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.....
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.
Yours is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen in a PB Tory. You've been saying for years that the one thing that might make you vote LEAVE is a lack of protection for the City. Now we see - everyone can see - that the deal provides no protection. So by your own logic you should be forced to admit Cameron screwed up and you are voting LEAVE
But you can't cope with this. So you've gone into some abject state of denial. Even this article you cite flatly contradicts you.
"The deal includes a procedure allowing a country or group of countries to force a special deliberation and additional efforts to find a solution when it feels disadvantaged.
But how high the issue can be escalated remains to be agreed, and the final decision would rest with finance ministers by majority vote. So Britain could still be outvoted."
For all my frat house insults I've always respected your intelligence. I'm sure you are a very decent chap. But this is just sad. You are grievously diminished.
You haven't read the full article.
On the main point about protection of the City, if you can explain how leaving and joining the EEA improves things, where we'd STILL be at risk of anything the Eurozone did, but with zero say in the matter and without the institutional protections of the treaties plus the new agreement, you might have a point.
As I've repeatedly said, I don't need to be convinced about the problems and risks of staying in. The Europhobes keep repeating these, as though that's a winning argument. It's not, if in the alternative the problems and risks of leaving are just as bad, or worse.
The last time I drove through Calais it was definitely in France...has it moved over to Kent and become Camerons responsibility...
According to the BBC it is...all those migrants in poor condition, 100% Cameron's fault. Never once is the question raised, well why aren't the French doing something about the problems.
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.....
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
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.
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.....
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
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.
Big_G, Richard - thanks. Addressing your duel concerns, be interesting to see how you consider the narrative becoming Cameron has not come back with a coherent argument to protect the interests of the UK if we do stay in. Which is my position.
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.
I expect the manner of the 'Leaves' campaign will do that do, more so if Farage is prominent.
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.
Yours is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen in a PB Tory. You've been saying for years that the one thing that might make you vote LEAVE is a lack of protection for the City. Now we see - everyone can see - that the deal provides no protection. So by your own logic you should be forced to admit Cameron screwed up and you are voting LEAVE
But you can't cope with this. So you've gone into some abject state of denial. Even this article you cite flatly contradicts you.
"The deal includes a procedure allowing a country or group of countries to force a special deliberation and additional efforts to find a solution when it feels disadvantaged.
But how high the issue can be escalated remains to be agreed, and the final decision would rest with finance ministers by majority vote. So Britain could still be outvoted."
For all my frat house insults I've always respected your intelligence. I'm sure you are a very decent chap. But this is just sad. You are grievously diminished.
You haven't read the full article.
On the main point about protection of the City, if you can explain how leaving and joining the EEA improves things, where we'd STILL be at risk of anything the Eurozone did, but with zero say in the matter and without the institutional protections of the treaties plus the new agreement, you might have a point.
As I've repeatedly said, I don't need to be convinced about the problems and risks of staying in. The Europhobes keep repeating these, as though that's a winning argument. It's not, if in the alternative the problems and risks of leaving are just as bad, or worse.
Nabavi content for Britain to be run from Brussels.
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.
Yours is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen in a PB Tory. You've been saying for years that the one thing that might make you vote LEAVE is a lack of protection for the City. Now we see - everyone can see - that the deal provides no protection. So by your own logic you should be forced to admit Cameron screwed up and you are voting LEAVE
But you can't cope with this. So you've gone into some abject state of denial. Even this article you cite flatly contradicts you.
"The deal includes a procedure allowing a country or group of countries to force a special deliberation and additional efforts to find a solution when it feels disadvantaged.
But how high the issue can be escalated remains to be agreed, and the final decision would rest with finance ministers by majority vote. So Britain could still be outvoted."
For all my frat house insults I've always respected your intelligence. I'm sure you are a very decent chap. But this is just sad. You are grievously diminished.
You haven't read the full article.
On the main point about protection of the City, if you can explain how leaving and joining the EEA improves things, where we'd STILL be at risk of anything the Eurozone did, but with zero say in the matter, you might have a point.
As I've repeatedly said, I don't need to be convinced about the problems and risks of staying in. The Europhobes keep repeating these, as though that's a winning argument. It's not, if in the alternative the problems and risks of leaving are just as bad, or worse.
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. Inside the EU we will be outvoted by Eurozone. We will now have zero say in the matter inside the EU too as Eurozone will never need our vote.
From my trip to America I've gleaned that Cruz has the better ground game
You are morphing into IOS?
Sir, I demand satisfaction for that insult.
Apologies TSE, certain phrases when used on this site have become indelibly linked in my mind to certain posters.
On an off topic point, did you see the other day that the saintly Karen Danczuk is after becoming someone's (although she didn't specify whom) special lady in 2016? Hertsmere is a bit far from Rochdale, but I gather you're a tad closer.
Big_G, Richard - thanks. Addressing your duel concerns, be interesting to see how you consider the narrative becoming Cameron has not come back with a coherent argument to protect the interests of the UK if we do stay in. Which is my position.
Not quite what you were asking, but one of my neighbours in Dore have gone from Leavers to Remainers in the last year.
Their son has business interests in Spain, and they've had no reassurance that their son's business interests wont be undamaged by Brexit
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
You have described the front cover of the new Spectator - can't find a link.
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.
If you say "the more career-threatening it appears to be associated with an incompetent Leave campaign" you've probably nailed the basis for a number of Tories adopting an increasingly flexible approach to the principles they would have outlined at their constituency hustings.
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.
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. .
Really? Explain to me how Norway can veto an EU law on the finance sector, without withdrawing from the Single Market in financial services. Even then they couldn't veto it from applying inside the EU.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
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.
How on Earth is 'we can talk about it some more' and 'non-EU countries can be treated differently for objective reasons' better than expected?? What were you expecting, compulsion to join Euro??
From my trip to America I've gleaned that Cruz has the better ground game
You are morphing into IOS?
Sir, I demand satisfaction for that insult.
Apologies TSE, certain phrases when used on this site have become indelibly linked in my mind to certain posters.
On an off topic point, did you see the other day that the saintly Karen Danczuk is after becoming someone's (although she didn't specify whom) special lady in 2016? Hertsmere is a bit far from Rochdale, but I gather you're a tad closer.
I did. I regularly see her in Selfridges in Manchester city centre.
Should anyone wish to lend money to the Italian government for five years, you'd receive the princely interest rate of 0.4% per year. But that's still better than lending to the French, where five year interest rates are negative. That's right pay 101 now to receive 100 in five years time.
The problem of negative interest rates is so severe in Switzerland than the Canton of Zug sent a letter to all its taxpayers begging them to not to pay taxes before the due date. (It is required by its constitution to keep all cash in Swiss government bonds. Which pay -0.8% per year, guaranteed for five years.)
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
You have described the front cover of the new Spectator - can't find a link.
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.
Yours is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen in a PB Tory. You've been saying for years that the one thing that might make you vote LEAVE is a lack of protection for the City. Now we see - everyone can see - that the deal provides no protection. So by your own logic you should be forced to admit Cameron screwed up and you are voting LEAVE
But you can't cope with this. So you've gone into some abject state of denial. Even this article you cite flatly contradicts you.
"The deal includes a procedure allowing a country or group of countries to force a special deliberation and additional efforts to find a solution when it feels disadvantaged.
But how high the issue can be escalated remains to be agreed, and the final decision would rest with finance ministers by majority vote. So Britain could still be outvoted."
For all my frat house insults I've always respected your intelligence. I'm sure you are a very decent chap. But this is just sad. You are grievously diminished.
You haven't read the full article.
On the main point about protection of the City, if you can explain how leaving and joining the EEA improves things, where we'd STILL be at risk of anything the Eurozone did, but with zero say in the matter and without the institutional protections of the treaties plus the new agreement, you might have a point.
As I've repeatedly said, I don't need to be convinced about the problems and risks of staying in. The Europhobes keep repeating these, as though that's a winning argument. It's not, if in the alternative the problems and risks of leaving are just as bad, or worse.
Nabavi content for Britain to be run from Brussels.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
The fact it's being put as a referendum works as a safety valve for it though.
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
If only the deal was that good....
You need to include the bit where Tusk, Hollande and assorted other luminaries rush out of the kitchen in turn, slice the remaining piece of the pea in two, and return to the kitchen clutching the larger part.
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
You have described the front cover of the new Spectator - can't find a link.
A chef walks in amid much pomp and ceremony. He has a huge platter covered with a polished metal dome. There is a fanfare to announce the feast. He pulls off the dome to reveal a single boiled pea on the platter. That's Dave that is.
You have described the front cover of the new Spectator - can't find a link.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
That's the big question, of course. A few months ago there were plenty of Tories saying that this time it would be different and there was no desire to return to the 90s.
I think Corbyn has an influence on this but it plays both ways. On the one hand his uselessness encourages overconfidence: we can split and still beat him. On the other hand the possibility that he could win power concentrates minds: you don't hear many people say that Cameron is no better than Corbyn.
Big_G, Richard - thanks. Addressing your duel concerns, be interesting to see how you consider the narrative becoming Cameron has not come back with a coherent argument to protect the interests of the UK if we do stay in. Which is my position.
Not quite what you were asking, but one of my neighbours in Dore have gone from Leavers to Remainers in the last year.
Their son has business interests in Spain, and they've had no reassurance that their son's business interests wont be undamaged by Brexit
It is extraordinary the level of dependence people have on others, and how they expect answers to be provided.
I would suggest it is up to the Son to structure the business in a way that protects his interests, do research and sort out problems as the arise.
If we left the EU my company will probably open an office in EU, most likely in The Netherlands. It will be a minute cost and big benefit.
The effect on trade is not an area that concerns me. Globalisation, WTO and other conventions and rules mean that business will be able to sort itself out within the structures that are negotiated by government. Business is known for the ability to find a way to sell product. That is why is succeeds.
From my trip to America I've gleaned that Cruz has the better ground game
You are morphing into IOS?
Sir, I demand satisfaction for that insult.
Apologies TSE, certain phrases when used on this site have become indelibly linked in my mind to certain posters.
On an off topic point, did you see the other day that the saintly Karen Danczuk is after becoming someone's (although she didn't specify whom) special lady in 2016? Hertsmere is a bit far from Rochdale, but I gather you're a tad closer.
I did. I regularly see her in Selfridges in Manchester city centre.
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.
How on Earth is 'we can talk about it some more' and 'non-EU countries can be treated differently for objective reasons' better than expected?? What were you expecting, compulsion to join Euro??
I wasn't expecting rules on discrimination against the City to apply to intergovernmental agreements outside the scope of the EU treaties.
I also like the agreement - which you seem to dislike - that we won't interfere in Eurozone integrations. That is the best way of getting a looser settlement, where further integration is concentrated in the Eurozone countries and we are increasingly seen by our EU friends as outside the core ever-closer-union bit.
It's not ideal, obviously - ideally we would have got this right before Lisbon. But I think it's the most realistic way in which we can disengage from the worst bits of 'project'.
Since RCS100 posted his response to me fpt I will repost mine, since it may be of interest.
"This "deal" appears to have conceded that we can be discriminated against on "objective" grounds. So the UK can't, for instance, discriminate in favour of British citizens on "objective" grounds" but the entire Eurozone can discriminate against the UK on "objective" grounds.
And guess what, not being in the euro will be an objective ground for discriminating against us.
I think that leaving the EU will not be easy. And life outside may be tough. We can and will cope and can and will thrive. Unlike @SeanT I am not bothered about Scotland. And I think of my house as a home rather than an investment and suspect that he overstates the effect on the London property market. But this so-called deal is pathetic and, as Mr Meeks put it, "meh".
The Leave campaign is all over the place. The Remain campaign is just doing a rerun of Wilson's campaign all those years ago. The fundamental dishonesty about the EU's direction of travel remains (not from the EU BTW but from its supporters in the UK). On the whole - and despite many good aspects of the EU, I think there is a fundamental divergence between how the UK thinks about matters and how most EU states and the EU itself think about the world and it would be better for both parties for them to go their separate ways and have a looser association.
We will lose influence in Brussels. But, frankly, we appear to have vanishingly little influence in Brussels as it is so I cannot see the loss of something infinitesimally small as something to be worried about.
I expect Remain to win. The Remain campaign will pretend that a vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo with a few tweaks. A big fat lie. But Big Fat Lies work in politics. I hope the Leave vote will be as large as possible, if only to give those in charge a bit of a fright.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
"If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
The entire EU debate since I have been a teenager has been characterised by a fundamental dishonesty mixed up with absurdly over-stated WW2 references, on both sides (and I'm including the EU itself in this).
We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.
It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, whinging about a non-contributory welfare system which is wholly in our control and has nothing to do with the EU at all and civil servants coming up with a load of waffly bullshit which means the square root of f** all."
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. .
Really? Explain to me how Norway can veto an EU law on the finance sector, without withdrawing from the Single Market in financial services. Even then they couldn't veto it from applying inside the EU.
They can veto it very simply by saying they will not support it. In that case the new measure does not apply to EFTA members of the EEA. I know you hate having to admit this but it is there in black and white. It does not require them to withdraw from anything. It simply means it cannot be forced on the EFTA members.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
I wouldn't describe it as extraordinary. Grim inevitability would be my description.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
Oh that's so funny, so for all your Europhilia they do nothing for you but add a bit more pointless regulation ?
But that's still better than lending to the French, where five year interest rates are negative. That's right pay 101 now to receive 100 in five years time.
Well, this is the country that gave us the slogan 'because I'm worth it'.
@faisalislam: "up to" 5 cabinet sceptics "certain" to back Brexit can also be read as 5 cabinet sceptics are not certain to back Brexit
This we know: Whittingdale, IDS, Grayling, Villiers and Patel.
They looked designed to push left of centre voters towards Remain.
People speak of locking Farage in a cupboard. It might be an even better idea to do that to IDS. Through being LOTO he's the only member of that group whose face the public recognise and the associations aren't ideal.
It's quite striking how many Tory posters here have indicated their intention to vote for LEAVE. If this were to be replicated throughout the land then you'd have to think that Leave is in with a shout. Incidentally, an alternative to taking Paddy Powers 5/2 odds against such an outcome, some might be more tempted by Hills' 12/1 against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Party leader during the course of 2016, all the more so with the referendum now due to take place in June, rather than in the autumn. It's difficult to believe he could survive being defeated in a referendum in which he has been so personally involved and it seems even more certain that he wouldn't wish to continue to lead the party in such circumstances. DYOR.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
How far would sterling fall on Brexit ?
This could turn me from leaver to actually bothering to campaign.
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. .
Really? Explain to me how Norway can veto an EU law on the finance sector, without withdrawing from the Single Market in financial services. Even then they couldn't veto it from applying inside the EU.
It wouldn't be withdrawing from market in financial services. It would be suspending temporarily the market in financial services between EU and all other EEA members until disagreement resolved. That has its weaknesses, but the ability to threaten that disruption is sonething. Whereas position in the EU is no blocking power at all.
Best option would be either bilateral trade deal or third signatory to TTIP of course.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
No, for two reasons: first, there will be a referendum, and then David Cameron will retire, so the party can unite behind the new leader and agree it was all Gordon Brown's fault.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
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 thor 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
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.
You should pay more attention to Montie. He's right. Many in the LEAVE campaign want and expect a Scottish outcome. 40%+ LEAVE, meaning the wound festers rather than heals. Cameron is replaced by a more sceptical leader in the emotional aftermath. Have a new vote in the 2020s, when the deal is provably dud, this time win.
Would the electorate really thank the Tories for another ten years of rows over the EU? Corbyn cannot go on forever.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
I don't think so. More like a few pieces breaking off the sides.
Oh that's so funny, so for all your Europhilia they do nothing for you but add a bit more pointless regulation ?
What Europhilia?
The answer to Casino's question is there. Rather than childish name-calling, the Leave side should concentrate on developing a sensible response to concerns.
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.
How on Earth is 'we can talk about it some more' and 'non-EU countries can be treated differently for objective reasons' better than expected?? What were you expecting, compulsion to join Euro??
I wasn't expecting rules on discrimination against the City to apply to intergovernmental agreements outside the scope of the EU treaties.
I also like the agreement - which you seem to dislike - that we won't interfere in Eurozone integrations. That is the best way of getting a looser settlement, where further integration is concentrated in the Eurozone countries and we are increasingly seen by our EU friends as outside the core ever-closer-union bit.
It's not ideal, obviously - ideally we would have got this right before Lisbon. But I think it's the most realistic way in which we can disengage from the worst bits of 'project'.
So just let the Eurozone become a stronger entity and better able to form unified position against us within EU votes?? Not negotiate leverage of protections when that happens at all?? Bonkers.
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
That is a similar point to Finkelstein in The Times. Amongst a number of points he suggests ''Cameron’s strongest argument will be that his opponents are proposing something so unknown, indeed so unknowable, that they can’t agree on it themselves.'' He further points to the split between Carswell's campaign and Farage's lot on immigration, ''many of Carswell’s Vote Leave allies don’t actually believe in strong immigration controls at all. They are free marketeers who see the benefits of free movement of workers.'' ''Owen Paterson went out of his way to say that European countries such as Norway and Switzerland who were outside the EU had “very much higher immigration than the UK”. His main argument for leaving the EU thus became the increased influence we would have in the World Trade Organisation. Probably a niche concern.'' ''the Leave.EU campaign ... appreciates the centrality of immigration to the case for quitting. It has a very different outlook from the Carswell-Hannan group. It is much more pessimistic ... There are many people who support immigration control and yet are concerned about the motivations of those who go on about it. Swing voters may just as easily be put off by an immigration campaign as attracted by it''
I suppose all this is a bit nuanced for The Sun's front page.
Oh that's so funny, so for all your Europhilia they do nothing for you but add a bit more pointless regulation ?
What Europhilia?
The answer to Casino's question is there. Rather than childish name-calling, the Leave side should concentrate on developing a sensible response to concerns.
I don't like name calling either but you were calling this deal's critics 'Europhobes' on this very thread.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
Yes, they are. Because Cameron's deal is so risibly bad. And also because they know they can get away with it, facing Corbyn.
The real opposition to HMG is now inside the Tory party. Cameron will go in 17 or 18 and then the two factions will fight it out. And still win in 2020.
Relatedly, did you see Corbyn's response to this yesterday, in the Commons? It was just pitifully poor. Not in terms of meaning or subject or intent, just the way he looks and talks. Mumbling, fumbling, stuttering, wearing mismatched trousers. Terrible hunched body language.
He's not even good at talking in public. I thought he was meant to be a leftwing firebrand, honed by decades of demonstrations? It's quite odd.
Yep, Corbyn does give the Tories free rein. But there is always the outside chance that Labour might see an opportunity and come to its senses. As for any response Corbyn might give to anything, it will never be good. He is not a politician. He is a sloganeer, unused to public debate. He has spent his entire life living in a world where everyone agrees with each other.
Oh that's so funny, so for all your Europhilia they do nothing for you but add a bit more pointless regulation ?
What Europhilia?
The answer to Casino's question is there. Rather than childish name-calling, the Leave side should concentrate on developing a sensible response to concerns.
Oh Richard when it comes to remainers you are one of the site's ultras. Bizarrely it seems to be based on ideology\party tribalism rather than any personal experience or interest. You've genuinely got me scratching my head with that one this morning.
Big_G, Richard - thanks. Addressing your duel concerns, be interesting to see how you consider the narrative becoming Cameron has not come back with a coherent argument to protect the interests of the UK if we do stay in. Which is my position.
Not quite what you were asking, but one of my neighbours in Dore have gone from Leavers to Remainers in the last year.
Their son has business interests in Spain, and they've had no reassurance that their son's business interests wont be undamaged by Brexit
What happened to "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
Just re-reading early Alan Clark diaries this morning.
What a diarist he was. I actually prefer his non political, entirely principled slant on public affairs, and the fabulous gossip of home and city life. Discussions with his apparently ever-patient bankers are particularly fun.
I get the impression he never cooked a meal - but never wanted for a place to eat. Proper old school. Would love to have met him.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
No, for two reasons: first, there will be a referendum, and then David Cameron will retire, so the party can unite behind the new leader and agree it was all Gordon Brown's fault.
the really good news for the Tories - Corbyn aside - is that only the head-banger wing has so far come out in active support of leave. The cabinet ministers likely to oppose Cameron are totally without any public appeal to non-right wingers and UKIPers. Boris would change that, but Boris is not going to get too involved. He is no fan of public debate, press conferences, in-depth interviews and hard work.
It's quite striking how many Tory posters here have indicated their intention to vote for LEAVE. If this were to be replicated throughout the land then you'd have to think that Leave is in with a shout. Incidentally, an alternative to taking Paddy Powers 5/2 odds against such an outcome, some might be more tempted by Hills' 12/1 against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Party leader during the course of 2016, all the more so with the referendum now due to take place in June, rather than in the autumn. It's difficult to believe he could survive being defeated in a referendum in which he has been so personally involved and it seems even more certain that he wouldn't wish to continue to lead the party in such circumstances. DYOR.
Good tip, thanks.
The movement towards Leave on here is striking. I'm not sure what to read into it though. Posters here are not a bellwether, probably?
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
No, for two reasons: first, there will be a referendum, and then David Cameron will retire, so the party can unite behind the new leader and agree it was all Gordon Brown's fault.
the really good news for the Tories - Corbyn aside - is that only the head-banger wing has so far come out in active support of leave. The cabinet ministers likely to oppose Cameron are totally without any public appeal to non-right wingers and UKIPers. Boris would change that, but Boris is not going to get too involved. He is no fan of public debate, press conferences, in-depth interviews and hard work.
Cameron asked them to hold fire until the deal was agreed (at the summit in 2 weeks).
The Sun front-page is being used as a dead cat this morning...
Mr Meeks appears desperate to talk about the Sun front page, at any cost, rather than say, the crap deal that Cameron just brought home... can't think why ? Can anyone help me ?
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
Ah, that's it then: fatalism. It's crap, we always knew it was going to be crap, and the EU is crap but better the crapness we know.
Which of the following would you be open to, if at all:
(1) EEA (2) EFTA (3) Bespoke - single market lite + bilateral a (4) Full independence and WTO rules
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
You keep saying it's a good deal on the non-EMU protections without mentioning specifically this good deal entails.
It's like I'm looking through the window into a private party in which the guests are kicking the living daylights out of each other. Are the Tories really going to tear themselves to pieces over this? It's extraordinary.
Yes, they are. Because Cameron's deal is so risibly bad. And also because they know they can get away with it, facing Corbyn.
The real opposition to HMG is now inside the Tory party. Cameron will go in 17 or 18 and then the two factions will fight it out. And still win in 2020.
Relatedly, did you see Corbyn's response to this yesterday, in the Commons? It was just pitifully poor. Not in terms of meaning or subject or intent, just the way he looks and talks. Mumbling, fumbling, stuttering, wearing mismatched trousers. Terrible hunched body language.
He's not even good at talking in public. I thought he was meant to be a leftwing firebrand, honed by decades of demonstrations? It's quite odd.
Yep, Corbyn does give the Tories free rein. But there is always the outside chance that Labour might see an opportunity and come to its senses. As for any response Corbyn might give to anything, it will never be good. He is not a politician. He is a sloganeer, unused to public debate. He has spent his entire life living in a world where everyone agrees with each other.
I voted Labour three times under Blair. Since then I have been called Tory scum by the left wing extremists now dominating the party on a regular basis. There is no way in hell they become viable alternative by 2025. Like it or not, UK position in EU is major importance to this country. It is right debate is had.
Big_G, Richard - thanks. Addressing your duel concerns, be interesting to see how you consider the narrative becoming Cameron has not come back with a coherent argument to protect the interests of the UK if we do stay in. Which is my position.
Not quite what you were asking, but one of my neighbours in Dore have gone from Leavers to Remainers in the last year.
Their son has business interests in Spain, and they've had no reassurance that their son's business interests wont be undamaged by Brexit
What happened to "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"
As Admiral James T Kirk said "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
I find the last line staggering.
Do you really believe that the combined powers of the UK (intellect, money, business, politicians etc etc) would not be capable of structuring a deal with various global partners that allowed our industry to continue, the City of London to thrive and employment to continue.
It comes over as a defeatist, narrow minded and blinkered view, which from you I find perplexing. The solutions are all out there for us to join, develop and instigate.
My preferences are:
1 Leave (but only just) 2 Join in fully - Euro and Schengen 3 Continue in the halfway house we presently dislike and complain about.
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
Proposal:
We Leave. We set up trade deals (with some compromises but most of the EU baggage gone). We keep our currency. We trade with the world. We are a sovereign nation in charge of our own laws. We are successful.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Which of the following would you be open to, if at all:
(1) EEA (2) EFTA (3) Bespoke - single market lite + bilateral a (4) Full independence and WTO rules
?
1,2: EEA, or something similar: definitely not. I could live with it, in the sense that the economic damage would be minimal, but I don't think the minor advantages are worth the loss of influence and the cost of the transition. It would also be a recipe for political chaos when people who voted Leave because of migration discovered they'd been conned.
4: What does that mean? We'd have to have some deal with the EU.
That leaves 3. I'd been hoping that the Leave side would have developed this into a coherent and plausible outline plan. That was never going to be easy, but they've had three full years to do the hard work. Absolutely nothing has been done. Even more worrying, there doesn't seem even to be an acknowlegement that it might be a good idea to tell us what the second of the two choices on the ballot paper might actually look like.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. .
Really? Explain to me how Norway can veto an EU law on the finance sector, without withdrawing from the Single Market in financial services. Even then they couldn't veto it from applying inside the EU.
It wouldn't be withdrawing from market in financial services. It would be suspending temporarily the market in financial services between EU and all other EEA members until disagreement resolved. That has its weaknesses, but the ability to threaten that disruption is sonething. Whereas position in the EU is no blocking power at all.
Best option would be either bilateral trade deal or third signatory to TTIP of course.
It wouldn't even mean the suspension of the single market in financial services. It would only mean that the specific measure would not come into force. It would have no effect on existing agreements.
Ah the "discussing immigration is dirty" brigade are back, despite it being the No1 concern to the public and the thing that is ripping the EU apart, probably best not to mention it in the lead up referendum #cashout
There is potentially a look through from US politics to the EU referendum. We are seeing across the pond how very very pissed off Joe Blow is with our political elites. Parties are led by those whose interest always seems to be self, party, broad ideological comfort zone, the voters - in that order. Snaders is rocking the Democrat hustings because he's openly offering the finger to the cozy bullshit paternalism that Hillary embodies. Cruz and Trump likewise on the Republican side. Voters are basically tired to death of being ignored. It's why the Labour membership has elected itself a Marxist tramp. It's their party and they've been ignored for too long.
The Dave / Nabavi / FT nexus represents precisely this 'there there children, daddy knows best' paternalism that so many hate so much. I wonder if the polls are badly wrong.
Do you really believe that the combined powers of the UK (intellect, money, business, politicians etc etc) would not be capable of structuring a deal with various global partners that allowed our industry to continue, the City of London to thrive and employment to continue. .
Of course they would. It would probably look rather like what we have.
Which of the following would you be open to, if at all:
(1) EEA (2) EFTA (3) Bespoke - single market lite + bilateral a (4) Full independence and WTO rules
?
1,2: EEA, or something similar: definitely not. I could live with it, in the sense that the economic damage would be minimal, but I don't think the minor advantages are worth the loss of influence and the cost of the transition. It would also be a recipe for political chaos when people who voted Leave because of migration discovered they'd been conned.
4: What does that mean? We'd have to have some deal with the EU.
That leaves 3. I'd been hoping that the Leave side would have developed this into a coherent and plausible outline plan. That was never going to be easy, but they've had three full years to do the hard work. Absolutely nothing has been done. Even more worrying, there doesn't seem even to be an acknowlegement that it might be a good idea to tell us what the second of the two choices on the ballot paper might actually look like.
Ok. This is a genuine open question (putting aside the ribbing for a second) what would you be looking for in a deal under (3) to make you at least consider it?
I mean, in terms of structure... Economic deals with the EU, trade, migration controls and politics?
1 Leave (but only just) 2 Join in fully - Euro and Schengen 3 Continue in the halfway house we presently dislike and complain about.
I think if we left it'd be awkward and we might find we weren't nearly as free of Europe as we expected, but life would go on. I rather agree with you that staying in and continuing to grumble and snipe from the sidelines may be the worst option, and I suspect quite a few EU leaders feel the same.It is possible - I won't put it more strongly than that - that a big Remain vote will spur British governments to get stuck in more effectively, though no conceivable UK government is going to join Schengen or the Euro any time soon.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
But how many will understand the details any.
Leave because we're stronger than most of Europe put together Leave because the EU needs us more than we need them. Leave because Britain can be Great again. Leave because we don't need the bloated bureaucracy of Brussels Leave because our democracy and legal system is better than Europes.
The vacuum would be remain's inability to counter those arguments.
In the EEA we would have to unanimously agree to any new EU law on finance sector. .
Really? Explain to me how Norway can veto an EU law on the finance sector, without withdrawing from the Single Market in financial services. Even then they couldn't veto it from applying inside the EU.
It wouldn't be withdrawing from market in financial services. It would be suspending temporarily the market in financial services between EU and all other EEA members until disagreement resolved. That has its weaknesses, but the ability to threaten that disruption is sonething. Whereas position in the EU is no blocking power at all.
Best option would be either bilateral trade deal or third signatory to TTIP of course.
It wouldn't even mean the suspension of the single market in financial services. It would only mean that the specific measure would not come into force. It would have no effect on existing agreements.
Curious. I thought the EU was something we are part of, not something that is done to us.
That is in part true and it ought to be true.
But - and this is beginning to be a big "but" for me: if the Eurozone can outvote us and we have no leverage and we can be discriminated against for "objective reasons" (and what a cunning little phrase that is) then the EU does rather end up being something that is - in your phrase - "done to us".
I don't think that is a good basis for a fruitful relationship in the future. In fact, these two aspects of the proposed deal seem to me to make the position worse than it is now, rather than any sort of improvement.
There is potentially a look through from US politics to the EU referendum. We are seeing across the pond how very very pissed off Joe Blow is with our political elites. Parties are led by those whose interest always seems to be self, party, broad ideological comfort zone, the voters - in that order. Snaders is rocking the Democrat hustings because he's openly offering the finger to the cozy bullshit paternalism that Hillary embodies. Cruz and Trump likewise on the Republican side. Voters are basically tired to death of being ignored. It's why the Labour membership has elected itself a Marxist tramp. It's their party and they've been ignored for too long.
The Dave / Nabavi / FT nexus represents precisely this 'there there children, daddy knows best' paternalism that so many hate so much. I wonder if the polls are badly wrong.
Agreed.
Tories didn't win in 15 because they were paternalistic. We won because we are the only safe pair of hands for the economy.
I think Cameron has underperformed on this one, and a perfect storm of 'events' means he might lose the referendum.
1 Leave (but only just) 2 Join in fully - Euro and Schengen 3 Continue in the halfway house we presently dislike and complain about.
I think if we left it'd be awkward and we might find we weren't nearly as free of Europe as we expected, but life would go on. I rather agree with you that staying in and continuing to grumble and snipe from the sidelines may be the worst option, and I suspect quite a few EU leaders feel the same.It is possible - I won't put it more strongly than that - that a big Remain vote will spur British governments to get stuck in more effectively, though no conceivable UK government is going to join Schengen or the Euro any time soon.
I go 3 > 1 > 2.
Grumbling and sniping cost nothing. The blood pressure of other EU leaders needn't worry us.
I don't want Leave. And option 2 - joining the Euro - would be plain nuts as things stand (and politically impossible, to state the obvious).
Richard's business is very dependent on the single market and the EU.
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
Poppycock. My business is 95%+ with the US, and mostly invoiced in US dollars. We'd actually benefit hugely from the fall in sterling on Brexit.
So what's your problem then? Just don't want to be wrong? Obstinate? Devil's advocate? Fatalist? Or just pure loyalty to Cameron? Hate Leavers as a whole?
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
It's not about the deal. No-one in their right mind was expecting Cameron, with a weak negotiating position and no vetos thanks to Blair and Brown, to be able single-handedly to restructure the EU. I'm surprised that he didn't get more on Benefits, but otherwise the deal is much as expected, a little better on Eurozone protection.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
You know the tories are in trouble when they fall back to blaming blair'n'brown. It's like the old "fatcha" complaint on the left.
Cameron raised expectations on the eurosceptic right deliberately to shut them up during the general election. He was very successful.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
But how many will understand the details any.
Leave because we're stronger than most of Europe put together Leave because the EU needs us more than we need them. Leave because Britain can be Great again. Leave because we don't need the bloated bureaucracy of Brussels Leave because our democracy and legal system is better than Europes.
The vacuum would be remain's inability to counter those arguments.
I would also add that the Nazi Germany issue is relevant but not in the silly way the Sun implies. It is relevant for this reason: much of the impulse behind the EU is to avoid the horrors of WW2. But the lessons Britain and Continental European countries take from that conflict are very different.
We take the view that the best defence against the virus of extremism is a strong healthy liberal Parliamentary democracy in a nation state. And that is true. And it worked for us. Britain survived many of the stresses and strains of the 20th century in part precisely because of its political and social structures. Our nation and our Parliamentary democracy were tested and not found wanting.
That is almost precisely the opposite of what happened in pretty much all of Continental Europe. It is little wonder that such countries have taken a very different lesson from the upheavals of the last century. What makes sense for them does not necessarily make sense for us. We are slow to understand that about them. Equally they are very slow to understand why we value our Parliamentary democratic traditions and why we value our sense of ourselves as a nation which will not be bullied, why being told - as some of the sillier Eurocrats have said - that not being in favour of the EU will lead to death camps is so profoundly irritating, insulting and historically illiterate.
To accuse Britain of not being good Europeans because it does not like a certain political structure when Britain's existence and bloody minded refusal to accept what others saw as inevitable was one of the chief reasons there now is a free Europe, when the bones of English soldiers and airmen are buried all round Europe is profoundly insulting. Britain has - on some measures - been one of the best European nations of all.
I feel that a looser association may be better for all of us than trying to shoehorn too many incompatible entities into one rather tight and increasingly uncomfortable straight jacket.
And, finally, there are some within the EU who are very aggressive towards our financial services industry. That has been the case for the last 30 years. I have heard very senior French regulators say as much. This deal provides no protection for a key sector of our economy and I see no good reason to trust countries who are seemingly so careless about damaging a key industry of what is meant to be a friendly ally and partner.
It's quite striking how many Tory posters here have indicated their intention to vote for LEAVE. If this were to be replicated throughout the land then you'd have to think that Leave is in with a shout. Incidentally, an alternative to taking Paddy Powers 5/2 odds against such an outcome, some might be more tempted by Hills' 12/1 against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Party leader during the course of 2016, all the more so with the referendum now due to take place in June, rather than in the autumn. It's difficult to believe he could survive being defeated in a referendum in which he has been so personally involved and it seems even more certain that he wouldn't wish to continue to lead the party in such circumstances. DYOR.
Good tip, thanks.
The movement towards Leave on here is striking. I'm not sure what to read into it though. Posters here are not a bellwether, probably?
It's quite striking how many Tory posters here have indicated their intention to vote for LEAVE. If this were to be replicated throughout the land then you'd have to think that Leave is in with a shout. Incidentally, an alternative to taking Paddy Powers 5/2 odds against such an outcome, some might be more tempted by Hills' 12/1 against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Party leader during the course of 2016, all the more so with the referendum now due to take place in June, rather than in the autumn. It's difficult to believe he could survive being defeated in a referendum in which he has been so personally involved and it seems even more certain that he wouldn't wish to continue to lead the party in such circumstances. DYOR.
Good tip, thanks.
The movement towards Leave on here is striking. I'm not sure what to read into it though. Posters here are not a bellwether, probably?
My father, who will vote Remain, lamented that all the Conservatives of his generation (he's 75), apart from him, plan to vote Leave. This is only anecdotal evidence, of course. But, they're all well-heeled people who live in Hertfordshire and North London, one of whom comes from France, and another from Czechoslovakia, at least some of whom might be expected to vote Remain.
Ok. This is a genuine open question (putting aside the ribbing for a second) what would you be looking for in a deal under (3) to make you at least consider it?
I mean, in terms of structure... Economic deals with the EU, trade, migration controls and politics?
We'd obviously need an agreement giving us full access to the Single Market. For goods, I can't see that being any problem. For services, more of a problem. Could it be done without agreeing to full freedom of movement? Dunno - that is one of the crucial points.
We'd obviously have to look very carefully at the position of the City in such a deal. There are potential advantages in leaving the EU, but there are risks as well. The devil would be in the detail. I rather suspect that our EU friends would play hardball on this one in any negotiations.
1 Leave (but only just) 2 Join in fully - Euro and Schengen 3 Continue in the halfway house we presently dislike and complain about.
I think if we left it'd be awkward and we might find we weren't nearly as free of Europe as we expected, but life would go on. I rather agree with you that staying in and continuing to grumble and snipe from the sidelines may be the worst option, and I suspect quite a few EU leaders feel the same.It is possible - I won't put it more strongly than that - that a big Remain vote will spur British governments to get stuck in more effectively, though no conceivable UK government is going to join Schengen or the Euro any time soon.
Nick - do you think the EU is popular, I mean flag waving popular, with more than 15% of the population?
I would also add that the Nazi Germany issue is relevant but not in the silly way the Sun implies. It is relevant for this reason: much of the impulse behind the EU is to avoid the horrors of WW2. But the lessons Britain and Continental European countries take from that conflict are very different.
We take the view that the best defence against the virus of extremism is a strong healthy liberal Parliamentary democracy in a nation state. And that is true. And it worked for us. Britain survived many of the stresses and strains of the 20th century in part precisely because of its political and social structures. Our nation and our Parliamentary democracy were tested and not found wanting.
That is almost precisely the opposite of what happened in pretty much all of Continental Europe. It is little wonder that such countries have taken a very different lesson from the upheavals of the last century. What makes sense for them does not necessarily make sense for us. We are slow to understand that about them. Equally they are very slow to understand why we value our Parliamentary democratic traditions and why we value our sense of ourselves as a nation which will not be bullied, why being told - as some of the sillier Eurocrats have said - that not being in favour of the EU will lead to death camps is so profoundly irritating, insulting and historically illiterate.
To accuse Britain of not being good Europeans because it does not like a certain political structure when Britain's existence and bloody minded refusal to accept what others saw as inevitable was one of the chief reasons there now is a free Europe, when the bones of English soldiers and airmen are buried all round Europe is profoundly insulting. Britain has - on some measures - been one of the best European nations of all.
I feel that a looser association may be better for all of us than trying to shoehorn too many incompatible entities into one rather tight and increasingly uncomfortable straight jacket.
And, finally, there are some within the EU who are very aggressive towards our financial services industry. That has been the case for the last 30 years. I have heard very senior French regulators say as much. This deal provides no protection for a key sector of our economy and I see no good reason to trust countries who are seemingly so careless about damaging a key industry of what is meant to be a friendly ally and partner.
The analogy is inaccurate not least because Cameron replaces Mainwaring visually and Hitler in the song
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
Increasingly convinced that leave do not need to set out the details of 'if not EU then what?'.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
Bad idea as Nature abhors a vacuum – if Leave have no answers, the Remain side will fill it.
But how many will understand the details any.
Leave because we're stronger than most of Europe put together Leave because the EU needs us more than we need them. Leave because Britain can be Great again. Leave because we don't need the bloated bureaucracy of Brussels Leave because our democracy and legal system is better than Europes.
The vacuum would be remain's inability to counter those arguments.
Perhaps we should volunteer our services as PR team for Leave.
Comments
On the main point about protection of the City, if you can explain how leaving and joining the EEA improves things, where we'd STILL be at risk of anything the Eurozone did, but with zero say in the matter and without the institutional protections of the treaties plus the new agreement, you might have a point.
As I've repeatedly said, I don't need to be convinced about the problems and risks of staying in. The Europhobes keep repeating these, as though that's a winning argument. It's not, if in the alternative the problems and risks of leaving are just as bad, or worse.
On an off topic point, did you see the other day that the saintly Karen Danczuk is after becoming someone's (although she didn't specify whom) special lady in 2016?
Hertsmere is a bit far from Rochdale, but I gather you're a tad closer.
Their son has business interests in Spain, and they've had no reassurance that their son's business interests wont be undamaged by Brexit
Also like the telegraph cartoon today
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaPGSPcWEAABrvA.jpg:large
they’re behaving like bairns short-changed in a sweetie shop.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12137668/Does-the-SNP-want-a-deal-and-extra-powers-or-stalemate-and-a-whinge.html
The problem of negative interest rates is so severe in Switzerland than the Canton of Zug sent a letter to all its taxpayers begging them to not to pay taxes before the due date. (It is required by its constitution to keep all cash in Swiss government bonds. Which pay -0.8% per year, guaranteed for five years.)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaO4RN4WcAAkUk9.jpg
I think he fears it would be disruptive if we Leave and wants certainty and clarity on what would merit the disruption for him before he'd ever consider it.
I think Corbyn has an influence on this but it plays both ways. On the one hand his uselessness encourages overconfidence: we can split and still beat him. On the other hand the possibility that he could win power concentrates minds: you don't hear many people say that Cameron is no better than Corbyn.
I would suggest it is up to the Son to structure the business in a way that protects his interests, do research and sort out problems as the arise.
If we left the EU my company will probably open an office in EU, most likely in The Netherlands. It will be a minute cost and big benefit.
The effect on trade is not an area that concerns me. Globalisation, WTO and other conventions and rules mean that business will be able to sort itself out within the structures that are negotiated by government. Business is known for the ability to find a way to sell product. That is why is succeeds.
I also like the agreement - which you seem to dislike - that we won't interfere in Eurozone integrations. That is the best way of getting a looser settlement, where further integration is concentrated in the Eurozone countries and we are increasingly seen by our EU friends as outside the core ever-closer-union bit.
It's not ideal, obviously - ideally we would have got this right before Lisbon. But I think it's the most realistic way in which we can disengage from the worst bits of 'project'.
UK to reclaim its title as a world power with... the worlds largest offshore wind farm!
"Greenest government ever"!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-to-be-built-in-the-uk
"This "deal" appears to have conceded that we can be discriminated against on "objective" grounds. So the UK can't, for instance, discriminate in favour of British citizens on "objective" grounds" but the entire Eurozone can discriminate against the UK on "objective" grounds.
And guess what, not being in the euro will be an objective ground for discriminating against us.
I think that leaving the EU will not be easy. And life outside may be tough. We can and will cope and can and will thrive. Unlike @SeanT I am not bothered about Scotland. And I think of my house as a home rather than an investment and suspect that he overstates the effect on the London property market. But this so-called deal is pathetic and, as Mr Meeks put it, "meh".
The Leave campaign is all over the place. The Remain campaign is just doing a rerun of Wilson's campaign all those years ago. The fundamental dishonesty about the EU's direction of travel remains (not from the EU BTW but from its supporters in the UK). On the whole - and despite many good aspects of the EU, I think there is a fundamental divergence between how the UK thinks about matters and how most EU states and the EU itself think about the world and it would be better for both parties for them to go their separate ways and have a looser association.
We will lose influence in Brussels. But, frankly, we appear to have vanishingly little influence in Brussels as it is so I cannot see the loss of something infinitesimally small as something to be worried about.
I expect Remain to win. The Remain campaign will pretend that a vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo with a few tweaks. A big fat lie. But Big Fat Lies work in politics. I hope the Leave vote will be as large as possible, if only to give those in charge a bit of a fright.
Interesting times.......
"If only both sides could lose. They are neither of them appealing, convincing or honest. Though there are - as always - individual exceptions.
The entire EU debate since I have been a teenager has been characterised by a fundamental dishonesty mixed up with absurdly over-stated WW2 references, on both sides (and I'm including the EU itself in this).
We went into the EU because we lacked the self-confidence to carve out a role of our own, even as a relatively small nation. Now we're either too afraid to leave or too weak to stand up for ourselves within it or too pathetic to put forward an alternative and well thought out case. So we get whiny grumbling, macho displays which turn out to be nothing at all, a refusal to join in and more complaints that we have no friends.
It would have been nice to have had a proper grown up debate about Britain and the EU's role in the world given what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine, Russia etc not this Dad's Army bollocks, whinging about a non-contributory welfare system which is wholly in our control and has nothing to do with the EU at all and civil servants coming up with a load of waffly bullshit which means the square root of f** all."
Grim inevitability would be my description.
Incidentally, an alternative to taking Paddy Powers 5/2 odds against such an outcome, some might be more tempted by Hills' 12/1 against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Party leader during the course of 2016, all the more so with the referendum now due to take place in June, rather than in the autumn. It's difficult to believe he could survive being defeated in a referendum in which he has been so personally involved and it seems even more certain that he wouldn't wish to continue to lead the party in such circumstances.
DYOR.
This could turn me from leaver to actually bothering to campaign.
Best option would be either bilateral trade deal or third signatory to TTIP of course.
You know this deal is crap. To your credit, you admitted as much on the Red Card yesterday.
The answer to Casino's question is there. Rather than childish name-calling, the Leave side should concentrate on developing a sensible response to concerns.
Amongst a number of points he suggests ''Cameron’s strongest argument will be that his opponents are proposing something so unknown, indeed so unknowable, that they can’t agree on it themselves.''
He further points to the split between Carswell's campaign and Farage's lot on immigration,
''many of Carswell’s Vote Leave allies don’t actually believe in strong immigration controls at all. They are free marketeers who see the benefits of free movement of workers.''
''Owen Paterson went out of his way to say that European countries such as Norway and Switzerland who were outside the EU had “very much higher immigration than the UK”. His main argument for leaving the EU thus became the increased influence we would have in the World Trade Organisation. Probably a niche concern.''
''the Leave.EU campaign ... appreciates the centrality of immigration to the case for quitting. It has a very different outlook from the Carswell-Hannan group. It is much more pessimistic ... There are many people who support immigration control and yet are concerned about the motivations of those who go on about it. Swing voters may just as easily be put off by an immigration campaign as attracted by it''
I suppose all this is a bit nuanced for The Sun's front page.
But being outside the EU might be even crapper, and the Leave campaign is still run by crap fruitcakes and loonies.
And Labour is nowhere
So Cameron's still winning.
But, as I keep saying, it's not the problems of the EU that I need convincing about, it's the proposed solution of leaving, which doesn't seem to actually work.
What a diarist he was. I actually prefer his non political, entirely principled slant on public affairs, and the fabulous gossip of home and city life. Discussions with his apparently ever-patient bankers are particularly fun.
I get the impression he never cooked a meal - but never wanted for a place to eat. Proper old school. Would love to have met him.
The movement towards Leave on here is striking. I'm not sure what to read into it though. Posters here are not a bellwether, probably?
We will know more then.
Which of the following would you be open to, if at all:
(1) EEA
(2) EFTA
(3) Bespoke - single market lite + bilateral a
(4) Full independence and WTO rules
?
Do you really believe that the combined powers of the UK (intellect, money, business, politicians etc etc) would not be capable of structuring a deal with various global partners that allowed our industry to continue, the City of London to thrive and employment to continue.
It comes over as a defeatist, narrow minded and blinkered view, which from you I find perplexing. The solutions are all out there for us to join, develop and instigate.
My preferences are:
1 Leave (but only just)
2 Join in fully - Euro and Schengen
3 Continue in the halfway house we presently dislike and complain about.
We Leave.
We set up trade deals (with some compromises but most of the EU baggage gone).
We keep our currency.
We trade with the world.
We are a sovereign nation in charge of our own laws.
We are successful.
Economics stifled the Scots leaving the Union. Not questions about the pound etc. But the very real fear that a small nation with few income streams would struggle. The U.K. economy has no such concerns.
Painting a positive vision vs Project Fear would be enough amidst the migration and EU sop background.
4: What does that mean? We'd have to have some deal with the EU.
That leaves 3. I'd been hoping that the Leave side would have developed this into a coherent and plausible outline plan. That was never going to be easy, but they've had three full years to do the hard work. Absolutely nothing has been done. Even more worrying, there doesn't seem even to be an acknowlegement that it might be a good idea to tell us what the second of the two choices on the ballot paper might actually look like.
The Dave / Nabavi / FT nexus represents precisely this 'there there children, daddy knows best' paternalism that so many hate so much. I wonder if the polls are badly wrong.
I mean, in terms of structure... Economic deals with the EU, trade, migration controls and politics?
Leave because we're stronger than most of Europe put together
Leave because the EU needs us more than we need them.
Leave because Britain can be Great again.
Leave because we don't need the bloated bureaucracy of Brussels
Leave because our democracy and legal system is better than Europes.
The vacuum would be remain's inability to counter those arguments.
But - and this is beginning to be a big "but" for me: if the Eurozone can outvote us and we have no leverage and we can be discriminated against for "objective reasons" (and what a cunning little phrase that is) then the EU does rather end up being something that is - in your phrase - "done to us".
I don't think that is a good basis for a fruitful relationship in the future. In fact, these two aspects of the proposed deal seem to me to make the position worse than it is now, rather than any sort of improvement.
Tories didn't win in 15 because they were paternalistic. We won because we are the only safe pair of hands for the economy.
I think Cameron has underperformed on this one, and a perfect storm of 'events' means he might lose the referendum.
Grumbling and sniping cost nothing. The blood pressure of other EU leaders needn't worry us.
I don't want Leave. And option 2 - joining the Euro - would be plain nuts as things stand (and politically impossible, to state the obvious).
Cameron raised expectations on the eurosceptic right deliberately to shut them up during the general election. He was very successful.
I'd add, we will once again control our borders and our judiciary.
I would also add that the Nazi Germany issue is relevant but not in the silly way the Sun implies. It is relevant for this reason: much of the impulse behind the EU is to avoid the horrors of WW2. But the lessons Britain and Continental European countries take from that conflict are very different.
We take the view that the best defence against the virus of extremism is a strong healthy liberal Parliamentary democracy in a nation state. And that is true. And it worked for us. Britain survived many of the stresses and strains of the 20th century in part precisely because of its political and social structures. Our nation and our Parliamentary democracy were tested and not found wanting.
That is almost precisely the opposite of what happened in pretty much all of Continental Europe. It is little wonder that such countries have taken a very different lesson from the upheavals of the last century. What makes sense for them does not necessarily make sense for us. We are slow to understand that about them. Equally they are very slow to understand why we value our Parliamentary democratic traditions and why we value our sense of ourselves as a nation which will not be bullied, why being told - as some of the sillier Eurocrats have said - that not being in favour of the EU will lead to death camps is so profoundly irritating, insulting and historically illiterate.
To accuse Britain of not being good Europeans because it does not like a certain political structure when Britain's existence and bloody minded refusal to accept what others saw as inevitable was one of the chief reasons there now is a free Europe, when the bones of English soldiers and airmen are buried all round Europe is profoundly insulting. Britain has - on some measures - been one of the best European nations of all.
I feel that a looser association may be better for all of us than trying to shoehorn too many incompatible entities into one rather tight and increasingly uncomfortable straight jacket.
And, finally, there are some within the EU who are very aggressive towards our financial services industry. That has been the case for the last 30 years. I have heard very senior French regulators say as much. This deal provides no protection for a key sector of our economy and I see no good reason to trust countries who are seemingly so careless about damaging a key industry of what is meant to be a friendly ally and partner.
And what are these 'rules' please Richard? As you fancy yourself as a detail man, I'm sure you have them at your fingertips.
We'd obviously have to look very carefully at the position of the City in such a deal. There are potential advantages in leaving the EU, but there are risks as well. The devil would be in the detail. I rather suspect that our EU friends would play hardball on this one in any negotiations.
We must be able to do a better job.