Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
The last Yougov poll is probably an outlier. What is clear, is that the proposals that the PM came back with were supposed to seal the deal, but have in reality, done the opposite.
He has to go for it hell for leather now because not only do his own eurosceptics come off the leash after the Council of Europe meeting, but he will also have to explain to their jeering how the Council objected to a chunk of his draft agreement and he actually has rather less than the pittance he originally presented - and that is before EUParl gets hold of it.
For me the most disgraceful part of this whole unedifying mess is that this supposed agreement can be modified or rejected after the referendum has been held by the European Parliament.
And in Cameron doing so, he is throwing away his aces. I like the guy enormously, am delighted he is Prime Minister - but I don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted by him. He'd be better saying nothing and staying above the fray. .
You might be right about that, I don't know. Remember that he's appealing to the people who are not so engaged with politics as we are here.
Even if we take your insight at face value, it means that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, has sunk to their level. Has he never heard of the notion: "Never pick an argument with an idiot - you get dragged down to their level, and they win on experience..."?
I don't think that Cameron, and the Remain side generally, can simply ignore the utter nonsense (but politically potent emotion) which the Leave side deploy on migration, especally since the Leave side can't even decide whether they want to retain free movement or not. Given that, I guess the question is: do you answer with logic, or fight populist emotional nonsense with emotional nonsense?
Objectively speaking, both sides are deploying bogus arguments. Welcome to politics.
Of course LEAVE can't decide what they want in terms of migration. There are some for whom it is the great driving factor and some for whom it is not really a big deal. That is inevitably going to lead to different positions on how best to deal with it and what a post Brexit arrangement would look like.
But what is absolutely certain is that staying in the EU is simply shrugging the shoulders and saying it can never be dealt with. It is, for anyone who does have it as an issue, the one result that is the very worst outcome.
What you are doing at the moment is standing on the Titanic claiming no one should leave the ship because we can't decide which colour lifeboat to take.
This Jungle Stuff is truly bizarre from Cameron. On the one hand, yes it will work, with some. Project Eurofear etc. And there is a grain of truth in what he says, France is more likely to suspend Le Touquet if we Brexit
But there are huge downsides to this approach:
It makes him look weak (he can't control the borders??!), it makes him look mendacious, again (there's no reason another camp would form INSIDE the UK), it makes him look quite UKIP-y, blatting on about migrants (possibly offending lefty europhiles), it alienates his party badly (having promised not to campaign until the 18th, he does THIS??), it damages - again - his brand as a careful statesman, and so on.
Why on earth would you do all that, even before you sign the "deal"? The only possible answer is that Cameron and Co are panicked by the polls, they fear that OUT might gain an unassailable lead early on, unless they do something, anything, very quick.
They're scared they are gonna lose.
Can anyone tell me why illegal immigrants would bother to hang around in a camp once they've made it to an ex EU UK, rather than disappear into the undergrowth as they do now?
Of course LEAVE can't decide what they want in terms of migration. There are some for whom it is the great driving factor and some for whom it is not really a big deal. That is inevitably going to lead to different positions on how best to deal with it and what a post Brexit arrangement would look like.
But what is absolutely certain is that staying in the EU is simply shrugging the shoulders and saying it can never be dealt with. It is, for anyone who does have it as an issue, the one result that is the very worst outcome.
No, the very worst outcome for someone for whom migration is the principal issue is that we leave, at considerable economic cost, and migration ends up exactly the same as it would have been if we hadn't left. Quite a likely outcome IMO, although no-one really knows.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
He could have returned with 15 commandments in tablets of stone and the Sun and Mail would have run the same headlines. You had better start worrying about what you wish for because the next 4 years could be spent in an extended crisis where the country fights itself like ferrets in a sack over what it does in an attempt to extricate itself from the EU as the rest of the world looks on appalled at its confusion and kisses it goodbye. Its clear from how often Osborne's name crops up and the desire to knife him in the back for some reason that the issue has collapsed into a crude one of personalities. Perhaps they would prefer McDonnell as Chancellor?
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
My first loyalty is towards The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I've been lucky in the past the interests of the country and party used to align, almost perfectly.
It'll be interesting to see whether the old bonds of loyalty between Conservative voters and the party leadership still hold, because Conservative voters are the key to this referendum.
Thirty years ago, there'd be no doubt. The Tories had 1.5m members, and were deeply-rooted in suburban and rural Britain. In place like Hendon, or South Bucks., it would be virtually impossible not to have a family member, friend, or neighbour, who was not a member of the Party.
But, the Conservatives have a fraction of that number of people now.
Storm Imogen: The sea state could reach "phenomenal" - the highest level on the World Meteorological Scale - at times around western coasts, with waves of more than 14m (46ft) possible.
GO has a £7bn black hole and needs tax rises or additional cuts to meet his budget according to IFS. Genius!!
£7Bn is loose change - remember the year the Labour CoTE borrowed £156Bn ?
True... To be fair the Labour CoTE hadn't bet his reputation on running a surplus by 2020 either. Something which I expect to become "aspirational" over the next couple of years as the global economy turns down again.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
Storm Imogen: The sea state could reach "phenomenal" - the highest level on the World Meteorological Scale - at times around western coasts, with waves of more than 14m (46ft) possible.
''David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle. ''
I suppose the thing about politics is that every leader has their sell by date. There is no man, or woman, for all seasons.
The season now is very different to when Cameron took control of a smoking wreck of a party in 2005. Perhaps Cameroonian conservatism is getting close to running its course. It's a shame because the man is undoubtedly a genius in his own way and has achieved a great deal.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
Glen O'Hara Retweeted Westminster HUB Ed Miliband was a terrible leader of #Labour Party. Rite now, he'd do fine. Lots of us wd rip yr arm off to get him.
@WestminsterHUB · Odds for next Labour Party leader Hilary Benn - 11/4 Dan Jarvis - 4/1 Lisa Nandy - 5/1 Tom Watson - 9/1 Ed Miliband - 150/1 (@pppolitics)
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
This nonsense from Cameron is laughable. We don't intern anyone now, most of those here illegally simply melt away into the shadows. That is unlikely to change. UKBA will wave them through, and worry about their next tea break/overtime/pay rise.
Why would these immigrants camp out in Folkestone anyway - are they trying to get back to France ?
Illegal immigrants that made it over would head for London or wherever their relatives already live as they do now.
Yeah Cameron's "camps in the UK" threat doesn't even make sense. They must be getting rattled if they are coming up with guff like that.
There wouldn't be any immigration to a post-Brexit UK. Scotland, the jewel in our crown, would be lost to the EU, three million jobs would disappear in a puff of smoke and there would be standing room only as all the Poles jetted back to Krakow. Or so I'm led to believe.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
I'm not sure the argument that it's OK, the taxpayer would pay for good-quality accomodation for migrants who get here, is entirely optimal for the Leave side to deploy.
Chris Grayling and the like must be spitting blood with Cameron breaking pledge not to campaign until 18th. Why do eurosceptics think they would not get sacked immediately after referendum regardless? Cameron's word means nothing.
Why would these immigrants camp out in Folkestone anyway - are they trying to get back to France ?
Illegal immigrants that made it over would head for London or wherever their relatives already live as they do now.
Yeah Cameron's "camps in the UK" threat doesn't even make sense. They must be getting rattled if they are coming up with guff like that.
There wouldn't be any immigration to a post-Brexit UK. Scotland, the jewel in our crown, would be lost to the EU, three million jobs would disappear in a puff of smoke and there would be standing room only as all the Poles jetted back to Krakow. Or so I'm led to believe.
Why would these immigrants camp out in Folkestone anyway - are they trying to get back to France ?
Illegal immigrants that made it over would head for London or wherever their relatives already live as they do now.
Yeah Cameron's "camps in the UK" threat doesn't even make sense. They must be getting rattled if they are coming up with guff like that.
There wouldn't be any immigration to a post-Brexit UK. Scotland, the jewel in our crown, would be lost to the EU, three million jobs would disappear in a puff of smoke and there would be standing room only as all the Poles jetted back to Krakow. Or so I'm led to believe.
We'd be huddled round braziers, roasting bits of dog and rat over them, telling sad tales of the death of kings.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
Which is not what the camps in France are. There wouldn't be "camps" if we left the EU, there might be more illegal immigrants detained, or more likely returned immediately if we applied airport like rules. But not camps like in Calais, Cameron is scaremongering.
My brother lives outside Philadelphia, and has a high profile role in the US gambling industry. Unsurprisingly, he's a fan of Donald.
He was a bad boy, got expelled from school and ended up making serious money in the internet and gambling (I mean serious, serious money- like private jet serious money). I was a good boy, came top at school and Uni and ended up in my early years in social work driving a Megane.
Obviously, we have had our differences over the years.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
I'm not sure the argument that it's OK, the taxpayer would pay for good-quality accomodation for migrants who get here, is entirely optimal for the Leave side to deploy.
Wasn't arguing about a line to deploy. Just absurdity of claims camps would exist. Cameron is knowingly talking complete cobblers.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
This nonsense from Cameron is laughable. We don't intern anyone now, most of those here illegally simply melt away into the shadows. That is unlikely to change. UKBA will wave them through, and worry about their next tea break/overtime/pay rise.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
I'm not sure the argument that it's OK, the taxpayer would pay for good-quality accomodation for migrants who get here, is entirely optimal for the Leave side to deploy.
Are you predicting Jungle style camps in Kent Richard ? Cameron is - but you know you might diverge on this prediction.
Storm Imogen: The sea state could reach "phenomenal" - the highest level on the World Meteorological Scale - at times around western coasts, with waves of more than 14m (46ft) possible.
My brother lives outside Philadelphia, and has a high profile role in the US gambling industry. Unsurprisingly, he's a fan of Donald.
He was a bad boy, got expelled from school and ended up making serious money in the internet and gambling (I mean serious, serious money- like private jet serious money). I was a good boy, came top at school and Uni and ended up in my early years in social work driving a Megane.
Obviously, we have had our differences over the years.
Name one constituency that Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband would win back? OK, they might not go backwards (although that is most likely) but they sure as hell aren't going to win back voters who stood him up once already.
Unless he has spent the wilderness months on an intensive training course for photogenic butty-eating and coherent policy-finding. Oh, and burying the Ed-Stone in an unmarked grave in a motorway bridge stanchion....
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
This nonsense from Cameron is laughable. We don't intern anyone now, most of those here illegally simply melt away into the shadows. That is unlikely to change. UKBA will wave them through, and worry about their next tea break/overtime/pay rise.
If we had people swarming (tm) across the Channel in boats I guess we'd try to intercept them and hold them.
To be honest I'd expect at least some on the Leave side to be saying "Damn right that's what we'd do. What's your problem?"
Storm Imogen: The sea state could reach "phenomenal" - the highest level on the World Meteorological Scale - at times around western coasts, with waves of more than 14m (46ft) possible.
There wouldn't be any immigration to a post-Brexit UK. Scotland, the jewel in our crown, would be lost to the EU, three million jobs would disappear in a puff of smoke and there would be standing room only as all the Poles jetted back to Krakow. Or so I'm led to believe.
A very good point, more Europhile doublethink; so everything would be in ruin if we left the EU, and millions of people would still be trying to get in to the UK rather than the more attractive EU. Hmmm.
Are you predicting Jungle style camps in Kent Richard ? Cameron is - but you know you might diverge on this prediction.
I think that there is some truth in Cameron's point. At the very least, he is right to point out the utter lunacy of the argument that somehow us leaving the EU would help in dealing with the Calais migrants. At the very best it would make zero difference, and in plausible scenarios it would make things worse.
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
I haven't read his remarks. From what I've read here I assumed he was talking about some sort of internment camp.
This nonsense from Cameron is laughable. We don't intern anyone now, most of those here illegally simply melt away into the shadows. That is unlikely to change. UKBA will wave them through, and worry about their next tea break/overtime/pay rise.
Meanwhile UKVI increase their rejection rate of legitimate visa applications by 18% this year, and new regulations for the appeals process were eased out at the end of last year that make it impossible to bring extra evidence into consideration if you are rejected. The cynical might feel that being unable to control the unlawful immigrants, the government is trying very hard to make life difficult for the legal applications following the approved process.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
It is suggested in to Telegraph that Boris is really saying to Cameron "I will support you, but its going to cost (a lot)"
It's much the same as betting against England FC in the big footie tournaments. Apart from politics where my record is really quite good, that is my only consistently profitable gambling habit. The rest, I have long learnt to leave well alone. I didn't even gamble in Vegas last year, and I was there for a week.
My brother lives outside Philadelphia, and has a high profile role in the US gambling industry. Unsurprisingly, he's a fan of Donald.
He was a bad boy, got expelled from school and ended up making serious money in the internet and gambling (I mean serious, serious money- like private jet serious money). I was a good boy, came top at school and Uni and ended up in my early years in social work driving a Megane.
Obviously, we have had our differences over the years.
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
Edit - any other pb-ers been to both South Georgia and Ascension? Military types maybe...
As regards Boris, I have slightly changed my view on whether he could be a plausible leader in the event of a Leave result.
In that scenario, I don't think the key point will be whether a candidate for leadership has necessarily campaigned for Leave. Rather, it will be whether he or she is in a position to be a credible PM of a government engaged in negotiating the terms of our exit. It seems to me that those close to Cameron who have invested a lot of political capital in the 'renegotiate and remain' approach certainly wouldn't be credible if the public has rejected that approach, but (contrary to what I previously thought), it might not be necessary to have been decisively on the Leave side. Boris is positioning himself quite well, I think.
The attitude from the Inners never changes. What the British people want is utterly absurd and completely impossible because of Treaty A article C subsection 28.
Voters know treaties dissolve when the EU wants something.
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
The UK can only be bothered to deport around 5000 illegals a year now. No one is going to be flying planeloads of un-wanted people to the middle of the Atlantic.
Google 'how many illegal immigrants are deported uk'.
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
As regards Boris, I have slightly changed my view on whether he could be a plausible leader in the event of a Leave result.
In that scenario, I don't think the key point will be whether a candidate for leadership has necessarily campaigned for Leave. Rather, it will be whether he or she is in a position to be a credible PM of a government engaged in negotiating the terms of our exit. It seems to me that those close to Cameron who have invested a lot of political capital in the 'renegotiate and remain' approach certainly wouldn't be credible if the public has rejected that approach, but (contrary to what I previously thought), it might not be necessary to have been decisively on the Leave side. Boris is positioning himself quite well, I think.
A skilled politician might be thinking about a backstop in the eventually of a LEAVE so that the succession is secured, and someone that would be acceptable to the ascendent Eurosceptics, but not a complete anti-EU nutter was in pole position to lead the party.
Name one constituency that Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband would win back? OK, they might not go backwards (although that is most likely) but they sure as hell aren't going to win back voters who stood him up once already.
Unless he has spent the wilderness months on an intensive training course for photogenic butty-eating and coherent policy-finding. Oh, and burying the Ed-Stone in an unmarked grave in a motorway bridge stanchion....
There might be a thinking that its no longer about winning back seats, but not losing the ones they already have.
Of course the membership want none of this. They would rather lose massively with someone they really like, than lose marginally with someone they dislike.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
Boris is just showing that to be a circus star you've got to be able to ride two horses at the same time.
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
Edit - any other pb-ers been to both South Georgia and Ascension? Military types maybe...
I think we can learn from Australia on immigration for sure. Their camps have been quite succesful.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
I'm not sure the argument that it's OK, the taxpayer would pay for good-quality accomodation for migrants who get here, is entirely optimal for the Leave side to deploy.
And they might even have to wear an armband to get access to three meals a day (something much of the world does not have), for free.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
I take it you didn't notice the boats crossing from Africa to Italy last spring?
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
The UK can only be bothered to deport around 5000 illegals a year now. No one is going to be flying planeloads of un-wanted people to the middle of the Atlantic.
Google 'how many illegal immigrants are deported uk'.
That's our old friend, Article 8.
People arrive, claim asylum, wait around, get rejected, start an appeal, go and find their community, merge into it, find a partner, have a child, get rejected on appeal and then claim "Respect for Family Life" under Article 8. If appeals were disposed of in 6 months not three years the problem would not arise.
Of course LEAVE can't decide what they want in terms of migration. There are some for whom it is the great driving factor and some for whom it is not really a big deal. That is inevitably going to lead to different positions on how best to deal with it and what a post Brexit arrangement would look like.
But what is absolutely certain is that staying in the EU is simply shrugging the shoulders and saying it can never be dealt with. It is, for anyone who does have it as an issue, the one result that is the very worst outcome.
No, the very worst outcome for someone for whom migration is the principal issue is that we leave, at considerable economic cost, and migration ends up exactly the same as it would have been if we hadn't left. Quite a likely outcome IMO, although no-one really knows.
You can't have it both ways Richard. The argument about EEA/no EEA works just as effectively against you as it does for you if you take that stance.
Either we have some economic cost by staying outside of the EEA but we get full control of migration (Not my preferred option)
or we join the EEA, do not have control of migration but do not have the economic cost.
For both sides both arguments are mutually exclusive. You cannot claim the economic costs argument from one choice and the no control of migration from the other. That is trying to Kipper the argument.
What being in the EEA does give us in terms of migration policy is the opportunity later on to take the further step away from the single market if things really do become an issue. This of course is an option that becomes more attractive (although again I would certainly not be convinced by it at the moment) as world trade barriers continue to drop via the WTO.
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
I take it you didn't notice the boats crossing from Africa to Italy last spring?
What is the average temperature of the Med compared to that of the Channel ?
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
I think the sting is taken out of it because of the referendum. If all this was just to determine Cons policy then there would much more likely/certainly be a split.
As regards Boris, I have slightly changed my view on whether he could be a plausible leader in the event of a Leave result.
In that scenario, I don't think the key point will be whether a candidate for leadership has necessarily campaigned for Leave. Rather, it will be whether he or she is in a position to be a credible PM of a government engaged in negotiating the terms of our exit. It seems to me that those close to Cameron who have invested a lot of political capital in the 'renegotiate and remain' approach certainly wouldn't be credible if the public has rejected that approach, but (contrary to what I previously thought), it might not be necessary to have been decisively on the Leave side. Boris is positioning himself quite well, I think.
Now that's an interesting view.
I might need to increase my "investment" in Boris.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
The Cons aren't going to split over the issue - but they might throw Dave and GO over the side of the rubber dingy a few miles short of Folkestone.
I think Cameron has played a corker. As much as I didn't like Cameron resorting to emotional stuff with the NHS last year, I like the fact that he is getting down and dirty on the EC and using the migrants to hit the Brexit.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
Boris is just showing that to be a circus star you've got to be able to ride two horses at the same time.
They wouldn't live in squalid camps as it would be illegal under human rights law. There would be proper facilities as now, and if conditions got too bad the courts would force us to close them.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
I'm not sure the argument that it's OK, the taxpayer would pay for good-quality accomodation for migrants who get here, is entirely optimal for the Leave side to deploy.
And they might even have to wear an armband to get access to three meals a day (something much of the world does not have), for free.
Just so long as we vary the front door colours eh ?
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
The UK can only be bothered to deport around 5000 illegals a year now. No one is going to be flying planeloads of un-wanted people to the middle of the Atlantic.
Google 'how many illegal immigrants are deported uk'.
That's our old friend, Article 8.
People arrive, claim asylum, wait around, get rejected, start an appeal, go and find their community, merge into it, find a partner, have a child, get rejected on appeal and then claim "Respect for Family Life" under Article 8. If appeals were disposed of in 6 months not three years the problem would not arise.
We'd still be covered by article 8 even if we left the EU as we'd still be part of the ECHR which even Russia! is signed up to.
Obviously alot of people on this board think that anyone who supports "Leave" can't be in command of any facts. Which is why I'm pointing this out.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
@Richard_Tyndall - Your objection only works if there is no economic cost at all to the EEA route. That seems to me to be very unlikely, not because the EEA route is necessarily a bad option economically in itself, but because of the uncertainty and disruption in the transition.
In any case, even if we assume that there is no economic disadvantage at all to the EEA route, and that the transition is entirely painless, our putative voter who has voted Leave because of migration is still not going to be a happy bunny when he discovers that nothing has changed in that regard.
OK, there's still the theoretical option of changing our mind and leaving the EEA at some time in the future, but that's equally true if we stay in the EU.
Not least because sugar is necessary to live. It's the basic fuel of body. Excessive consumption is the issue. And lack of exercise.
Its certainly nonsense. In the same way that putting tobacco tax by vast amount makes basically no difference to smoking, and increase the price of petrol doesn't stop people driving as much.. they just cut back on other stuff.
I mean seriously, if you are spending £150 a week on Sainsbury's on your family food, is putting 20% tax on the £1.40 you spend on a kilo of sugar going to make you think again ? Is increasing the price of half the trolley by a couple of percent due to sugar content going to change your habits ? Not a chance, at the margin if you were really hard up for it you might drop out one luxury item, which will likely have less sugar than all the low quality everyday stuff that remains in the trolley.
It about money, its got sod all to do with health.
For the IFS today, it isn;t whether the chancellor will have to hammer aspiring hard working people, but by how much. They reckon its going to be very, very large.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
But what if PCP puts up two Remainers is for leadership election, for party that is furious at them?
Or perhaps when you're in power, you take a different view when you realise that government can be a force for good and actually develop principles.
As Labour has receded into collective insanity and become irrelevant, I have become really quite impressed with Cameron and Osborne's venture into progressive politics- fairer taxation through pension reform, 2nd home and to buy to lets- and now thinking about how to tackle intractable issues- racism in Universities, child obesity, prison reform. It shows to me that they really do care about creating a fairer country.
For the IFS today, it isn;t whether the chancellor will have to hammer aspiring hard working people, but by how much. They reckon its going to be very, very large.
Hugely unpopular budget just before the EURef.... brave, considering how referenda tend to be at least in part on the government of the day.
JJ Any Ferry company that attempted to land several thousand immigrants at one of the UK ports without permission to land would simply be cutting its own throat and the Skippers career would be severely curtailed..
Legally that ferry could not sail in the first place. Neither can the French force the vessel out of their port either. It would remain a French problem.
We're talking about illegal immigration here. Legality is of little interest to those who want to come over here, for whatever reason.
I agree with you point about their illegality but please don't be so quick off the mark.
The ferry still could not sail from that port with 4000, 6000 etc etc. Neither can the captain sail that vessel from the port and the French cannot allow the vessel to sail from the port and everyone knows it. There is possibly only one way it might occur but that would eventually involve a visit from the French SAS , marines and God knows what else .........(while the vessel was in the French port.)
Then they have to sail across the channel with a ferry full of illegals a shipping lane which is one of the busiest and one of the most restricted waterways in the world . It's not as clear cut as you think even with illegals on board.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
But what if PCP puts up two Remainers is for leadership election, for party that is furious at them?
If they are that stupid it will be Farage's lucky day.
JJ I would live to have a large apartment overlooking Sydney Harbour and the Bridge..so effin what..The Migrants will be kept away even without the very limited help of the French It is their problem..not ours and the deeply felt desire of the Canp inhabitants to get on to UK benefits is really no concern of ours..its just tough shit..
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
But what if PCP puts up two Remainers is for leadership election, for party that is furious at them?
The Tory party has a sceptic majority. That won't happen.
ON topic, check this incredible vid of that leopard in Bangalore. Eeek!
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
Comments
Honourable mentions to Mumtaz (Bradford) and Rupali (Coventry)
The curry mile in Rusholme in Manchester are the worst curries that I've experienced.
Osborne's budget is looking a bigger, more stinky Brownian turd by the day.
For me the most disgraceful part of this whole unedifying mess is that this supposed agreement can be modified or rejected after the referendum has been held by the European Parliament.
But what is absolutely certain is that staying in the EU is simply shrugging the shoulders and saying it can never be dealt with. It is, for anyone who does have it as an issue, the one result that is the very worst outcome.
What you are doing at the moment is standing on the Titanic claiming no one should leave the ship because we can't decide which colour lifeboat to take.
Illegal immigrants that made it over would head for London or wherever their relatives already live as they do now.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
You had better start worrying about what you wish for because the next 4 years could be spent in an extended crisis where the country fights itself like ferrets in a sack over what it does in an attempt to extricate itself from the EU as the rest of the world looks on appalled at its confusion and kisses it goodbye.
Its clear from how often Osborne's name crops up and the desire to knife him in the back for some reason that the issue has collapsed into a crude one of personalities. Perhaps they would prefer McDonnell as Chancellor?
Thirty years ago, there'd be no doubt. The Tories had 1.5m members, and were deeply-rooted in suburban and rural Britain. In place like Hendon, or South Bucks., it would be virtually impossible not to have a family member, friend, or neighbour, who was not a member of the Party.
But, the Conservatives have a fraction of that number of people now.
I suppose the thing about politics is that every leader has their sell by date. There is no man, or woman, for all seasons.
The season now is very different to when Cameron took control of a smoking wreck of a party in 2005. Perhaps Cameroonian conservatism is getting close to running its course. It's a shame because the man is undoubtedly a genius in his own way and has achieved a great deal.
I suppose we could withdraw from human rights obligations, but in that case why would we let thek in at all?
Glen O'Hara Retweeted Westminster HUB
Ed Miliband was a terrible leader of #Labour Party. Rite now, he'd do fine. Lots of us wd rip yr arm off to get him.
@WestminsterHUB ·
Odds for next Labour Party leader
Hilary Benn - 11/4
Dan Jarvis - 4/1
Lisa Nandy - 5/1
Tom Watson - 9/1
Ed Miliband - 150/1
(@pppolitics)
#Poweroflaying
He was a bad boy, got expelled from school and ended up making serious money in the internet and gambling (I mean serious, serious money- like private jet serious money). I was a good boy, came top at school and Uni and ended up in my early years in social work driving a Megane.
Obviously, we have had our differences over the years.
I enjoy seeing it every day.
Unless he has spent the wilderness months on an intensive training course for photogenic butty-eating and coherent policy-finding. Oh, and burying the Ed-Stone in an unmarked grave in a motorway bridge stanchion....
To be honest I'd expect at least some on the Leave side to be saying "Damn right that's what we'd do. What's your problem?"
Plus humans putting hats, T-shirts and Liverpool scarves on them from time to time...
If only Cameron could follow suit.
But, no, not Jungle style camps in Kent.
http://dw.com/en/german-french-central-bank-chiefs-support-joint-eurozone-finance-ministry/a-19032781
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/feb/08/cameron-accused-scaremongering-brexit-calais-jungle-england-politics-live
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145896/Boris-Johnson-to-David-Cameron-Ill-back-you-on-Europe-but-itll-cost-you.html
In that scenario, I don't think the key point will be whether a candidate for leadership has necessarily campaigned for Leave. Rather, it will be whether he or she is in a position to be a credible PM of a government engaged in negotiating the terms of our exit. It seems to me that those close to Cameron who have invested a lot of political capital in the 'renegotiate and remain' approach certainly wouldn't be credible if the public has rejected that approach, but (contrary to what I previously thought), it might not be necessary to have been decisively on the Leave side. Boris is positioning himself quite well, I think.
I think this will hurt his credibility.
Voters know treaties dissolve when the EU wants something.
Google 'how many illegal immigrants are deported uk'.
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
Of course the membership want none of this. They would rather lose massively with someone they really like, than lose marginally with someone they dislike.
It's hard left or no one.
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
Not least because sugar is necessary to live. It's the basic fuel of body. Excessive consumption is the issue. And lack of exercise.
People arrive, claim asylum, wait around, get rejected, start an appeal, go and find their community, merge into it, find a partner, have a child, get rejected on appeal and then claim "Respect for Family Life" under Article 8. If appeals were disposed of in 6 months not three years the problem would not arise.
Either we have some economic cost by staying outside of the EEA but we get full control of migration (Not my preferred option)
or we join the EEA, do not have control of migration but do not have the economic cost.
For both sides both arguments are mutually exclusive. You cannot claim the economic costs argument from one choice and the no control of migration from the other. That is trying to Kipper the argument.
What being in the EEA does give us in terms of migration policy is the opportunity later on to take the further step away from the single market if things really do become an issue. This of course is an option that becomes more attractive (although again I would certainly not be convinced by it at the moment) as world trade barriers continue to drop via the WTO.
I might need to increase my "investment" in Boris.
In his desperation to meet his targets and keep his leadership bid on the rails, George Osborne will sacrifice any principle and any voter group.
As March will, I think, prove. To a horrified party.
Obviously alot of people on this board think that anyone who supports "Leave" can't be in command of any facts. Which is why I'm pointing this out.
For sure we should improve the system though.
In any case, even if we assume that there is no economic disadvantage at all to the EEA route, and that the transition is entirely painless, our putative voter who has voted Leave because of migration is still not going to be a happy bunny when he discovers that nothing has changed in that regard.
OK, there's still the theoretical option of changing our mind and leaving the EEA at some time in the future, but that's equally true if we stay in the EU.
http://seatemperature.info/greece-water-temperature.html
Dover 10 degrees.
http://seatemperature.info/dover-water-temperature.html
I mean seriously, if you are spending £150 a week on Sainsbury's on your family food, is putting 20% tax on the £1.40 you spend on a kilo of sugar going to make you think again ? Is increasing the price of half the trolley by a couple of percent due to sugar content going to change your habits ? Not a chance, at the margin if you were really hard up for it you might drop out one luxury item, which will likely have less sugar than all the low quality everyday stuff that remains in the trolley.
It about money, its got sod all to do with health.
As Labour has receded into collective insanity and become irrelevant, I have become really quite impressed with Cameron and Osborne's venture into progressive politics- fairer taxation through pension reform, 2nd home and to buy to lets- and now thinking about how to tackle intractable issues- racism in Universities, child obesity, prison reform. It shows to me that they really do care about creating a fairer country.
The ferry still could not sail from that port with 4000, 6000 etc etc. Neither can the captain sail that vessel from the port and the French cannot allow the vessel to sail from the port and everyone knows it. There is possibly only one way it might occur but that would eventually involve a visit from the French SAS , marines and God knows what else .........(while the vessel was in the French port.)
Then they have to sail across the channel with a ferry full of illegals a shipping lane which is one of the busiest and one of the most restricted waterways in the world . It's not as clear cut as you think even with illegals on board.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.