the manner of the left before the GE and believe it's all in the bag.
But going back to my earlier point, I don't see Leave's big rebutting case. They can either try to dismantle Cameron's deal, which is dangerous as it'll be detailed and require people to listen, or they can make the same argument they would have done anyway. Either carries risks. First of all though, they need to put some kind of campaign together - it'll all be over in less than five months.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
And then in 2017 when net migration edges past 450,000 completely unphased by any tinkering with benefits, Farage and the oddballs will be shown as on the money.. again.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
LEAVE = British and proud REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs
I have come to the conclusion that the EU would almost certainly be better off if Britain voted to leave. The shock of the vote of no confidence would be salutary and might actually get the EU movers and shakers to consider how to make meaningful reforms ... etc .....
Its a theory I suppose, but I do not see any logic in it. Without the UK the EU would be different, but why it should somehow be better from either our or any objective perspective seems very moot to me. What it would continue to do is grow via the Eurozone into an ever closer fiscal monetary and political union and continue to exist on our doorstep. Everything we do will be conditioned by it. On the assumption that we join the EEA (or exert some right to remain in it as we already are) then I see very little that would be different from either now or when these changes are implemented, since it is enshrined that we are quite free to not join in with all this eurozone closer union stuff. If we leave the EU tonight then none of these changes would apply when we then later came to seek access to the EU free market. By all means leave - but to expect anything to be either meaningfully different or miraculously better is hardly, I am afraid to say to you, credible thinking.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?
''If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk. ''
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Most developed countries are in big trading blocs of one kind or another, mind. NAFTA, ASEAN, EEA, Russian Customs Union, Merctor, etc.
And those blocks have one thing in common - they're either totally dominated by a true global power, or they're designed as counterweights to a true global power. Sovereignty in the sense it's discussed doesn't really come into it.
Further to the "Red Card" error by Cameron, my point was the use of that phrase implies we are a referee capable of giving the card, when we are no such thing
There is also the point that fifteen smaller, easily-bought off counties will be able to scupper anything we - or say Germany - want to propose that reforms the current EU.
I have come to the conclusion that the EU would almost certainly be better off if Britain voted to leave. The shock of the vote of no confidence would be salutary and might actually get the EU movers and shakers to consider how to make meaningful reforms.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?
This fact is what has transformed theoretically rational people into knee trembling Putin lovers. I mean how dare the Ukraine insult their intelligence by suggesting they would rather like to join the EU.
Further to the "Red Card" error by Cameron, my point was the use of that phrase implies we are a referee capable of giving the card, when we are no such thing
There is also the point that fifteen smaller, easily-bought off counties will be able to scupper anything we - or say Germany - want to propose that reforms the current EU.
That's a really good point. A future right-wing European Parliament (ECR + EPP or ENF + ECR + EFD) may be blocked by federal national parliaments in any attempt to roll back federalism. A sorry state of affairs. EDIT: Not that there is any prospect of the federalist grand coalition ever being displaced, but that's by design.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
Cameron risks devaluing himself with this charade today. Most people have forgotten who Richard Branson is. The people leading the LEAVE campaign are right now climbing over the fence in Macedonia.
Richard Branson who lives on Necker Island?
LEAVE should show pictures of the scenes in Cologne and say "By the time your new baby is asking about the birds and the bees, these men will be EU citizens as entitled to live in England as you are"
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
It seems to me that either EEA membership, or a bespoke deal, would be better than the current situation. And better than the likely future situation.
Not being part of the Common Agricultural policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the political aspects of EU membership (such as criminal justice, foreign policy, defence) , nor being subject to the juristiction of the ECJ, and paying reduced contributions, seems well worth any reduction of influence in Brussels to me.
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
If we vote Remain, we vote for a further diminution of our independence. A vote for Remain is a vote of confidence in the EU, and a vote of confidence in its direction of travel.
So, for me, voting Leave is quite straightforward, as I do not wish to see further reductions in our independence, and I have no confidence in the EU or its direction of travel.
Yes, I understand that, but I don't think it's an argument which will apply to middle-ground, potentially persuadable voters.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
I tend to disagree. I think without us as an Atlanticist counterweight, continental Europe would go Russia-ward, not the other way around. Merkel and Hollande have already hinted at it by buddying up with Putin for Minsk. I think that the likeliest option for our present Government forced into the unwanted position of Brexit would be to remain very much in the US' stable, quite probably attempting to join NAFTA if it looked like there were no possibility of reversing the EU decision.
We would be far less useful to the US outside the EU (hence them wanting us to stay in), but it's not like we'd be simply left to our own devices.
In my opinion we should be friendly with the Russians - there's really no excuse beyond US toadying to not be cordial; we deal with far worse every day. In many ways they would be an appropriate ally, as there's more parity in terms of power (though their's is military, our's economic) - as Machiavelli wrote, it's unwise to ally with a greater power then yourself. It could be mutually beneficial. But not too closely. I have defended and continue to defend Russia's actions over Syria, but there's little doubt that Assad has basically lost his country. It was the least worst option, but it's still a fact.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?
''Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?''
So in a sense you are saying YES, there's Britain has no way of substantially determining its own future. Democracy, has, essentially gone forever, for you.
It's either EU or EEA, both of which will lead us to accepting very many onerous overseas imposed conditions which run very contrary to the will of many citizens.
Imagine a bureaucrat, stomping on the face of a british voter, forever
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?
That really would be a stupid line because it implies that the entire renegotiation is a sham. While hardline Eurosceptics might well believe that, it won't persuade any floating voters, and those are the ones who'll determine the outcome.
Not sure, objectively. The Remain case as stated by Cameron is that the renegotiation was important and has produced results on the lines requested. He's the PM, so people will tend to believe that he's broadly got what he wanted and that's why he's for staying in. It may be more effective to play on public cynicism and say it was all smoke and mirrors than for the relatively minor politicians on the Leave side to try to argue the details with Cameron.
But without a popular figurehead to put the case I think they are on a loser whatever they do. This is so like the last referendum, where we saw Government plus Opposition plus CBI plus TUC vs Benn and Powell and some people from outside politics. In the end floating voters will feel it's complicated and not that interesting, but the consensus among people they have actually heard of and trust seems to be for Remain.
Some of you may remember a few weeks ago I listed Three Eurosceptic Fallacies and Three Eurosceptic Memes. The latter was subtitled "Eternal, Infinite, Immortal" after a line in Mass Effect 3. Since everybody here is coming out with #Meme2 and (some) with #Meme3 I'd thought I'd repost the Three Eurosceptic Memes again.
* #Meme1: The EU is an Eternal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly * #Meme2: The EU is a Infinite Villain. The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things * #Meme3: The EU is the Immortal Villain. Anything bad that might happen in a future EU must be presented as fact, no matter how improbable it is.
And they are as much garbage now as they were when you first posted them.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
There's a crucial difference. We trust Cameron to govern us and don't want Farage. But this isn't deciding the Government, it's selling us the EU. Farage won the last EU election, and convincingly trounced Nick Clegg over Europe, so on this specific issue he perhaps (only a thought) has more trust than he does as a potential PM.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
I tend to disagree. I think without us as an Atlanticist counterweight, continental Europe would go Russia-ward, not the other way around.
But consider the practical things that are likely to happen. We would have a behemoth on our doorstep whose existence would make life difficult for us whether it wanted to or not. The EU would end up taking a partisan position regarding the reunification of Ireland; it would be helpful towards the Scottish government in achieving its aim of breaking away and rejoining the EU. It would not have any reason to be cooperative on migration or other practical issues affecting us.
The British government would find all of this intolerable and would quickly find very like-minded interlocutors in the Kremlin.
As I said, there are some Remain supporters on here who are making a principled stand, you are not.
Bye
So no defence of your position? Well I'll let everyone else make up their minds on where you stand.
Richard N is content for the UK to be run from Brussels, natch.
More like run from wherever Cameron wants it run from. If Cameron were to have a Damascene conversion to Euroscepticism tonight, Richard N would be here tomorrow telling us that Leave have it right, and that joining the EEA is a cracking idea. He might even be heard to utter "stick it up your Juncker" although that might be going too far
Some of you may remember a few weeks ago I listed Three Eurosceptic Fallacies and Three Eurosceptic Memes. The latter was subtitled "Eternal, Infinite, Immortal" after a line in Mass Effect 3. Since everybody here is coming out with #Meme2 and (some) with #Meme3 I'd thought I'd repost the Three Eurosceptic Memes again.
* #Meme1: The EU is an Eternal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly * #Meme2: The EU is a Infinite Villain. The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things * #Meme3: The EU is the Immortal Villain. Anything bad that might happen in a future EU must be presented as fact, no matter how improbable it is.
And they are as much garbage now as they were when you first posted them.
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
It seems to me that either EEA membership, or a bespoke deal, would be better than the current situation. And better than the likely future situation.
Not being part of the Common Agricultural policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the political aspects of EU membership (such as criminal justice, foreign policy, defence) , nor being subject to the juristiction of the ECJ, and paying reduced contributions, seems well worth any reduction of influence in Brussels to me.
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
Your individual view - I would look to the Leave campaign as a whole to thrash out some kind of proposal or options - maybe as you lay out, maybe different.
How much of the reduced contributions will be mopped up in creating British versions of the things we don't subscribe to? For example, I rather assume that the UK will retain some kind of quota / protections against overfishing - it may well be better and more customised to the ecology of UK territorial waters, but it will come with a cost and that could actually be higher than pooling the law making with 27 other countries - customised solutions tend to cost more.
Christ on two bikes. It's not up to them, its up to the government of the day. If LEAVE said EEA, and the government said no, actually we are going to go it alone, what do you think would happen. There is no point in LEAVE painting pictures of stuff it is unable to deliver, that's the sort of dishonest crap Cameron goes in for, painting pictures for example of reducing immigration..... or reforming the EU... or controlling our borders... or "an new kind of union"...
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
It seems to me that either EEA membership, or a bespoke deal, would be better than the current situation. And better than the likely future situation.
Not being part of the Common Agricultural policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the political aspects of EU membership (such as criminal justice, foreign policy, defence) , nor being subject to the juristiction of the ECJ, and paying reduced contributions, seems well worth any reduction of influence in Brussels to me.
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
Which is essentially how my position shakes down as well. If Dave had secured a FinReg veto I would be open to Remain as I think that is worth the hassle, but since he never tried to get it in the first place there is a less than 0.0001% chance of getting one.
''If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk. ''
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Most developed countries are in big trading blocs of one kind or another, mind. NAFTA, ASEAN, EEA, Russian Customs Union, Merctor, etc.
Yes - and these blocks are more than just customs unions.
''Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?''
So in a sense you are saying YES, there's Britain has no way of substantially determining its own future. Democracy, has, essentially gone forever, for you.
It's either EU or EEA, both of which will lead us to accepting very many onerous overseas imposed conditions which run very contrary to the will of many citizens.
Imagine a bureaucrat, stomping on the face of a british voter, forever
I'm mainly saying that the Leave side shouldn't assume that their characterisation of the EU as the root of all evil is shared by the floating voters they need to persuade. That's why I keep banging on about the need for an alternative.
I'm also saying that the EU, like it or not, is here to stay. We can't simply ignore it, and, yes, we will be hugely affected by EU decisions, whether we leave or not. Like Canada's relation to the US.
I don't know what anyone else thinks but i thought Cameron was the best I've heard him. Like Blair all over again. Relaxed with none of that pained sincerity that can sound so false. What's more for the most part he avoided sounding condescending to his fellow Europeans. Something Tory politicians have always struggled to do. I'd give him 9/10
As I said, there are some Remain supporters on here who are making a principled stand, you are not.
Bye
So no defence of your position? Well I'll let everyone else make up their minds on where you stand.
Richard N is content for the UK to be run from Brussels, natch.
More like run from wherever Cameron wants it run from. If Cameron were to have a Damascene conversion to Euroscepticism tonight, Richard N would be here tomorrow telling us that Leave have it right, and that joining the EEA is a cracking idea. He might even be heard to utter "stick it up your Juncker" although that might be going too far
Will be interesting to see if he changes his mind if a eurosceptic advocating Brexit became leader.
Fair words and all that, but interesting nonetheless.
It gets worse the more you look at it. "Fell expectation". Who decides if we can pull the brake? The parliament? The Commission? The ECJ? None of these are known for being overly friendly to Britain.
If they decide after we've voted IN what are the chances they will say Sod your brake, you can't use it. What do we do then? Nothing.
I've never held Cameron in more contempt than I do now. He'd be better off saying the EU is tolerable as it is, outside is worse, that's that. At least that would have the merit of veracity. it's what he clearly thinks. But trying to say he's got meaningful reforms when he knows he's done nothing of the kind. It's like Blair and Iraq.
I predict he will win this referendum and I further predict the Tory party will then turn on him, and he will be historically reviled, like Heath.
I think it would have been more intellectually honest not to embark on this exercise.
Just say to the public, This is the EU, Take it or Leave It.
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
It seems to me that either EEA membership, or a bespoke deal, would be better than the current situation. And better than the likely future situation.
Not being part of the Common Agricultural policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the political aspects of EU membership (such as criminal justice, foreign policy, defence) , nor being subject to the juristiction of the ECJ, and paying reduced contributions, seems well worth any reduction of influence in Brussels to me.
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
Your individual view - I would look to the Leave campaign as a whole to thrash out some kind of proposal or options - maybe as you lay out, maybe different.
How much of the reduced contributions will be mopped up in creating British versions of the things we don't subscribe to? For example, I rather assume that the UK will retain some kind of quota / protections against overfishing - it may well be better and more customised to the ecology of UK territorial waters, but it will come with a cost and that could actually be higher than pooling the law making with 27 other countries - customised solutions tend to cost more.
A fair amount could be saved from agricultural subsidies. A UK only programme would be tiny compared to the mega contribution we make for the CAP.
Comments
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why isn't being an independent country 'a plausible alternative?' there are scores of them.
Leave's pitch should be a photo of Cameron with his begging bowl and a caption 'lets make our own decisions'.
I imagine the man in the street is wondering who the f8ck is Donald Tusk and why are we asking him what we can and can't do?
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
As for this proposed renegotiation, it's a big meh from me. It doesn't really change the direction of my thinking at all.
There's no respect in that relationship.
The whole notion of asking other countries with zero interest in your voters what you can and can't do with policy seems to me to be strange. Why bother to have your own parliament?
Is it time to ditch the demographics? @richpwilson from @relativeinsight makes the case https://t.co/7Dqj4CraXS https://t.co/m89sdWKwAw
The idea is to prevent a set of countries in power now from implementing stuff that's not supported in the future. The sequence of events goes the Commission gets appointed/elected whatever and starts work on proposed legislation. About, what, three years later it starts coming down the pipe and the European Parliament says "yay". But the political consensus may have changed in the meantime: Europe was New Labour centre-left in the mid Noughties, and is center-right and Eurosceptic now. If the makeup of the national parliaments has changed sufficiently in the meantime (and it may do, because it always is) then they can abort the countdown, so to speak.
This idea was proposed by William Hague way back (before 2010, if memory serves) and I'm glad to see it come into fruition. Because people prioritise the present and forget the past this change will be presented as small beer, but it changes the way the EU runs and will make future legislation less likely (because all the food now has to be chewed by one more stomach).
As SandyRentool noted above: You have claimed that you could be persuaded to vote Leave, this draft has no protections for the City. The "red card" is a joke. The non-EMU protections are a non-existent and there is literally nothing new on migrant benefits. The idea that you would ever vote to leave has been thoroughly discredited by your support of this draft document.
We think of Red Cards as being an instant, loud "NO!" not a negotiating process.. Surprising PR fault by DC
Ironically, while Cameron will have trouble with all the Tory rags, the Labour ones are entirely onside.
Section A on economic governance. Cameron has agreed to stand aside for future Eurozone treaties for no protection at all for non-Euro members. The draft even says non-Euro members can be treated differently as long as its for 'objective reasons'. Its clear France has won on not giving any ground to non-Euro nations.
Section B on competitiveness. Nothing new here. Its just another statement on member states working to improve it in future.
Section C on sovereignty. Clarified meaning of 'ever closer union' to say it don't necessarily mean further political integration, but no opt out for the UK. New red card system but would require 55% of parliaments to oppose majority of governments. Clearly will never happen.
Section D on free movement. A lot of stuff just reiterating existing situation. The new emergency brake would require decision by the EU council and automatically expires unless Council reapproves it. When applied it does not ban for four years but would gradually increase benefits for new workers over the four year period. The duration of the brake period has not been agreed.
This inevitably leads to the EU Border Force idea, which is a political disaster waiting to happen, armed troops from foreign countries, potentially countries you have been at war with in living memory, paroling your countries borders, that very essence of that which makes you a nation state.
And then there will be a few incidents of trigger happy border guards, with people being wounded or killed for doing things which either are not unlawful in their country, or even if they are have tactic approval from significant segments of the population, and you have a political firestorm.
I was pointing out that border free travel has existed a lot longer than the EU, and is likely to substantially outlast it.
I also think the money aspect is good, we had a net-contribution of £9.5bn last year which is going up this year. A "9,500,000,000 reasons to leave" might be effective. Slightly dishonest as there are membership fees for the EEA, but they are much smaller.
It's worth remembering that there are residential streets between the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, that cross the border. It is simply not plausible that the 6,000 roads that lead out of Germany to its neighbours each gets a guard post and a couple of soldiers.
However, the reason I have moved back towards Remain is not particularly related to this document. It's the lack of an alternative. If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk.
Maybe there is some other option, but it seems not. Certainly the Leave side don't seem to have one. In fact, they seem completely uninterested in the subject. Odd, but that is how it is.
They would indeed - but I'm not sure anyone has actually claimed that yet.
Indeed, it's notable that the 'remainers' on here have been carefully avoiding tying themselves to the results of this sham renegotiation.
Instead, most of them have been arguing that the status quo is fine and they will vote to remain anyway. Or engaging in distraction tactics like attacking the approach of the Leave side or offering them (no doubt) heartfelt advice on doing a better job.
The PM's cheerleaders knew this was coming, even if they occasionally hinted that we might all get a nice surprise. The campaign for Remain was always going to be mostly about trying to scare the public with the fear of the unknown.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/694521011841175556
They won't be able to slow the rate of people to a level such that they can integrate.
They won't be able to register everyone to maintain security.
I am just glad we are an Island, we should do everything to ensure we have as many hurdles between us and any future government ever trying to drag us into the inevitable clusterf***.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
So you know its rubbish, we know its rubbish but you are quite happy as long as a simple majority of the voters can be hoodwinked by it. Great stuff David.
Oh, and if this is all he could achieve, today is a final nail in Osborne's leadership coffin.
So, for me, voting Leave is quite straightforward, as I do not wish to see further reductions in our independence, and I have no confidence in the EU or its direction of travel.
As I said, there are some Remain supporters on here who are making a principled stand, you are not. You claim that there is some way you could be persuaded to vote to Leave, I haven't seen any evidence of this, you haven't even outlined what it would entail.
I am very clear, I don't think I could be persuaded to vote to remain and I think Dave's negotiation is a joke. I make no bones about it, I do think we would be be better off out of the EU and in the EEA. We get most of the advantages of being in the EU, pay less in membership fees, aren't under ECJ jurisdiction and can make free trade or trade promotion deals with any country we want.
Cameron has promised reform, whatever that was supposed to me. There has been precious little reform of CAP, or the EU's budget, and the law making. Both sides are offering pigs in pokes.
Meanwhile, both Eurosceptics and Eurolefties will tweet happily to each other in the manner of the left before the GE and believe it's all in the bag.
But going back to my earlier point, I don't see Leave's big rebutting case. They can either try to dismantle Cameron's deal, which is dangerous as it'll be detailed and require people to listen, or they can make the same argument they would have done anyway. Either carries risks. First of all though, they need to put some kind of campaign together - it'll all be over in less than five months.
REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs
Without the UK the EU would be different, but why it should somehow be better from either our or any objective perspective seems very moot to me.
What it would continue to do is grow via the Eurozone into an ever closer fiscal monetary and political union and continue to exist on our doorstep. Everything we do will be conditioned by it. On the assumption that we join the EEA (or exert some right to remain in it as we already are) then I see very little that would be different from either now or when these changes are implemented, since it is enshrined that we are quite free to not join in with all this eurozone closer union stuff.
If we leave the EU tonight then none of these changes would apply when we then later came to seek access to the EU free market. By all means leave - but to expect anything to be either meaningfully different or miraculously better is hardly, I am afraid to say to you, credible thinking.
EDIT: Not that there is any prospect of the federalist grand coalition ever being displaced, but that's by design.
LEAVE should show pictures of the scenes in Cologne and say "By the time your new baby is asking about the birds and the bees, these men will be EU citizens as entitled to live in England as you are"
Not being part of the Common Agricultural policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the political aspects of EU membership (such as criminal justice, foreign policy, defence) , nor being subject to the juristiction of the ECJ, and paying reduced contributions, seems well worth any reduction of influence in Brussels to me.
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
We would be far less useful to the US outside the EU (hence them wanting us to stay in), but it's not like we'd be simply left to our own devices.
In my opinion we should be friendly with the Russians - there's really no excuse beyond US toadying to not be cordial; we deal with far worse every day. In many ways they would be an appropriate ally, as there's more parity in terms of power (though their's is military, our's economic) - as Machiavelli wrote, it's unwise to ally with a greater power then yourself. It could be mutually beneficial. But not too closely. I have defended and continue to defend Russia's actions over Syria, but there's little doubt that Assad has basically lost his country. It was the least worst option, but it's still a fact.
Which way will they lean in the end???
So in a sense you are saying YES, there's Britain has no way of substantially determining its own future. Democracy, has, essentially gone forever, for you.
It's either EU or EEA, both of which will lead us to accepting very many onerous overseas imposed conditions which run very contrary to the will of many citizens.
Imagine a bureaucrat, stomping on the face of a british voter, forever
But without a popular figurehead to put the case I think they are on a loser whatever they do. This is so like the last referendum, where we saw Government plus Opposition plus CBI plus TUC vs Benn and Powell and some people from outside politics. In the end floating voters will feel it's complicated and not that interesting, but the consensus among people they have actually heard of and trust seems to be for Remain.
So all we need to do is say Corbyn & Labour are in favour and its an easy win for Leave, then, Nick?
The British government would find all of this intolerable and would quickly find very like-minded interlocutors in the Kremlin.
How much of the reduced contributions will be mopped up in creating British versions of the things we don't subscribe to? For example, I rather assume that the UK will retain some kind of quota / protections against overfishing - it may well be better and more customised to the ecology of UK territorial waters, but it will come with a cost and that could actually be higher than pooling the law making with 27 other countries - customised solutions tend to cost more.
No, his contention, as far as I can see, is we have no choice.
The alternatives are EU: (run by Brussels)
Or EEA (essentially run by Brussels because of what you must agree all kinds of conditions to get one).
I'm also saying that the EU, like it or not, is here to stay. We can't simply ignore it, and, yes, we will be hugely affected by EU decisions, whether we leave or not. Like Canada's relation to the US.
Australia allows MPs to breastfeed in parliament http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-02/australia-allows-mps-to-breastfeed-in-parliament/ …
Just say to the public, This is the EU, Take it or Leave It.
I wonder if anyone (here) has changed their mind either way.