Mr. Meeks, I agree. I reckon around a 60/40 win for Remain, or possibly even more.
The only game-changer I can see is the migrant crisis, but I think that's an outside chance.
If remain does win, is important that leave side keeps fighting. As Eurozone federalises Cameron's failure to get protections here will come home to roost and we'll need another referendum.
Saw Bulgarian MEP on BBC earlier saying they weren't happy with deal and more negotiations needed. Clearly has better negotiating skill than Cameron.
I support the EU and even I think this 'deal' is a waste of time. I can't see how anyone who was even a slight bit eurosceptic would see this as a success.
Ok shall we make predictions? Now we know the substance (I really don't think there's going to be a massive rabbit next week, but if you want to forlornly hope that, good luck)
Prediction 1. Will REMAIN get a boost in the polls? If so, how much?
I say Yes, but small. 3-4 points. Just by Cameron being on the telly and appearing reasonable.
Prediction 2. It's four months away, but what do PB-ers think will be the final score, as of this moment?
I'm going:
REMAIN: 56
LEAVE: 44
Strangely close to the indyref result.
Happy to stick with my 60/40 Remain prediction from the New Year. Remain has been worse than I anticipated then, but so has Leave.
Leave should read @rcs1000's post below carefully. I suggested several months ago that Leave should campaign under the slogan "let's just be friends". It doesn't need to attract the ranters and the angry (they'll be scooped up anyway), it needs to attract people who sincerely believe that Britain would be better with a more detached relationship with the rest of the EU, the people who don't think the EU is automatically evil, just inefficient and not geared to the UK's needs.
Revisiting the Second World War isn't going to do anything to impress them.
I wrote this yesterday in response to Cyclefree. But as it was at midnight, many of you will have missed it. Therefore, I repost it for your interest:
---
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".
That's a good slogan, "Just friends".
You are right that people on the leave side are hostile towards the EU, but that is a reaction of perceived hostility from the EU to British aims and goals. The City is a good example, while it may be deeply unpopular among the British public, it is still seen by many as one of the crown jewels of British industry generating cash and jobs for the country like no other part of the economy is able to do. The hostility from the EU towards our number one industry is not lost on the people, even people who don't much like the idea of the City still don't like to see it attacked by outside interests. Lefty friends I know want to see the City taken down a notch but on our terms, not on the terms of the EU who want to damage the City in order to promote Frankfurt as Europe's primary financial centre.
If the EU weren't as hostile towards the UK then the reaction towards it wouldn't be so vitriolic from many of the leave side.
Ok shall we make predictions? Now we know the substance (I really don't think there's going to be a massive rabbit next week, but if you want to forlornly hope that, good luck)
Prediction 1. Will REMAIN get a boost in the polls? If so, how much?
I say Yes, but small. 3-4 points. Just by Cameron being on the telly and appearing reasonable.
Prediction 2. It's four months away, but what do PB-ers think will be the final score, as of this moment?
I'm going:
REMAIN: 56
LEAVE: 44
Strangely close to the indyref result.
Happy to stick with my 60/40 Remain prediction from the New Year. Remain has been worse than I anticipated then, but so has Leave.
Leave should read @rcs1000's post below carefully. I suggested several months ago that Leave should campaign under the slogan "let's just be friends". It doesn't need to attract the ranters and the angry (they'll be scooped up anyway), it needs to attract people who sincerely believe that Britain would be better with a more detached relationship with the rest of the EU, the people who don't think the EU is automatically evil, just inefficient and not geared to the UK's needs.
Revisiting the Second World War isn't going to do anything to impress them.
Let's just be friends is a great slogan.
But you're going to lose the vote of every guy that has ever been FriendZoned.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Delighted to have you on board TSE. Would appreciate your PoV on how we can help make the best centrist moderate case for Brexit possible.
The last general election, like most elections, was won by economic security/stability, not about immigration.
Just keep on preaching it isn't in our economic interests to remain.
Cite things like this
Britain has been dragged into the eurozone’s efforts to rescue Greece through a Brussels legal manoeuvre that has angered London and complicated David Cameron’s efforts to renegotiate UK membership terms in the EU.
Disregarding strong objections from British ministers, the European Commission on Wednesday proposed using a mothballed EU-wide rescue fund — the European Financial Stability Mechanism — to give Greece the €7bn it needs to cover debt repayments on Monday.
Morning everyone. I'm almost through the rehab from election night and my caseworker advises I can risk posting again without too much setback. Although it's already been a major shock to witness the decloaking of the artist formerly known as Antifrank.
As SO says, it's all going to script: Cameron changes nothing much, pretends his press release is The Revolution, and out of self-interest the sceptics with Cabinet posts line up to praise the exquisite stitching on the Emperor's new pigskin posing pouch. The net effect, I guess, is that remain wins due to lack of leadership for leave; the Tory party retains an embittered but relatively powerless europhobic majority, and Dave's legacy is further burnished as a man who spent his career putting a gloss on selling fear to retain power in order to achieve nothing much.
Two things seem interesting and might change that. First of all, is this actually Cameron's Iraq moment: the point where he genuinely believes in the rightness of his cause in itself, rather than as a means to continued holding of office? If, for the first time, it's not just press releases then he will probably be pretty pissed off at the reaction to his great achievement, and be unwilling to swallow the insults. Arguing that this is a great deal is necessary PR here, but it's a delicate balance to avoid looking like a Euro elitist taking the voters for morons, and if he goes all messianic Blair then he could still screw it up.
The other is how Labour play this. The 'moderates' are obviously europhile to the exclusion of much else and wouldn't risk increasing the chance of leaving no matter how good the opportunities are to exploit the Tories' division. But the left are much more ambivalent (can you really achieve a good settlement for the working comrades with free movement of labour and capital? Well, no...). If Corbyn constantly hammered the point that we are voting to remain in an unchanged EU due to Cameron's incompetence there would be a real opportunity to undermine the "competence/national security" loop track that forms the Tories' main successful attack on Labour. He'd find plenty of allies on the opposite side of the house; and the risk of facilitating a leave vote might not bother him.
Of course none of the interesting stuff will happen. Like the last 6 years, Cameron will survive because the coalition of Lib Dems, right wing Labour and office-coveting Tories of flexible principles is just a little bit larger than those of the left and right who hold the quaint notion that power should be deployed in the furtherance of objectives beyond retaining power. Remain it is then, I'm with SeanT on the 56-44 prediction.
Ok shall we make predictions? Now we know the substance (I really don't think there's going to be a massive rabbit next week, but if you want to forlornly hope that, good luck)
Prediction 1. Will REMAIN get a boost in the polls? If so, how much?
I say Yes, but small. 3-4 points. Just by Cameron being on the telly and appearing reasonable.
Prediction 2. It's four months away, but what do PB-ers think will be the final score, as of this moment?
I'm going:
REMAIN: 56
LEAVE: 44
Strangely close to the indyref result.
I've been expecting Leave to win for a while but I'm wavering towards Remain (as a prediction - I'm voting Remain certainly).
The hostile press is predictably very bad for Remain and should already have been factored in by everyone.
The really significant development is the Cabinet falling into line. Leave badly needs people who can communicate with swing voters.
So I now expect 53/47 Remain, much Tory anguish, the question not settled.
Ok shall we make predictions? Now we know the substance (I really don't think there's going to be a massive rabbit next week, but if you want to forlornly hope that, good luck)
Prediction 1. Will REMAIN get a boost in the polls? If so, how much?
I say Yes, but small. 3-4 points. Just by Cameron being on the telly and appearing reasonable.
Prediction 2. It's four months away, but what do PB-ers think will be the final score, as of this moment?
I'm going:
REMAIN: 56
LEAVE: 44
Strangely close to the indyref result.
Happy to stick with my 60/40 Remain prediction from the New Year. Remain has been worse than I anticipated then, but so has Leave.
Leave should read @rcs1000's post below carefully. I suggested several months ago that Leave should campaign under the slogan "let's just be friends". It doesn't need to attract the ranters and the angry (they'll be scooped up anyway), it needs to attract people who sincerely believe that Britain would be better with a more detached relationship with the rest of the EU, the people who don't think the EU is automatically evil, just inefficient and not geared to the UK's needs.
Revisiting the Second World War isn't going to do anything to impress them.
Let's just be friends is a great slogan.
But you're going to lose the vote of every guy that has ever been FriendZoned.
Who hasn't?
I'm not sure the tagline of 'let's ditch the formalities, but stay f**kbuddies' would be any better.
Mr. Eagles, I said months ago: Farage should be locked in a shed until this is over.
I concur on the 'just friends' tagline.
Farage is polling as badly as Corbyn.
Corbyn wants to give the Falklands to the Argentinians, Northern Ireland to the Republic, defended the IRA, didn't want the police to shoot suicide bombers.
Leave needs to send Farage on a trip to the North Pole to find penguins and tell him not to come back until he has found one.
I remain uncertain - and Dave's 'deal' doesn't really cut it for me (but was never likely to - I wanted him to scrap the CAP, CFP and sign us up to Schengen so I was never going to be happy)
Fundamentally, I think that the best option for Britain is to Leave, but equally, the worst option could be to Leave. By leaving the shackles of the EU we have the opportunity to be a forward looking 21st Century country - engaging in trade agreements and being open to the world. Equally, we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.
My problem is that fundamentally I am optimistic - so would default to Leave in the hope of a better future. Then I look at newspaper pages such as the above and am reminded of the apparent views of the majority of the country and think that maybe Remain is the better option, as it leads me to distrust the rest of my fellow countrymen and the direction of travel the country would take in a Leave scenario.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
I dunno. I think leave campaign needs someone who really knows their stuff and can blow up any Remain argument on discussion programs. Boris is lazy and doesn't always have command of the facts. They need a Dan Hannan or Douglas Carswell type but one who isn't seen as a hard right winger. Frank Field? Kate Hoey?
', we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.'
Out of interest, when do you think Britain, or indeed England, was like that? When was this dystopia which you so fear a return to?
He has a big big decision to make - the more so if May is backing Remain. His going for Leave is about the only hope Leave have of finding a leader who can reach the parts that find Fox and Farage repulsive (ie a lot!), given I just cannot see a moderate Labour big beast who is going to go for Leave.
Should he pull it off of course and lead a winning Leave Dave may as well resign 8.30 the next morning and give him the PM job there and then and save the bother of an election.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I remain uncertain - and Dave's 'deal' doesn't really cut it for me (but was never likely to - I wanted him to scrap the CAP, CFP and sign us up to Schengen so I was never going to be happy)
Fundamentally, I think that the best option for Britain is to Leave, but equally, the worst option could be to Leave. By leaving the shackles of the EU we have the opportunity to be a forward looking 21st Century country - engaging in trade agreements and being open to the world. Equally, we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.
My problem is that fundamentally I am optimistic - so would default to Leave in the hope of a better future. Then I look at newspaper pages such as the above and am reminded of the apparent views of the majority of the country and think that maybe Remain is the better option, as it leads me to distrust the rest of my fellow countrymen and the direction of travel the country would take in a Leave scenario.
Slip back into a nation with trade barriers? You are talking about a country which had the biggest mercantilist empire in the world and routinely conquered other nations or went to war to open up trade.
I don't think there was ever a time when Britain could be described as a nation which favoured trade barriers.
Mr. Meeks, I agree. I reckon around a 60/40 win for Remain, or possibly even more.
The only game-changer I can see is the migrant crisis, but I think that's an outside chance.
If remain does win, is important that leave side keeps fighting. As Eurozone federalises Cameron's failure to get protections here will come home to roost and we'll need another referendum.
Saw Bulgarian MEP on BBC earlier saying they weren't happy with deal and more negotiations needed. Clearly has better negotiating skill than Cameron.
The fatuity of all this is that we will end up in the EEA anyway. As others have said, when the eurozone unites politically (which it must, or die) then we will become a vassal state. Always forced to accept their laws. We will have all the obligations of membership and none of the rights.
No uk government could accept this. Far better to be Norway or Switzerland. And that's what we will choose.
I'd be interested to hear any alternative futurity. The above scenario looks inevitable to me, barring complete breakup of the EU.
The crazy thing is that we had a golden opportunity to unite the non-Eurozone members and move them en mass to EEA. It would have created a real, sensibly sized non-Eurozone group of countries that was not part of "ever closer union" and political integration.
We should be the leader of a group of a new enlarged EFTA/EEA, and we should be pushing this as a positive for us, and for the Eurozone.
I remain uncertain - and Dave's 'deal' doesn't really cut it for me (but was never likely to - I wanted him to scrap the CAP, CFP and sign us up to Schengen so I was never going to be happy)
Fundamentally, I think that the best option for Britain is to Leave, but equally, the worst option could be to Leave. By leaving the shackles of the EU we have the opportunity to be a forward looking 21st Century country - engaging in trade agreements and being open to the world. Equally, we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.
My problem is that fundamentally I am optimistic - so would default to Leave in the hope of a better future. Then I look at newspaper pages such as the above and am reminded of the apparent views of the majority of the country and think that maybe Remain is the better option, as it leads me to distrust the rest of my fellow countrymen and the direction of travel the country would take in a Leave scenario.
Slip back into a nation with trade barriers? You are talking about a country which had the biggest mercantilist empire in the world and routinely conquered other nations or went to war to open up trade.
I don't think there was ever a time when Britain could be described as a nation which favoured trade barriers.
Also this is why Leave will lose if they don't sort it out.
@benrileysmith: The voices millions saw EU ref debated through on BBC News at 10. IN: Cameron, Alan Johnson OUT: Farage, Liam Fox
This is why Cameron won't release eurosceptic cabinet ministers. He's arguing his side but hamstringing the other side. Smart albeit dishonest politics.
Also this is why Leave will lose if they don't sort it out.
@benrileysmith: The voices millions saw EU ref debated through on BBC News at 10. IN: Cameron, Alan Johnson OUT: Farage, Liam Fox
Well, it will probably be Fox or Farage unless another respected Tory big beast comes out for Leave.
It's quite clear that most of the energy of the Government has gone on negotiating within the cabinet, not the EU.
According to journalist Richard Colville, Osborne is BEGINNING conversations with colleagues with the line "So, are you supporting Leave, or do you still want a career".
Odious little creep.
You've got to be quite brave, or mad, to come out for LEAVE in the face of this pressure.
I stand by my prediction that after REMAIN wins Cameron and Osborne will feel the emotional backlash, as Scottish Labour did after indyref. Tories will turn on the betrayers. And as the futility of the deal is revealed over time, Cameron will become almost a kind of Blair figure, his name spoken with disdain, or even anger, at Tory conferences.
Yes, that is a possible outcome. The Tories could destroy the party in order to win the battle and end up losing the war.
Given how poor the deal is and that the EU nations will just tell us to bugger off once we have voted to remain there could be a real chance that the Tories will descend into open warfare that the leadership deceived the people in order to win the referendum.
', we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.'
Out of interest, when do you think Britain, or indeed England, was like that? When was this dystopia which you so fear a return to?
Sorry - that's not quite what I meant. I mean 'slip back' in terms of the caricatured UKIP mindset of trying to pretend that it's still the '50s now, and that the way things were then are how they should be now. In today's modern world that would be horrific - I don't mean that it was particularly then. Also, that is clearly an 'extreme' example, but so is my 'ideal' (essentially be a massive Iceland with the trading of somewhere like Singapore) - whereas staying in the EU is essentially a 'middle' road with frustrations on one side, but benefits on the other.
Mr. T, Osborne ought to be careful of his arrogance.
He's in a situation comparable to Antigonus Monopthalmus before the Battle of Gaza. Antigonus was equal (or even greater) in power than the combined forces of Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus. But Demetrius lost at Gaza which allowed Seleucus to reclaim Babylonia, and the four other kings united against Antigonus to defeat him at Ipsus [assuming one counts Ptolemy].
Being feared or loved works for a leader. Being hated does not.
This is why Cameron won't release eurosceptic cabinet ministers. He's arguing his side but hamstringing the other side. Smart albeit dishonest politics.
Ministers are perfectly able to make their case. All they have to do is resign from the cabinet first, and they can make as compelling a case as they like. But they don’t want to resign. They’d much rather be ministers than lash themselves to an Out campaign that they – and everyone else can see – is going to hell in a handcart.
They know their view isn’t going to prevail. They know the referendum is lost before its even begun. They can read the polls. They can see the Out campaign imploding before their eyes. They see a coalition ranged against them that includes the overwhelming majority of senior politicians from all of the major British political parties, the overwhelming majority of business opinion, scientific opinion, artistic opinion, academic opinion.
Funny you should mention that, given that within the EU we are already part of a ferociously protectionist agricultural system-one that is rather worse than system we had before we joined and certainly doesn't seem very 21st century...
Mr. Meeks, you're taking it dreadfully seriously (and literally).
If I say Corbyn's as incompetent as Honorius that doesn't mean I think he'll literally have his best lieutenant executed after promising him safety.
It's a fascinating insight into the mindset of the hardened Leavers. The implied comparison between the EU and Nazi Germany is ludicrous the moment you think about it, yet it seems natural to those at the extreme end of the spectrum. It says so much about what Britain would be like if they had their way.
But the hardened europhiles spent DECADES caricaturing anyone sceptical of Europe - or, say, the euro - as mad, Fascist, bumbling, frothy-faced closet racists. Even when it was fairly apparent that most of them were perfectly lucid - and quite correct in their analysis of, say, the euro.
Only recently have europhiles grudgingly accept that their opponents have a case to answer, but you can still sense the sneering, just beneath the surface.
Both sides can be deeply unpleasant. But the sceptics have been proven right, more than their opponents.
How on earth anyone could think Leave is populated by frothy-faced closet racists when they're comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is quite beyond me.
Probably just an exaggeration to make a point. I doubt anyone at the Sun thinks Merkel is a Nazi.
Exaggeration? Talk me through the points of resemblance that would justify the exaggeration.
Nazi Germany wanted to control Britain
The EU wants to control Britain.
(is the point they are making).
You think he doesn't know this ?
He's just trolling the Outers.
Curious. I thought the EU was something we are part of, not something that is done to us.
This is why Cameron won't release eurosceptic cabinet ministers. He's arguing his side but hamstringing the other side. Smart albeit dishonest politics.
Ministers are perfectly able to make their case. All they have to do is resign from the cabinet first, and they can make as compelling a case as they like. But they don’t want to resign. They’d much rather be ministers than lash themselves to an Out campaign that they – and everyone else can see – is going to hell in a handcart.
They know their view isn’t going to prevail. They know the referendum is lost before its even begun. They can read the polls. They can see the Out campaign imploding before their eyes. They see a coalition ranged against them that includes the overwhelming majority of senior politicians from all of the major British political parties, the overwhelming majority of business opinion, scientific opinion, artistic opinion, academic opinion.
Mr. Meeks, I agree. I reckon around a 60/40 win for Remain, or possibly even more.
The only game-changer I can see is the migrant crisis, but I think that's an outside chance.
If remain does win, is important that leave side keeps fighting. As Eurozone federalises Cameron's failure to get protections here will come home to roost and we'll need another referendum.
Saw Bulgarian MEP on BBC earlier saying they weren't happy with deal and more negotiations needed. Clearly has better negotiating skill than Cameron.
The fatuity of all this is that we will end up in the EEA anyway. As others have said, when the eurozone unites politically (which it must, or die) then we will become a vassal state. Always forced to accept their laws. We will have all the obligations of membership and none of the rights.
No uk government could accept this. Far better to be Norway or Switzerland. And that's what we will choose.
I'd be interested to hear any alternative futurity. The above scenario looks inevitable to me, barring complete breakup of the EU.
Some alternative post-Remain futures:
1: The Eurozone unites. The issues we are talking about are seen still to be open, there are more talks, muddling through, eventually a deal is thrashed out that most people are happy with. This referendum is seen an historical footnote.
2: The Eurozone unites, is successful and Britain joins it (seems unthinkable now, but we won't always have a Conservative government and intellectual fashions change).
3: The Eurozone's southern members break off and a northern core continues to unite but isn't big enough to impose its will.
4: ISIS conquer continental Europe. Britain stands alone. The Sun replays its Captain Mainwaring front page, except this time it is meant positively.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
The FT are wrong. There were no negotiations for the internal markets or FinReg veto, there was some kind of negotiation to ensure that decisions for the EMU would need majority consent from non-EMU nations (which we didn't get either) using a separate vote to the EMU countries. In return we wouldn't oppose the new treaty required for the EMU to integrate into a fiscal union (which stupidly, Dave has given away). It's Blair and the rebate all over again.
This is why Cameron won't release eurosceptic cabinet ministers. He's arguing his side but hamstringing the other side. Smart albeit dishonest politics.
Ministers are perfectly able to make their case. All they have to do is resign from the cabinet first, and they can make as compelling a case as they like. But they don’t want to resign. They’d much rather be ministers than lash themselves to an Out campaign that they – and everyone else can see – is going to hell in a handcart.
They know their view isn’t going to prevail. They know the referendum is lost before its even begun. They can read the polls. They can see the Out campaign imploding before their eyes. They see a coalition ranged against them that includes the overwhelming majority of senior politicians from all of the major British political parties, the overwhelming majority of business opinion, scientific opinion, artistic opinion, academic opinion.
Clearly Dan Hodges can't read the polls, let alone eurosceptic ministers. It's close.
He's right that the Out campaign is a shambles, and that Eurosceptic Ministers prefer being ministers than Eurosceptics
David Cameron may not have written his EU renegotiation “red lines” in blood. But it doesn’t matter. Thanks to the incompetence and timidity of the Eurosceptics, they will be enough.
Also
@AaronHEllis: TL is full of pundits saying Cameron is a fool and a failure. Pretty sure I've seen this movie several times, especially before May 2015...
@AaronHEllis: TL is full of pundits saying Cameron is a fool and a failure. Pretty sure I've seen this movie several times, especially before May 2015...
'The Eurozone unites, is successful and Britain joins it (seems unthinkable now, but we won't always have a Conservative government and intellectual fashions change).'
That is what the Europhiles are still hoping for, in the UK and across the channel. Including some at the top of the Conservative Party who publicly would never say this.
Note the word 'successful' isn't necessary to this aspiration though.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
PS Before yesterday I was 80% likely to vote Remain; that's down now to about 50-50. Dave, I'm not a happy bunny (hat or no hat).
Just in case anyone is interested, the Markit services and composite PMIs are out this morning. And in both Asia and Europe, they look pretty good.
China's services PMI rose from 50.2 to 52.4, Japan went from 51.5 to 52.4 and India increased from 53.6 to 54.3.
There's a similar picture in much of Europe with Sweden, the UK, Ireland and Spain posting the best figures. (Ireland's services PMI is off the charts: rising from an already high 61.8 to 64.0.) The laggard, as always, is France where it drifted from 50.6 to 50.3.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
It is becoming clear that the time for Conservative MPs to choose remain or leave is imminent and it must be very likely that many of them will consider which side is best for their career even if it is opposite to their instinct. Listening to Nigel Farage and Liam Fox last night against David Cameron, Alan Johnson and Chuka Umunna was no contest. Nigel Farage is an absolute liability and, ironically, is likely to turn voters away from leave. This morning Juncker has said that it is a good deal for UK and the EU and the mood music seems to be that that agreement will be forthcoming later in the month. While the press were over the top this morning it is more than likely that as the next few weeks pass, and in the absence of a coherent leave narrative, remain will almost certainly gain momentum and by June should win comfortably circa 60-40
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
How are you planning to vote in the referendum ?
Just added a bit to my previous post. Before yesterday 80% yes, currently 50-50. Dave is not pleasing.
I've dozens of angry Cameron hating Kippers in my timeline. They're only interested in talking about how crap he is and how they hate Vote Leave too, nothing positive at all.
It's insanity on a stick. I wish they'd pack it in and try to make our case, rather than insulting others. Leave desperately needs a big hitter under 70. And a media friendly face. The only good thing is Remain being equally inept.
This is why Cameron won't release eurosceptic cabinet ministers. He's arguing his side but hamstringing the other side. Smart albeit dishonest politics.
Ministers are perfectly able to make their case. All they have to do is resign from the cabinet first, and they can make as compelling a case as they like. But they don’t want to resign. They’d much rather be ministers than lash themselves to an Out campaign that they – and everyone else can see – is going to hell in a handcart.
They know their view isn’t going to prevail. They know the referendum is lost before its even begun. They can read the polls. They can see the Out campaign imploding before their eyes. They see a coalition ranged against them that includes the overwhelming majority of senior politicians from all of the major British political parties, the overwhelming majority of business opinion, scientific opinion, artistic opinion, academic opinion.
To my mind, the one bit of the renegotiation which is better than expected is the protection of non-Eurozone members. The progress on us being stitched up by intergovernmental agreements is particularly good, and doesn't seem to have been noticed by most commentators.
Just in case anyone is interested, the Markit services and composite PMIs are out this morning. And in both Asia and Europe, they look pretty good.
China's services PMI rose from 50.2 to 52.4, Japan went from 51.5 to 52.4 and India increased from 53.6 to 54.3.
There's a similar picture in much of Europe with Sweden, the UK, Ireland and Spain posting the best figures. (Ireland's services PMI is off the charts: rising from an already high 61.8 to 64.0.) The laggard, as always, is France where it drifted from 50.6 to 50.3.
One does wonder when the French economy will continue to defy gravity and the official statistics come into line with the private indicators. My own model has French growth at 0.1-0.3% YoY compared to 1.1% from INSEE.
Clearly Dan Hodges can't read the polls, let alone eurosceptic ministers. It's close.
He's right that the Out campaign is a shambles, and that Eurosceptic Ministers prefer being ministers than Eurosceptics
David Cameron may not have written his EU renegotiation “red lines” in blood. But it doesn’t matter. Thanks to the incompetence and timidity of the Eurosceptics, they will be enough.
Also
@AaronHEllis: TL is full of pundits saying Cameron is a fool and a failure. Pretty sure I've seen this movie several times, especially before May 2015...
I think most are agreed here he is very likely to win this battle in the narrow sense of win the referendum (he's got the tacit/active backing of the vast majority of Labour figures and the Lib Dem/Nats are square behind). Realistically he can only lose if Leave peel off about 10% of Labour's May 15 vote - and it's hard to see how that happens from here with the shambles of a leadership and campaign they have.
But - a quoi sert? In the long run it will have resolved precisely nothing and our relationship with our near neighbours will continue to be fractious - probably more so as doubtless many over there will take a Remain vote to mean "ok we can ignore the Brits now and drag them along with our plans". Meanwhile the Tory party deep down remains sulking on this issue, feeling abandoned by many in its upper ranks who seemingly are going to wilt at the first whiff of gunfire. It will capable of beating Corbyn of course (we can but hope) but eternally weak on Europe for decades to come.
Also this is why Leave will lose if they don't sort it out.
@benrileysmith: The voices millions saw EU ref debated through on BBC News at 10. IN: Cameron, Alan Johnson OUT: Farage, Liam Fox
Well, it will probably be Fox or Farage unless another respected Tory big beast comes out for Leave.
It's quite clear that most of the energy of the Government has gone on negotiating within the cabinet, not the EU.
According to journalist Richard Colville, Osborne is BEGINNING conversations with colleagues with the line "So, are you supporting Leave, or do you still want a career".
Odious little creep.
You've got to be quite brave, or mad, to come out for LEAVE in the face of this pressure.
I stand by my prediction that after REMAIN wins Cameron and Osborne will feel the emotional backlash, as Scottish Labour did after indyref. Tories will turn on the betrayers. And as the futility of the deal is revealed over time, Cameron will become almost a kind of Blair figure, his name spoken with disdain, or even anger, at Tory conferences.
I have heard more than one Tory MP describe Osborne as a four-letter word.
And i don't mean the one that makes it past the spam filter.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
How are you planning to vote in the referendum ?
Just added a bit to my previous post. Before yesterday 80% yes, currently 50-50. Dave is not pleasing.
Thank you.
When two of PB's most passionate Cameroons are underwhelmed by this.....
No-one is saying Cameron is either a fool or a failure. He has done exactly what he always intended to do and is engaging in pretty effective tactics to try to stack the referendum in his favour.
It'll probably be close. I hope we have a very small surplus by 2020.
So do I. But we won't. We're going to have another 2008, a Lehman moment well before then. The OBR's view of 2.2% growth across the next few years is a fantasy. The coming crash will ruin Osborne's deficit plans and put our (and every other country's) politics into very difficult ground. What should be done when you're deep in recession, deep in debt and deep in deficit? The ammo has all been expended. We can't reduce interest rates any further!
Do a Japanese Patrick , get them negative, hand out more money , but don't give it to bankers this time , give it to the plebs and it will be spent in UK rather than salted away in tax havens..
Negative interest rates is an outright admission of abject failure to control the money supply and deficit. Japan delenda est. Just don't go there. Do you REALLY believe the right answer for the UK's troubles is to charge people to put their money in a bank? Are you just another rude Scot vomiting up some poison for me to lick?
I know what I would give you to lick my boy
Are you a wee Jessie too? Hadn't figured you as that way inclined! ;-)
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
PS Before yesterday I was 80% likely to vote Remain; that's down now to about 50-50. Dave, I'm not a happy bunny (hat or no hat).
John, i'm pleased to hear you are now reassessing: how might we persuade you over to Leave?
I dunno. I think leave campaign needs someone who really knows their stuff and can blow up any Remain argument on discussion programs. Boris is lazy and doesn't always have command of the facts. They need a Dan Hannan or Douglas Carswell type but one who isn't seen as a hard right winger. Frank Field? Kate Hoey?
Facts don't change minds - emotions do. We don't need someone who has a plan. We need someone who has a dream. We should leave the EU because: 1. UK politicians should govern the UK 2. There is no European demos so there can be no EU democracy 3. Brussels doesn't have the UK's interests at the top of its priorities. Why should it? 4. We are a proud independent nation state - do we really want to become part of a European superstate? etc etc
Immigration and money are important but the issue at stake is so much bigger. The choice should not be Remain vs Leave it should be Part of a European superstate vs An independent nation state.
No-one is saying Cameron is either a fool or a failure. He has done exactly what he always intended to do and is engaging in pretty effective tactics to try to stack the referendum in his favour.
He's shown he can't control events at Calais - that will likely define the referendum.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
How are you planning to vote in the referendum ?
Just added a bit to my previous post. Before yesterday 80% yes, currently 50-50. Dave is not pleasing.
Thank you.
When two of PB's most passionate Cameroons are underwhelmed by this.....
My only hope, not entirely devoid of expectation, is that he will secure more goodies (and I mean serious stuff) at the summit on Feb 18th, including credible protections for the financial sector. That's why his demeanour in the Commons today is important.
But if he returns with nowt extra, then I can see the Hersham pencil, sliding regrettfully to the Leave box. Honestly don't want to be there, but....
The EU may yet fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions. I don't think this referendum is the end, either way
Yes we can agree on that. But that's kind of the point. Here was the moment have a "Vision Thing" for our benefit and THEIRS. It's all creaking under its contradictions dangerously and surely our role was to be the honest and critical friend and say look "we want distance because your club is no longer the attractive thing it was to us in 1973 - you've got to sort yourselves out big time - we can help show the way", and what we've got is fiddle faddling minutiae proclaimed as something they are not.
You can't fool all the people all the time. Most on here can see it's a pig in a poke this deal.
I think we have two realistic options to choose between in the long term:
1 Become fully committed and participating members of the EU - this includes Schengen and the Euro.
2 Leave and become a Country that is a member of various trade groups or organisations, dealing with its own currency and social issues.
The halfway house we have and are proposing to vote on is the worst option of all. The proposition of remaining a semi detached member is unattractive and a route to continued discord and angst.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
It's simply the politics of the menage a trois
The husband (Germany ) won't leave his battleaxe wife ( France ) but still wants to flirt and enjoy the benefits of his mistress ( UK ).
Also this is why Leave will lose if they don't sort it out.
@benrileysmith: The voices millions saw EU ref debated through on BBC News at 10. IN: Cameron, Alan Johnson OUT: Farage, Liam Fox
Well, it will probably be Fox or Farage unless another respected Tory big beast comes out for Leave.
It's quite clear that most of the energy of the Government has gone on negotiating within the cabinet, not the EU.
According to journalist Richard Colville, Osborne is BEGINNING conversations with colleagues with the line "So, are you supporting Leave, or do you still want a career".
Odious little creep.
You've got to be quite brave, or mad, to come out for LEAVE in the face of this pressure.
I stand by my prediction that after REMAIN wins Cameron and Osborne will feel the emotional backlash, as Scottish Labour did after indyref. Tories will turn on the betrayers. And as the futility of the deal is revealed over time, Cameron will become almost a kind of Blair figure, his name spoken with disdain, or even anger, at Tory conferences.
I have heard more than one Tory MP describe Osborne as a four-letter word.
And i don't mean the one that makes it past the spam filter.
Politics is, as Watkins used to say, a rough old trade.
To my mind, the one bit of the renegotiation which is better than expected is the protection of non-Eurozone members. The progress on us being stitched up by intergovernmental agreements is particularly good, and doesn't seem to have been noticed by most commentators.
Please explain how it would work in practice if the EMU nations wanted to go ahead with a new regulation to make banks in the EU hold 20% tier 1 capital and pushed ahead with it using QMV and made it apply to the whole EU? That kind of move would probably be good for the EMU but bad for us as it would make the City a far less attractive place to do business.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
PS Before yesterday I was 80% likely to vote Remain; that's down now to about 50-50. Dave, I'm not a happy bunny (hat or no hat).
John, i'm pleased to hear you are now reassessing: how might we persuade you over to Leave?
By censoring most of Blackburn63's posts. OK, I'm joking...well, half-joking.
No-one is saying Cameron is either a fool or a failure. He has done exactly what he always intended to do and is engaging in pretty effective tactics to try to stack the referendum in his favour.
There was always going to be anger from those who want out but Cameron will be greatly respected when he eventually stands down. The problem for the Conservative Party will be to find a replacement and I cannot see it being Osborne, Boris or any male for that matter. I expect Teresa May or one of the many talented female Conservative MP's to be elected.
I dunno. I think leave campaign needs someone who really knows their stuff and can blow up any Remain argument on discussion programs. Boris is lazy and doesn't always have command of the facts. They need a Dan Hannan or Douglas Carswell type but one who isn't seen as a hard right winger. Frank Field? Kate Hoey?
Facts don't change minds - emotions do. We don't need someone who has a plan. We need someone who has a dream. We should leave the EU because: 1. UK politicians should govern the UK 2. There is no European demos so there can be no EU democracy 3. Brussels doesn't have the UK's interests at the top of its priorities. Why should it? 4. We are a proud independent nation state - do we really want to become part of a European superstate? etc etc
Immigration and money are important but the issue at stake is so much bigger. The choice should not be Remain vs Leave it should be Part of a European superstate vs An independent nation state.
Better Together , pooling and sharing, broad shoulders, vote Remain and save your pension.
I think we have two realistic options to choose between in the long term:
1 Become fully committed and participating members of the EU - this includes Schengen and the Euro.
2 Leave and become a Country that is a member of various trade groups or organisations, dealing with its own currency and social issues.
The halfway house we have and are proposing to vote on is the worst option of all. The proposition of remaining a semi detached member is unattractive and a route to continued discord and angst.
Is it though? Are discord and angst really a problem? They have been the norm since we joined and we have managed fine.
I remain uncertain - and Dave's 'deal' doesn't really cut it for me (but was never likely to - I wanted him to scrap the CAP, CFP and sign us up to Schengen so I was never going to be happy)
Fundamentally, I think that the best option for Britain is to Leave, but equally, the worst option could be to Leave. By leaving the shackles of the EU we have the opportunity to be a forward looking 21st Century country - engaging in trade agreements and being open to the world. Equally, we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.
My problem is that fundamentally I am optimistic - so would default to Leave in the hope of a better future. Then I look at newspaper pages such as the above and am reminded of the apparent views of the majority of the country and think that maybe Remain is the better option, as it leads me to distrust the rest of my fellow countrymen and the direction of travel the country would take in a Leave scenario.
Slip back into a nation with trade barriers? You are talking about a country which had the biggest mercantilist empire in the world and routinely conquered other nations or went to war to open up trade.
I don't think there was ever a time when Britain could be described as a nation which favoured trade barriers.
Mercantilism is all about trade barriers. It was not about creating two-way free trade.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
PS Before yesterday I was 80% likely to vote Remain; that's down now to about 50-50. Dave, I'm not a happy bunny (hat or no hat).
John, i'm pleased to hear you are now reassessing: how might we persuade you over to Leave?
By censoring most of Blackburn63's posts. OK, I'm joking...well, half-joking.
Not in my power to do that I'm afraid, but I will call out intemperate posts where I see them!
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
Just in case anyone is interested, the Markit services and composite PMIs are out this morning. And in both Asia and Europe, they look pretty good.
China's services PMI rose from 50.2 to 52.4, Japan went from 51.5 to 52.4 and India increased from 53.6 to 54.3.
There's a similar picture in much of Europe with Sweden, the UK, Ireland and Spain posting the best figures. (Ireland's services PMI is off the charts: rising from an already high 61.8 to 64.0.) The laggard, as always, is France where it drifted from 50.6 to 50.3.
One does wonder when the French economy will continue to defy gravity and the official statistics come into line with the private indicators. My own model has French growth at 0.1-0.3% YoY compared to 1.1% from INSEE.
If oil averages $40 this year against $60 last year, that adds 0.8% on to French GDP, which might account for much of the difference.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
Tory MPs should hold Cameron to account on this when he makes his Commons statement. Have they the wit to do so? Andrew Tyrie...yes, I mean you.
How are you planning to vote in the referendum ?
Just added a bit to my previous post. Before yesterday 80% yes, currently 50-50. Dave is not pleasing.
Thank you.
When two of PB's most passionate Cameroons are underwhelmed by this.....
My only hope, not entirely devoid of expectation, is that he will secure more goodies (and I mean serious stuff) at the summit on Feb 18th, including credible protections for the financial sector. That's why his demeanour in the Commons today is important.
But if he returns with nowt extra, then I can see the Hersham pencil, sliding regrettfully to the Leave box. Honestly don't want to be there, but....
To think the day after the Rochester by election, you and I were sat in a bar, slagging off the Eurosceptics loons who were obsessed with the EU, and wishing they'd f*ck off to the Monday Club.
I suspect what will push people like you and I back to Remain is if some people view this referendum as a way to topple Dave and the Cameroon project.
On the flip side, there's no protection for the City of London nor for the financial services industry.
So my intent to vote leave has gone up from 6 out of 10 to 8 out of 10.
Sorry Dave, you've left me unsatisfied, and I wasn't asking for much.
Yes, I am in the same camp. I would have been willing to tough it out in the EU had there been real protections for the City offered. The reason I have been committed to Leave is because Dave didn't ask for anything that could give the City protection from hostile intentions from the EUParl or the Internal Markets commissioner. If Dave or George had asked for a FinReg veto or to remove QMV from FinReg that would have been enough for me (and you it seems) to move over to remain. Unfortunately it was never on the cards. Richard Nabavi can lament Brown giving away our veto during the Lisbon negotiations as much as he wants but this was our one opportunity to get it back.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
That's three of us. I was resigned to losses on immigration (and didn't care that much anyway) due to coverage, but everyonewas saying we'd got our way on everything else. And Osborne was going on and on about protections from Eurozone being crucial for the City. Yet we got nothing. What on Earth happened??
I told you. A UK veto on finreg was being negotiated. But at the weekend Hollande stepped in and said Non. The FT and others have strongly hinted this.
It explains why there is this whacking great void in the "deal". Absolutely nothing on protecting non euro members. Nothing. There was meant to be something - perhaps even Cameron's rabbit - but it was whisked away.
It's simply the politics of the menage a trois
The husband (Germany ) won't leave his battleaxe wife ( France ) but still wants to flirt and enjoy the benefits of his mistress ( UK ).
Need several tons of mind-bleach picturing Angela with Francois and Dave
I dunno. I think leave campaign needs someone who really knows their stuff and can blow up any Remain argument on discussion programs. Boris is lazy and doesn't always have command of the facts. They need a Dan Hannan or Douglas Carswell type but one who isn't seen as a hard right winger. Frank Field? Kate Hoey?
Facts don't change minds - emotions do. We don't need someone who has a plan. We need someone who has a dream. We should leave the EU because: 1. UK politicians should govern the UK 2. There is no European demos so there can be no EU democracy 3. Brussels doesn't have the UK's interests at the top of its priorities. Why should it? 4. We are a proud independent nation state - do we really want to become part of a European superstate? etc etc
Immigration and money are important but the issue at stake is so much bigger. The choice should not be Remain vs Leave it should be Part of a European superstate vs An independent nation state.
Better Together , pooling and sharing, broad shoulders, vote Remain and save your pension.
I think we have two realistic options to choose between in the long term:
1 Become fully committed and participating members of the EU - this includes Schengen and the Euro.
2 Leave and become a Country that is a member of various trade groups or organisations, dealing with its own currency and social issues.
The halfway house we have and are proposing to vote on is the worst option of all. The proposition of remaining a semi detached member is unattractive and a route to continued discord and angst.
Is it though? Are discord and angst really a problem? They have been the norm since we joined and we have managed fine.
I do think so, as the Euro zone becomes larger and more dominant with closer political ties and closer union.
We will be on the irrelevant periphery of EU. If we don't want to be a fully participating member we should move on.
The EU is not static, it evolves and in evolution the weak and those that don't fit are rejected by the main body of the species.
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
I have moved towards remain only because there is no coherent narrative about how we trade following exit. Also no one on the leave side has the charisma to tell the story - I am still waiting
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
Yes, me. Entirely because, the more I look at it, the less coherent the Leave argument looks.
I imagine that similar considerations explain the fact that senior Eurosceptic (in the true sense of the word) Tories are moving in the same direction.
To my mind, the one bit of the renegotiation which is better than expected is the protection of non-Eurozone members. The progress on us being stitched up by intergovernmental agreements is particularly good, and doesn't seem to have been noticed by most commentators.
Please explain how it would work in practice if the EMU nations wanted to go ahead with a new regulation to make banks in the EU hold 20% tier 1 capital and pushed ahead with it using QMV and made it apply to the whole EU? That kind of move would probably be good for the EMU but bad for us as it would make the City a far less attractive place to do business.
I could be wrong, but I though the treaties limited ECB banking supervision to Eurozone countries.
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
Yes, me. Entirely because, the more I look at it, the less coherent the Leave argument looks.
I imagine that similar considerations explain the fact that senior Eurosceptic (in the true sense of the word) Tories are moving in the same direction.
You've moved from 10/10 certain to vote remain to 11/10 ?
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
I've moved from probably to definitely Remain, I suppose. I don't think that constitutes much of a change though
Has anybody on here moved towards REMAIN in the past six months or so? Please pipe up if so - otherwise it looks like it's been one way traffic towards LEAVE. Which doesn't necessarily help us in reading the betting runes....
I have moved towards remain only because there is no coherent narrative about how we trade following exit. Also no one on the leave side has the charisma to tell the story - I am still waiting
And that is why Remain will win...because like the Scottish Referendum it is very easy for Project Fear to put the Leave campaign in a position where they just can't answer the questions. Will you keep the pound, will you stay in EU if you leave UK....and now how will you trade, what if the EU decides to impose import tariffs etc etc etc.
Comments
Saw Bulgarian MEP on BBC earlier saying they weren't happy with deal and more negotiations needed. Clearly has better negotiating skill than Cameron.
@benrileysmith: The voices millions saw EU ref debated through on BBC News at 10.
IN: Cameron, Alan Johnson
OUT: Farage, Liam Fox
You are right that people on the leave side are hostile towards the EU, but that is a reaction of perceived hostility from the EU to British aims and goals. The City is a good example, while it may be deeply unpopular among the British public, it is still seen by many as one of the crown jewels of British industry generating cash and jobs for the country like no other part of the economy is able to do. The hostility from the EU towards our number one industry is not lost on the people, even people who don't much like the idea of the City still don't like to see it attacked by outside interests. Lefty friends I know want to see the City taken down a notch but on our terms, not on the terms of the EU who want to damage the City in order to promote Frankfurt as Europe's primary financial centre.
If the EU weren't as hostile towards the UK then the reaction towards it wouldn't be so vitriolic from many of the leave side.
I concur on the 'just friends' tagline.
It's quite clear that most of the energy of the Government has gone on negotiating within the cabinet, not the EU.
As SO says, it's all going to script: Cameron changes nothing much, pretends his press release is The Revolution, and out of self-interest the sceptics with Cabinet posts line up to praise the exquisite stitching on the Emperor's new pigskin posing pouch. The net effect, I guess, is that remain wins due to lack of leadership for leave; the Tory party retains an embittered but relatively powerless europhobic majority, and Dave's legacy is further burnished as a man who spent his career putting a gloss on selling fear to retain power in order to achieve nothing much.
Two things seem interesting and might change that. First of all, is this actually Cameron's Iraq moment: the point where he genuinely believes in the rightness of his cause in itself, rather than as a means to continued holding of office? If, for the first time, it's not just press releases then he will probably be pretty pissed off at the reaction to his great achievement, and be unwilling to swallow the insults. Arguing that this is a great deal is necessary PR here, but it's a delicate balance to avoid looking like a Euro elitist taking the voters for morons, and if he goes all messianic Blair then he could still screw it up.
The other is how Labour play this. The 'moderates' are obviously europhile to the exclusion of much else and wouldn't risk increasing the chance of leaving no matter how good the opportunities are to exploit the Tories' division. But the left are much more ambivalent (can you really achieve a good settlement for the working comrades with free movement of labour and capital? Well, no...). If Corbyn constantly hammered the point that we are voting to remain in an unchanged EU due to Cameron's incompetence there would be a real opportunity to undermine the "competence/national security" loop track that forms the Tories' main successful attack on Labour. He'd find plenty of allies on the opposite side of the house; and the risk of facilitating a leave vote might not bother him.
Of course none of the interesting stuff will happen. Like the last 6 years, Cameron will survive because the coalition of Lib Dems, right wing Labour and office-coveting Tories of flexible principles is just a little bit larger than those of the left and right who hold the quaint notion that power should be deployed in the furtherance of objectives beyond retaining power. Remain it is then, I'm with SeanT on the 56-44 prediction.
The hostile press is predictably very bad for Remain and should already have been factored in by everyone.
The really significant development is the Cabinet falling into line. Leave badly needs people who can communicate with swing voters.
So I now expect 53/47 Remain, much Tory anguish, the question not settled.
Betting-wise I think it's time to back Leave.
I'm not sure the tagline of 'let's ditch the formalities, but stay f**kbuddies' would be any better.
Corbyn wants to give the Falklands to the Argentinians, Northern Ireland to the Republic, defended the IRA, didn't want the police to shoot suicide bombers.
Leave needs to send Farage on a trip to the North Pole to find penguins and tell him not to come back until he has found one.
Fundamentally, I think that the best option for Britain is to Leave, but equally, the worst option could be to Leave. By leaving the shackles of the EU we have the opportunity to be a forward looking 21st Century country - engaging in trade agreements and being open to the world. Equally, we have the potential to slip back to a mindless little englander nation on the edge of Europe, with trade barriers up whilst the rest of the world moves on without us.
My problem is that fundamentally I am optimistic - so would default to Leave in the hope of a better future. Then I look at newspaper pages such as the above and am reminded of the apparent views of the majority of the country and think that maybe Remain is the better option, as it leads me to distrust the rest of my fellow countrymen and the direction of travel the country would take in a Leave scenario.
Everything else on Dave's list we can solve by making changes to our own laws but not having the internal markets or FinReg veto is not something we can ever solve on our own, it must be granted by the EU.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/whos-who-in-team-corbyn/
Out of interest, when do you think Britain, or indeed England, was like that? When was this dystopia which you so fear a return to?
Should he pull it off of course and lead a winning Leave Dave may as well resign 8.30 the next morning and give him the PM job there and then and save the bother of an election.
I don't think there was ever a time when Britain could be described as a nation which favoured trade barriers.
We should be the leader of a group of a new enlarged EFTA/EEA, and we should be pushing this as a positive for us, and for the Eurozone.
Sadly, Mr Cameron lacked ambition.
Embarrassing.
OGH: One US pollster reporting overnight that 1st day of fieldwork for next GOP national nomination poll finds support for Trump slipping sharply
Given how poor the deal is and that the EU nations will just tell us to bugger off once we have voted to remain there could be a real chance that the Tories will descend into open warfare that the leadership deceived the people in order to win the referendum.
He's in a situation comparable to Antigonus Monopthalmus before the Battle of Gaza. Antigonus was equal (or even greater) in power than the combined forces of Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus. But Demetrius lost at Gaza which allowed Seleucus to reclaim Babylonia, and the four other kings united against Antigonus to defeat him at Ipsus [assuming one counts Ptolemy].
Being feared or loved works for a leader. Being hated does not.
Funny you should mention that, given that within the EU we are already part of a ferociously protectionist agricultural system-one that is rather worse than system we had before we joined and certainly doesn't seem very 21st century...
Bwahaha http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/12137660/David-Cameron-has-finally-called-the-Eurosceptics-bluff.html
1: The Eurozone unites. The issues we are talking about are seen still to be open, there are more talks, muddling through, eventually a deal is thrashed out that most people are happy with. This referendum is seen an historical footnote.
2: The Eurozone unites, is successful and Britain joins it (seems unthinkable now, but we won't always have a Conservative government and intellectual fashions change).
3: The Eurozone's southern members break off and a northern core continues to unite but isn't big enough to impose its will.
4: ISIS conquer continental Europe. Britain stands alone. The Sun replays its Captain Mainwaring front page, except this time it is meant positively.
He was coming out with this same complacent stuff months before indyref - NO will win 70/30! - then went suddenly quiet as it narrowed.
I expect the pattern to be repeated.
He's still right that the 'Out' campaign is nowhere, or even worse than nowhere. They need someone reasonable and sane to pull it together.
Otherwise it'll be Farage mugging his face around turning off 'floating' voters, like a lot of the posters here.
@AaronHEllis: TL is full of pundits saying Cameron is a fool and a failure. Pretty sure I've seen this movie several times, especially before May 2015...
@JananGanesh: And after the referendum they'll say he got lucky and throw in a crap metaphor about essay crises. https://t.co/IEUG5XJm7k
That is what the Europhiles are still hoping for, in the UK and across the channel. Including some at the top of the Conservative Party who publicly would never say this.
Note the word 'successful' isn't necessary to this aspiration though.
PS Before yesterday I was 80% likely to vote Remain; that's down now to about 50-50. Dave, I'm not a happy bunny (hat or no hat).
China's services PMI rose from 50.2 to 52.4, Japan went from 51.5 to 52.4 and India increased from 53.6 to 54.3.
There's a similar picture in much of Europe with Sweden, the UK, Ireland and Spain posting the best figures. (Ireland's services PMI is off the charts: rising from an already high 61.8 to 64.0.) The laggard, as always, is France where it drifted from 50.6 to 50.3.
It's insanity on a stick. I wish they'd pack it in and try to make our case, rather than insulting others. Leave desperately needs a big hitter under 70. And a media friendly face. The only good thing is Remain being equally inept. He's still right that the 'Out' campaign is nowhere, or even worse than nowhere. They need someone reasonable and sane to pull it together.
Otherwise it'll be Farage mugging his face around turning off 'floating' voters, like a lot of the posters here.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-architecture-analysis-idUKKCN0VB1UT
To my mind, the one bit of the renegotiation which is better than expected is the protection of non-Eurozone members. The progress on us being stitched up by intergovernmental agreements is particularly good, and doesn't seem to have been noticed by most commentators.
@AaronHEllis: TL is full of pundits saying Cameron is a fool and a failure. Pretty sure I've seen this movie several times, especially before May 2015...
@JananGanesh: And after the referendum they'll say he got lucky and throw in a crap metaphor about essay crises. https://t.co/IEUG5XJm7k
I think most are agreed here he is very likely to win this battle in the narrow sense of win the referendum (he's got the tacit/active backing of the vast majority of Labour figures and the Lib Dem/Nats are square behind). Realistically he can only lose if Leave peel off about 10% of Labour's May 15 vote - and it's hard to see how that happens from here with the shambles of a leadership and campaign they have.
But - a quoi sert? In the long run it will have resolved precisely nothing and our relationship with our near neighbours will continue to be fractious - probably more so as doubtless many over there will take a Remain vote to mean "ok we can ignore the Brits now and drag them along with our plans". Meanwhile the Tory party deep down remains sulking on this issue, feeling abandoned by many in its upper ranks who seemingly are going to wilt at the first whiff of gunfire. It will capable of beating Corbyn of course (we can but hope) but eternally weak on Europe for decades to come.
And i don't mean the one that makes it past the spam filter.
When two of PB's most passionate Cameroons are underwhelmed by this.....
The EU may yet fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions. I don't think this referendum is the end, either way
1. UK politicians should govern the UK
2. There is no European demos so there can be no EU democracy
3. Brussels doesn't have the UK's interests at the top of its priorities. Why should it?
4. We are a proud independent nation state - do we really want to become part of a European superstate?
etc
etc
Immigration and money are important but the issue at stake is so much bigger. The choice should not be Remain vs Leave it should be Part of a European superstate vs An independent nation state.
But if he returns with nowt extra, then I can see the Hersham pencil, sliding regrettfully to the Leave box. Honestly don't want to be there, but....
You can't fool all the people all the time. Most on here can see it's a pig in a poke this deal.
1 Become fully committed and participating members of the EU - this includes Schengen and the Euro.
2 Leave and become a Country that is a member of various trade groups or organisations, dealing with its own currency and social issues.
The halfway house we have and are proposing to vote on is the worst option of all. The proposition of remaining a semi detached member is unattractive and a route to continued discord and angst.
The husband (Germany ) won't leave his battleaxe wife ( France ) but still wants to flirt and enjoy the benefits of his mistress ( UK ).
Yes - and he knows that. That's why he's in a hurry to stitch it up.
I suspect what will push people like you and I back to Remain is if some people view this referendum as a way to topple Dave and the Cameroon project.
We will be on the irrelevant periphery of EU. If we don't want to be a fully participating member we should move on.
The EU is not static, it evolves and in evolution the weak and those that don't fit are rejected by the main body of the species.
I imagine that similar considerations explain the fact that senior Eurosceptic (in the true sense of the word) Tories are moving in the same direction.
I don't believe Kinnock has ever been trapped in a lightbulb...
http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00931/SNN1801MAJO_280_931036a.jpg
Or ever seen Corbyn wearing a jesters hat...
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3419346/thumbs/o-THE-SUN-570.jpg?7
or that John Reid has had a lobotomy...
http://sjhoward.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/1492861.jpg
or a member of the house of lords has been caught on film casually sitting around wearing women underwear after banging some hookers and doing blow...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/27/22/2ADDC5C600000578-3176013-Support_The_Sun_s_front_page_today_featuring_Lord_Sewel_wearing_-a-14_1438033807377.jpg
oh well they say there is always an exception to the rule...
The small-state conservative in my is very happy. A smaller government is more efficient and accountable.
"Government pledges to cut offices by 75% by 2023"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-to-cut-offices-by-75-by-2023