I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
I wasn't suggesting putting Redwood in charge. I do however think he is has the most credibility on the economy of anyone on the Leave side and indeed more than members of the current Government - with the possible exception of Lawson. I would see him as a grey-suited prophet of doom basically going around predicting economic carnage from staying in. Bad cop to someone else's good cop. Sadly I don't think he'd be prepared to do that - from reading him he seems far more of a 'positive case for life outside the EU' person.
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
I must say thats what I thought. There hardly seems much point to a referendum campaign, or referendum parties - just stickup a weekly series of Sun headlines. They will be predictable enough without needing to refer to too many facts. Maybe we can get a line of fur hatted judges to give them marks out of 10.
I'm never going to defend the press, but do you seriously think this is a good deal?
I have never seen a single point raised by Remain that cannot be defeated as basic scaremongering, not one. Can you help me please because I literally cannot see one single valid reason why we should remain.
Cameron could have come down with tablets of stone and we would have got the same headline. It was pre written and all the next ones are lined up. The Sun will do what it likes to peddle its own agenda. Its manifesto for our future is hardly well crafted. We can leave the EU but we still haver to deal with it. The difference in real terms is very little. On that basis we can have our vote and stop complaining. Yet all we have is a vote with an outbreak of mass hysteria from the phobes.
If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
The entire EU debate since I have been a teenager has been characterised by a fundamental dishonesty mixed up with absurdly over-stated WW2 references, on both sides (and I'm including the EU itself in this).
We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.
It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, whinging about a non-contributory welfare system which is wholly in our control and has nothing to do with the EU at all and civil servants coming up with a load of waffly bullshit which means the square root of f** all.
Yes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
We can cope and thrive in the EU. Dislocation costs of leaving and reestablishing the original position, the uncertainty costs in the meantime, combined with the opportunity costs of spending the next two-three years Brexiting instead of doing something profitable, make a Brexit a costly indulgence.
And I think of my house as a home rather than an investment and suspect that he overstates the effect on the London property market.
As some of you know, I am currently selling my flat. Some of the numbers on my spreadsheet have six figures. Disruptions and indulgences in the housing market have real implications for me.
''We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.''
The heart of the matter. The very core of things. Britain has no common role or identity in the world. We don;t know where we fit in, or what we want to be.
Speak for yourself sunshine. You may not know where to fit in, but most people under fifty in the UK are wanting to Remain and fit in.
''We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.''
The heart of the matter. The very core of things. Britain has no common role or identity in the world. We don;t know where we fit in, or what we want to be.
Change incurs cost. Without a significant improvement, change is not an improvement on the status quo. In such cases money estimates of the long-term benefits should be made available so that people can weigh one against the other. Emotive terms like "pathetic" are irrelevant.
I think there are pros and cons to leaving and staying. I tend to agree with @NickPalmer that the way we stay and grumble but don't build alliances or arguments is a daft and counter-productive way of behaving. I worry that if we stay we'll continue with this approach and it will do us and the EU no good at all. But, fundamentally, I think that the long-term interests and visions of Britain and the rest of the EU are fundamentally different. It's not that one is right and one wrong. Just that what is right for the EU from their perspective is wrong for us, from ours. Better to be good neighbours than unhappy co-habitees.
It's not a bad argument and if the debate had been conducted in such terms the atmosphere would be different. But the argument is based on abstracts ("long-term interests", "visions", "good neighbours") whereas I prefer quantifiable data.
Maintaining a ludicrously high valuation of my house at the expense of my own children strikes me as a particularly daft reason for voting Remain.
It's more the case that it changes the size of the cheques I have to write. Which does bring the issue into sharp relief.
Good points. Change does incur cost. So does staying. On the whole I am tending to the view that staying will have costs for the things I care about - a certain idea of democracy, the role of the common law, the balance between the state and the citizen etc - which I am not prepared to pay. I have put my more detailed reasons in other posts in the past. Forgive me, it is late, I cannot easily find them and am too tired to repeat them.
I don't think this is a debate which can be won or lost on the basis of quantifiable data. In the end, for me anyway, it will be down to what I think the future shape of Britain will be in the EU as I think it will develop or outside it and which seems to me to be the better option for me and mine. I fear the choice will be between the EU and democracy. I am pro-Europe but the EU is not Europe as I think the best of Europe should be. And the EU is not very democratic in its bones. And I choose democracy over any kind of a plan by bureaucrats, no matter how well-meaning. Civil servants and politicians and the state should answer to us not the other way round. That's my default position.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
I wasn't suggesting putting Redwood in charge. I do however think he is has the most credibility on the economy of anyone on the Leave side and indeed more than members of the current Government - with the possible exception of Lawson. I would see him as a grey-suited prophet of doom basically going around predicting economic carnage from staying in. Bad cop to someone else's good cop. Sadly I don't think he'd be prepared to do that - from reading him he seems far more of a 'positive case for life outside the EU' person.
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Just so you know, his real name is foxdansleschaussettes
Just sayin'
Nein! Ich bin FuchsimSockenBD!
'No no those Fokkers were Messerschmitts' Which reminds me - the Sun is never happier than when refighting World War 2
What panic? What flailing? The firmly outs have reacted how we were always going to react to a crap deal. I think the increase in volume you've picked up has been from those giving the renegotiations a genuine chance (I know, but still), and have been totally let down.
Fair point, but how it will look to the uncommitted is that Cameron is being attacked by a band of frothing nutters for not getting enough on one hand, and that on the other hand the EU countries had to be pushed hard to get even that. That's not bad positioning for the Remain side.
If they all read PB, perhaps they can de-lurk and tell us. I suspect they don't.
I also can't for the life of me see how EU countries telling Cameron to f-off is even remotely good for Remain - it reinforces the issue that we're getting nowhere in the current framework and we're better off out. In fact any credit Cameron manages to scrape for achieving whatever it is he feels he's achieved is directly proportional to the EU looking intransigent and overbearing.
On that note, good night, it's way past lights out.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
I must say thats what I thought. There hardly seems much point to a referendum campaign, or referendum parties - just stickup a weekly series of Sun headlines. They will be predictable enough without needing to refer to too many facts. Maybe we can get a line of fur hatted judges to give them marks out of 10.
I'm never going to defend the press, but do you seriously think this is a good deal?
I have never seen a single point raised by Remain that cannot be defeated as basic scaremongering, not one. Can you help me please because I literally cannot see one single valid reason why we should remain.
Cameron could have come down with tablets of stone and we would have got the same headline. It was pre written and all the next ones are lined up. The Sun will do what it likes to peddle its own agenda. Its manifesto for our future is hardly well crafted. We can leave the EU but we still haver to deal with it. The difference in real terms is very little. On that basis we can have our vote and stop complaining. Yet all we have is a vote with an outbreak of mass hysteria from the phobes.
We have to deal with everyone, whether it's dealing wit the EU or Burkino Faso.
If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions....
We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.
It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, whinging about a non-contributory welfare system which is wholly in our control and has nothing to do with the EU at all and civil servants coming up with a load of waffly bullshit which means the square root of f** all.
Yes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
I must say thats what I thought. There hardly seems much point to a referendum campaign, or referendum parties - just stickup a weekly series of Sun headlines. They will be predictable enough without needing to refer to too many facts. Maybe we can get a line of fur hatted judges to give them marks out of 10.
I'm never going to defend the press, but do you seriously think this is a good deal?
I have never seen a single point raised by Remain that cannot be defeated as basic scaremongering, not one. Can you help me please because I literally cannot see one single valid reason why we should remain.
Cameron could have come down with tablets of stone and we would have got the same headline. It was pre written and all the next ones are lined up. The Sun will do what it likes to peddle its own agenda. Its manifesto for our future is hardly well crafted. We can leave the EU but we still haver to deal with it. The difference in real terms is very little. On that basis we can have our vote and stop complaining. Yet all we have is a vote with an outbreak of mass hysteria from the phobes.
We have to deal with everyone, whether it's dealing wit the EU or Burkino Faso.
If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
The entire EU debate since I have been a teenager has been characterised by a fundamental dishonesty mixed up with absurdly over-stated WW2 references, on both sides...
We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. ....
It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, snip.
Yes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
I would agree with this save for the fact that the EU is not "an international organisation" ... "enabling nations to work together" but wants to turn itself into a entity which supersedes - and to a great extent - abolishes its constituent nation states. If you're happy with this, fine. I'm not at all sure that I am. The nation state has worked very well in Britain and for Britain. I don't see why we need to abolish it in order to co-operate with, say, Italy which has never had a nation state worth the name.
Participating fully in the European family does not require "ever closer union". The EU is not the same as Europe. That is to confuse a bureaucratic statist model based on the French model with Europe. I mean, really, France is a wonderful country in many ways, but its political structures are hardly the model to pick out of all of those in offer in Europe.
Why, in God's name, would Britain - with its largely successful and long standing Parliamentary common law tradition - choose to subsume itself in an entity which is very largely based on the "L'etat c'est moi" model?
I have a consumer business. Sales will fall with economic uncertainty. But some issues are more important than a bit of a sales blip, or a bit of a houseprice dive.
It depends on the size of the bit, and who's paying for it.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
I wasn't suggesting putting Redwood in charge. I do however think he is has the most credibility on the economy of anyone on the Leave side and indeed more than members of the current Government - with the possible exception of Lawson. I would see him as a grey-suited prophet of doom basically going around predicting economic carnage from staying in. Bad cop to someone else's good cop. Sadly I don't think he'd be prepared to do that - from reading him he seems far more of a 'positive case for life outside the EU' person.
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
Assuming that Cameron wins the referendum it will be the final act in absorbing the entirety of the Blair coalition. The next election ought to be a Tory landslide, while any post-referendum boost to UKIP could put the Corbynite Labour party in existential danger.
Cameron is good at politics.
Absolutely brilliant.... He has managed to split the Tories into four parts over the EU....
There are those who don´t really care how the EU decides to manage its affairs, as long as they can make a big profits out of it. The Big Business Group.
Those who think that Cameron and Osborne have done an excellent job over the negotiations, however these finally turn out. The Ultra Loyalist Brigade.
Those who wish Cameron had been a bit more competent and forceful in his negotiations, and ended up with a new proper-Conservative version of the EU. A sort of Tory Paradise-Lost Group, with lots of wishful thinking.
And those who want nothing to do with the EU in any way shape or form. The Neo-UKIP tendency.
Very interesting to observe these four groups falling to blows this afternoon. Can Humpty Dumpty be stuck back together again? I doubt it strongly.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
Name one practical reason.
I like the ability to employ Europeans with a minimum of beaurocracy, and the ability to live and work in Europe on similar terms. I like the free movement of people.
Of course if we stayed in the EEA and maintained the 4 freedoms then that would be a reasonable second best.
If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
Yes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
Well put.
If only most Leavers were as persuasive they might do a better job of making their case...
As @FrankieBoyle observes on a related matter: Can't help feeling that this persuading people to vote for Independence by telling them to go f*ck themselves tactic has a few flaws
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
Europe and the EU are not the same thing. For starters there are 50 countries in Europe. If you are a firm believer in international organisations then Brexit is the logical choice as the UK would be able to regain a seat at them. The EU are inward looking and stuck in the past.
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
Name one practical reason.
I like the ability to employ Europeans with a minimum of beaurocracy, and the ability to live and work in Europe on similar terms. I like the free movement of people.
Of course if we stayed in the EEA and maintained the 4 freedoms then that would be a reasonable second best.
If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
.............. It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, whinging about a non-contributory welfare system which is wholly in our control and has nothing to do with the EU at all and civil servants coming up with a load of waffly bullshit which means the square root of f** all.
Yes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
Meanwhile in other news, and while almost certainly too little, too late, SLAB are starting to work out what Labour are 'for':
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
I'm not convinced Leave needs a leader. I think they need a someone to run it, but I'm not sure that person should be the spokesman. Someone mentioned John Redwood earlier - he could definitely play a strong role.
Please, please, please put John Redwood in charge of LEAVE. Put him in front of the cameras every day. I will light a candle for you if you do...
His (Redwood's) social awkwardness and 90's reputation would not perhaps result in the outcome you desire.
The EU = The Borg
The BOOers = the nuttiest fruitcake since Nutty McNutt baked a walnut cake for squirrel Nutkin with added hazelnut sprinkles.
Frothing at the mouth is not a good look for winning undecided voters!
EU do you think you are kidding Dr Fox !
If the hyperbolic stuff on here today is the tone of the Leave campaign, then they are doomed.
Cameron as Captain Mainwaring? That comfortable, if slightly pompous, English patriot? Not sure that it works.
Mr Fox, do you think it is a good deal then?
I am happy staying in the EU on existing terms.
For goodness' sake why??
Because it's easier to complete forms at work and he fancies retiring in the sun, he said this the other week. Quite possibly the most shallow poster ever on PB
Nah, there are plenty shallower than me here.
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
Name one practical reason.
I like the ability to employ Europeans with a minimum of beaurocracy, and the ability to live and work in Europe on similar terms. I like the free movement of people.
Of course if we stayed in the EEA and maintained the 4 freedoms then that would be a reasonable second best.
Except you don't employ them, the NHS does.
Same thing. I act on behalf of the NHS when appointing staff.
Meanwhile in other news, and while almost certainly too little, too late, SLAB are starting to work out what Labour are 'for':
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
"Progressive" taxation my foot, that's a 5% tax increase for anyone on Basic rate and a 2.5% for anyone on higher rate.
This is an elephant trap set up by George for the SNP that they've managed to avoid, mainly because it had "Elephant" and "Trap" written on it in big letters but obviously Scottish Labour have fallen into it head first.
Meanwhile in other news, and while almost certainly too little, too late, SLAB are starting to work out what Labour are 'for':
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
Meanwhile in other news, and while almost certainly too little, too late, SLAB are starting to work out what Labour are 'for':
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
"Progressive" taxation my foot, that's a 5% tax increase for anyone on Basic rate and a 2.5% for anyone on higher rate.
the suggestion that a flat increase to all tax rates (which is all that SRIT currently allows) hurts the poorest most plays on a simple intuitive misperception: people think the poorest pay 20% tax and the richest 40%, so 1/20 is twice as bad as 1/40. Their are a couple of problems with this, the biggest being that we only pay tax above a threshold (the Personal Allowance) which means that a higher proportion of higher earners' income is taxed.
.....an additional 1% SRIT would mean - because the first £10k of income (the Personal Allowance) is not taxed - someone earning £20k would pay £100 more tax but someone on £40k would pay £300 more tax .
The wider point here is that this additional tax money raised could be used to alleviate the impacts of "Westminster's austerity policies". The additional money raised could be recycled into public spending in a way that defends our essential public services and protects the poorest in society. A simple person might think that the SNP - having campaigned as the "anti-austerity" party - would lose all credibility if they failed to take this opportunity to put their words into action.
Meanwhile in other news, and while almost certainly too little, too late, SLAB are starting to work out what Labour are 'for':
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
I can hazard a guess how well that's going to go down in May.
At least it's being honest in saying that the public spending has to be paid for somehow. UK Labour could do well to learn that tax and spend is more acceptable than borrow and spend.
The Guardian are going to tie themselves up in knots on the EU referendum. For all they want to take the piss out of the PM, they'll be the first newspaper to come out unequivocally for Remain.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
I can hazard a guess how well that's going to go down in May.
At least it's being honest in saying that the public spending has to be paid for somehow. UK Labour could do well to learn that tax and spend is more acceptable than borrow and spend.
I suspect we'll discover (sic) that the SNP is in favour of 'Tory Tax Rates' and 'Westminster Austerity'.......
The Guardian are going to tie themselves up in knots on the EU referendum. For all they want to take the piss out of the PM, they'll be the first newspaper to come out unequivocally for Remain.
Yes, its going to be fun watching the Cameron haters on the Remain side tie themselves in knots.....'Yes, we're in favour of the EU, but not David Cameron's EU.....'
Step forward (most of) Labour, (all of) the SNP and the Guardian.....
Assuming that Cameron wins the referendum it will be the final act in absorbing the entirety of the Blair coalition. The next election ought to be a Tory landslide, while any post-referendum boost to UKIP could put the Corbynite Labour party in existential danger.
Cameron is good at politics.
Absolutely brilliant.... He has managed to split the Tories into four parts over the EU....
There are those who don´t really care how the EU decides to manage its affairs, as long as they can make a big profits out of it. The Big Business Group.
Those who think that Cameron and Osborne have done an excellent job over the negotiations, however these finally turn out. The Ultra Loyalist Brigade.
Those who wish Cameron had been a bit more competent and forceful in his negotiations, and ended up with a new proper-Conservative version of the EU. A sort of Tory Paradise-Lost Group, with lots of wishful thinking.
And those who want nothing to do with the EU in any way shape or form. The Neo-UKIP tendency.
Very interesting to observe these four groups falling to blows this afternoon. Can Humpty Dumpty be stuck back together again? I doubt it strongly.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
I can hazard a guess how well that's going to go down in May.
At least it's being honest in saying that the public spending has to be paid for somehow. UK Labour could do well to learn that tax and spend is more acceptable than borrow and spend.
Good morning all. Some excellent posts over the last 24 hours. RCS has probably best expressed my own view. I'm mostly irritated by Cameron trying to tell me that shit is Shinola. Hence, no more conservative - I may be right of centre, but I'm not tribal.
I like this SLAB proposition for its essential honesty - if we want better public services, we're going to have to pay for them - we cannot keep re-spending some vaporous levy on the bankers/the rich. English labour should take note. There's a solid argument to be made for a higher tax/higher spend administration.
Comments
I like Europe and am very happy that the UK fully participates in the European family. There are many practical reasons why we should stay in the EU, but I am a firm believer in international organisations as means of enabling nations to work together.
The Sun will do what it likes to peddle its own agenda. Its manifesto for our future is hardly well crafted.
We can leave the EU but we still haver to deal with it. The difference in real terms is very little. On that basis we can have our vote and stop complaining. Yet all we have is a vote with an outbreak of mass hysteria from the phobes.
The problem is this: as an island nation, with very different traditions of democracy and law, we are a poor fit for the EU. Unlike many of our neighbours, we are not subscale (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc.). Nor do we have fundamentally undefendable land borders (Germany, France). Nor do we have a history of fascism we'd like constrained (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany).
The countries of the EU have chosen a different path to us, and we will never be fully paid up to their vision. (And, contrary to the views of many on this site, support for the EU and the Euro is surprisingly strong on the continent.)
We need to leave with dignity, and offer our support to our neighbours. Our departure is good for us, and good for them, and needs to be framed like that. We must become, as we have been in the past, semi-detached.
This does not mean we hate them. This does not mean we wish them ill. It merely means the path they have chosen is not for us.
Too much Euroscepticism is just Eurohostility. We have different choices to a Belgium. We should not belittle their choices, because they are constrained by history, geography and numerous other factors.
This marriage doesn't work for us, and doesn't work for the EU. Let us leave with our heads held high, and in a spirit of constructiveness not in the hope that "we bring the whole edifice crashing down", as one PB commentator wrote.
It may be the EU and the Eurozone fall apart, thanks to Eurogeddon or the migrant crisis. But it should not be our obstructiveness that causes the collapse. Their future is theirs to make.
We must leave. But leave recognising we'll get on better, simply as "just good friends".
I have a consumer business. Sales will fall with economic uncertainty.
But some issues are more important than a bit of a sales blip, or a bit of a houseprice dive.
I don't think this is a debate which can be won or lost on the basis of quantifiable data. In the end, for me anyway, it will be down to what I think the future shape of Britain will be in the EU as I think it will develop or outside it and which seems to me to be the better option for me and mine. I fear the choice will be between the EU and democracy. I am pro-Europe but the EU is not Europe as I think the best of Europe should be. And the EU is not very democratic in its bones. And I choose democracy over any kind of a plan by bureaucrats, no matter how well-meaning. Civil servants and politicians and the state should answer to us not the other way round. That's my default position.
Which reminds me - the Sun is never happier than when refighting World War 2
Or perhaps i should say in order to be seen in the hallowed reflected glow of the blessed sainted one...
'IS THIS MEANT TO BE FUCKING DIFFICULT?'
Participating fully in the European family does not require "ever closer union". The EU is not the same as Europe. That is to confuse a bureaucratic statist model based on the French model with Europe. I mean, really, France is a wonderful country in many ways, but its political structures are hardly the model to pick out of all of those in offer in Europe.
Why, in God's name, would Britain - with its largely successful and long standing Parliamentary common law tradition - choose to subsume itself in an entity which is very largely based on the "L'etat c'est moi" model?
There are those who don´t really care how the EU decides to manage its affairs, as long as they can make a big profits out of it. The Big Business Group.
Those who think that Cameron and Osborne have done an excellent job over the negotiations, however these finally turn out. The Ultra Loyalist Brigade.
Those who wish Cameron had been a bit more competent and forceful in his negotiations, and ended up with a new proper-Conservative version of the EU. A sort of Tory Paradise-Lost Group, with lots of wishful thinking.
And those who want nothing to do with the EU in any way shape or form. The Neo-UKIP tendency.
Very interesting to observe these four groups falling to blows this afternoon. Can Humpty Dumpty be stuck back together again? I doubt it strongly.
Of course if we stayed in the EEA and maintained the 4 freedoms then that would be a reasonable second best.
If only most Leavers were as persuasive they might do a better job of making their case...
As @FrankieBoyle observes on a related matter: Can't help feeling that this persuading people to vote for Independence by telling them to go f*ck themselves tactic has a few flaws
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Can Humpty Dumpty be stuck back together again? I doubt it strongly.'
With Corbyn & the now extinct Lib Dems no problem.
But keep dreaming !
Anyone longing for Kezia Dugdale to take the fight to the SNP just got their wish.
Call it a Penny for Fairness. The Scottish Labour leader has pledged to hike Scots' income tax by one per cent should her party win the Holyrood election in May. (Itself contingent on lightning striking the same flying pig twice and the Pope converting to Rastafari on Easter Sunday.)
It would mean those forking over 20% and 40% of their income to the state would have to stump up 21% and 41% respectively instead. Labour tells us someone on a £30,000 salary would pay under £4 a week extra compared to Nicola Sturgeon on £144,687 a year (cute, real cute) who would have to find an additional £28 a week.
But Dugdale's Penny for Fairness is hardly full communism now. It is bold and progressive and could compel Nicola Sturgeon to do something she has largely avoided during her year of living timidly: Take a decision. Is she for or against progressive taxation?
http://news.stv.tv/politics/1341288-stephen-daisley-kezia-dugdale-gets-bold-with-risky-tax-move/
This is an elephant trap set up by George for the SNP that they've managed to avoid, mainly because it had "Elephant" and "Trap" written on it in big letters but obviously Scottish Labour have fallen into it head first.
.....an additional 1% SRIT would mean - because the first £10k of income (the Personal Allowance) is not taxed - someone earning £20k would pay £100 more tax but someone on £40k would pay £300 more tax .
The wider point here is that this additional tax money raised could be used to alleviate the impacts of "Westminster's austerity policies". The additional money raised could be recycled into public spending in a way that defends our essential public services and protects the poorest in society. A simple person might think that the SNP - having campaigned as the "anti-austerity" party - would lose all credibility if they failed to take this opportunity to put their words into action.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/srit-blunt-but-undeniably-progressive.html
http://www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-backtracks-on-jeremy-corbyn-criticism-1-3856790
A remarkable thing just happened.
With one bold policy announcement Scottish Labour have given voters a chance to vote for an alternative to Tory austerity, a chance to vote to actually use the powers that Holyrood has, a chance to choose an alternative to four more years of just bitching about Westminster. They are suggesting that we actually use the Scottish Rate of Income Tax to apply a small, progressive tax increase as an alternative to cutting public spending.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/srit-scottish-labours-proposal.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/02/london-know-future-our-cities-we-must-see-immigration-close
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-7_kf3Fus
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/feb/02/steve-bell-on-david-camerons-eu-negotiations-cartoon
Step forward (most of) Labour, (all of) the SNP and the Guardian.....
I like this SLAB proposition for its essential honesty - if we want better public services, we're going to have to pay for them - we cannot keep re-spending some vaporous levy on the bankers/the rich. English labour should take note. There's a solid argument to be made for a higher tax/higher spend administration.