Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave
An orderly departure at a time of Dave's choosing is what is needed, not Dave being toppled before his time
Bugger Dave. The world doesn't revolve around him.
Given that the EU renegotiation hasn't yet been completed and Cameron has already hit the big red FUD button, I think we can now safely say that Cameron never sincerely considered backing leave if his renegotiation was to fail. What a pathetic berk he is turning out to be.
This tiny little bit of tinsel is the high point. In a week or so the Council of Europe will look at it and certain countries will object to certain parts and they will be watered down (if that is possible) or removed. Then it gets put on the shelf while we hold a referendum, and then, and this bits the kicked, it gets dusted off and EUParl looks at it, and they get to modify it and potential scrap bits of it, after we have voted on it
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate: (1) lots of people don't know their NI number by heart (me for one - it's a cultural myth to believe that otherwise) and aren't sure where to lay their hands on it (I know because I do my self-assessment, lots of people don't) (2) you need to either hunt down the website or get hold of the form.
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave
An orderly departure at a time of Dave's choosing is what is needed, not Dave being toppled before his time
Bugger Dave. The world doesn't revolve around him.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
4. We assume our parliament is sovereign for all matters including immigration and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away for trade in any circumstances.
And then we get what we can on trade with the EU, subject to those principles.
What does that mean? You think that parliament can legislate to stop the Eurozone doing things to damage the City if we're not EU or even EEA members? I'm all ears, tell me how.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave
An orderly departure at a time of Dave's choosing is what is needed, not Dave being toppled before his time
Bugger Dave. The world doesn't revolve around him.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
It's heading that way.
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
The EU prevents terrorism, WW3 and bunches of migrants coming here from Calais. If you are feeling particularly generous and are willing to accept completely made up figures, the EU means that every family is £3,000 better off.
Richard Nabavi's point 2 is just not true. In the EEA, we have a veto in Joint Committee. That may or may not cause that part of agreement to be suspended (Nabavi and Tyndall disagree) but it's not nothing.
Also, in case 3, we won't be governed by every new law the EU wants to pass at any point in future. Our exports to the EU will be but the other 85% of our econony is not.
The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.
What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.
Of course. What did anyone expect?
The other side are just as bad, indeed worse, implying we'll be overrun with zillions of terrorists if we Remain.
Welcome to politics.
I don't think you get any worse than Cameron's outright falsehoods about camps in SE England today.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
It's heading that way.
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
The EU prevents terrorism, WW3 and bunches of migrants coming here from Calais. If you are feeling particularly generous and are willing to accept completely made up figures, the EU means that every family is £3,000 better off.
And, we'd lose three million jobs too, if we left.
There are two aspects to that: what we want, and how best to get it.
Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?
(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.
(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.
If you agree with me so far, there are three main scenarios to consider:
1) We stay in, on the renegotiated terms. As part of that, we've explicitly agreed not to block (b), they've explicitly agreed to (c). We have the original treaty protections against discrimination, plus the extra protection of the renegotiation and formal acknowledgement that the EU is a multi-currency union. Yes it is legally binding. Yes we can go to court to enforce it. Yes government and EU lawyers have opined upon it. Good in principle, right? Now, maybe you'll argue that it's not binding enough. But consider the alternatives:
2) We leave, and join the EEA. We now have zero protection of the type (c), but we're still subject to the rules of the Single Market. They can do what they like, and we're stuffed.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
snip. Maybe I've missed something, I've been hoping that someone would enlighten me if so. Silence so far.
It's a good attempt at an argument Richard but where is the explicit agreement to (c)? I haven't seen it.
If we remain in we remain bound by all the rules. If we come out we are bound by their rules for trade within the EU. If we remain in we remain the second largest contributor to the EU budget and are projected to become the largest single contributor. If we come out we will inevitably have to pay something but quite likely considerably less. If we remain in under anything like current arrangements our contributions to the EU budget can be allocated by QMV. The risk is QMV=EZ. I think we agree on that.
We need a different kind of QMV. One that recognises that there are at least 2 classes of membership and will be for a long time, possibly forever. Cameron has talked about it but so far as I can see he hasn't got it.
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate: (1) lots of people don't know their NI number by heart (me for one - it's a cultural myth to believe that otherwise) and aren't sure where to lay their hands on it (I know because I do my self-assessment, lots of people don't) (2) you need to either hunt down the website or get hold of the form.
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
If you've lost your NI card there must be a way to get a new one, although it is on payslips and the like, so chances are it's lying around somewhere. Finding the website is so absolutely trivial it isn't even worth commenting on.
Richard Nabavi's point 2 is just not true. In the EEA, we have a veto in Joint Committee. That may or may not cause that part of agreement to be suspended (Nabavi and Tyndall disagree) but it's not nothing.t.
Don't be silly, of course we don't have a veto over what the EU does. We won't even be members of the club. At least now we have a vote.
Really, of all the silly arguments (and there are many), the idea that we'd have more say in EU rules outside the EU than in it is one of the most bonkers.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
4. We assume our parliament is sovereign for all matters including immigration and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away for trade in any circumstances.
And then we get what we can on trade with the EU, subject to those principles.
What does that mean? You think that parliament can legislate to stop the Eurozone doing things to damage the City if we're not EU or even EEA members? I'm all ears, tell me how.
They can try to do tit for tat restrictions but will be limited by any trade deal we sign. They can't directly legislate over our banks, and they can with us in EU.
''What does that mean? You think that parliament can legislate to stop the Eurozone doing things to damage the City if we're not EU or even EEA members? I'm all ears, tell me how. ''
The government can't do that now!! Richard, the EU are going to try to f8ck the City whether we are in or out. Let's face it. If we are out, at least we emerge with our sovereignty intact. And I reckon we will save a good deal of what the City has if we can decide our own destiny.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
It's heading that way.
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
The EU prevents terrorism, WW3 and bunches of migrants coming here from Calais. If you are feeling particularly generous and are willing to accept completely made up figures, the EU means that every family is £3,000 better off.
Yes if you want to prevent terrorism the best thing to do is to be part of a political body that encourages unlimited numbers of men from the terrorist hotspot of the world into its territory
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate: (1) lots of people don't know their NI number by heart (me for one - it's a cultural myth to believe that otherwise) and aren't sure where to lay their hands on it (I know because I do my self-assessment, lots of people don't) (2) you need to either hunt down the website or get hold of the form.
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
Weak. If someone can't be bothered to find their NI number, they're probably not that interested in voting.
Besides as has been pointed out already, the number's normally on a payslip. Unless someone is being paid cash in hand, in which case they don't deserve a vote.
Richard Nabavi's point 2 is just not true. In the EEA, we have a veto in Joint Committee. That may or may not cause that part of agreement to be suspended (Nabavi and Tyndall disagree) but it's not nothing.t.
Don't be silly, of course we don't have a veto over what the EU does. We won't even be members of the club. At least now we have a vote.
Really, of all the silly arguments (and there are many), the idea that we'd have more say in EU rules outside the EU than in it is one of the most bonkers.
I wasn't talking about EU rules. I was talking about rules regulating our own economy. Given that we won't be in EU, EU rules would not apply to our companies. (Other than their exports to EU.)
They can try to do tit for tat restrictions but will be limited by any trade deal we sign. They can't directly legislate over our banks, and they can with us in EU.
Who said anything about tit for tat regulations? They might decide, indeed this has been proposed, to put heavy restictions of Eurozone companies using the City for capital raising and other transactions. We're protected against that in the EU, with the protecton enhanced by the renegotiation. In the other two scenarios, we wouldn't be.
The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.
What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.
Of course. What did anyone expect?
The other side are just as bad, indeed worse, implying we'll be overrun with zillions of terrorists if we Remain.
Welcome to politics.
Can we quote you on that if there is a terrorist attack in London this year ?
DavidL has it completely right. We need different time of QMV inside EU and Cameron has failed to get it. That means the EU can pass whatever regulations they want over City and we have to obey.
I wasn't talking about EU rules. I was talking about rules regulating our own economy. Given that we won't be in EU, EU rules would not apply to our companies. (Other than their exports to EU.)
That's true (except to the extent that we opt back in). That's not relevant to the particular point we are talking about.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
It's heading that way.
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
The EU prevents terrorism, WW3 and bunches of migrants coming here from Calais. If you are feeling particularly generous and are willing to accept completely made up figures, the EU means that every family is £3,000 better off.
''They might decide, indeed this has been proposed, to put heavy restrictions of Eurzone companies using the City for capital raising and other transactions. We're protected against that in the EU, with the protecton enhanced by the renegotiation. In the other two scenarios, we wouldn't be. ''
I'm not sure that's even legal under WTO rules, but fair enough. True, if we left we would lose some business. If we have our sovereignty we can adjust things so that other parts of the world can maybe take up some of the slack.
But given the EU's attitude to the City, if we stay in, we will lose it all eventually, because that is what they want. Everything.
The way the narrative is going at present everything David Cameron is trying to achieve has failed and that he is losing the argument. I think he should have continued his viewpoint that the deal was not yet done and that he still has work to do and avoid entering controversial topics. The whole debate will change once (and if) the deal is done later this month as everyone enters the debate and the narrative will change to those wanting out to lay out a competent believable alternative that ensures our trade, protects our financial services and the Country's security. Above all else they have to convince the undecided that they can prevent free movement of labour by being out of the EU.
They can try to do tit for tat restrictions but will be limited by any trade deal we sign. They can't directly legislate over our banks, and they can with us in EU.
Who said anything about tit for tat regulations? They might decide, indeed this has been proposed, to put heavy restictions of Eurzone companies using the City for capital raising and other transactions. We're protected against that in the EU, with the protecton enhanced by the renegotiation. In the other two scenarios, we wouldn't be.
If they tried to stop Eurozone companies from doing bond sales or IPOs in London, New York and Hong Kong they would be screwing their entire economy. Companies would just leave EU to get cheaper credit. More likely is very harmful regulations just on finance sector, which would hurt us too if we stayed in. For example, if they banned banker bonuses. Outside EU we could ignore it, inside EU we could not.
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate: (1) lots of people don't know their NI number by heart (me for one - it's a cultural myth to believe that otherwise) and aren't sure where to lay their hands on it (I know because I do my self-assessment, lots of people don't) (2) you need to either hunt down the website or get hold of the form.
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
Weak. If someone can't be bothered to find their NI number, they're probably not that interested in voting.
Besides as has been pointed out already, the number's normally on a payslip. Unless someone is being paid cash in hand, in which case they don't deserve a vote.
Probably best to restrict the vote to people who own property too.
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate: (1) lots of people don't know their NI number by heart (me for one - it's a cultural myth to believe that otherwise) and aren't sure where to lay their hands on it (I know because I do my self-assessment, lots of people don't) (2) you need to either hunt down the website or get hold of the form.
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
Weak. If someone can't be bothered to find their NI number, they're probably not that interested in voting.
Besides as has been pointed out already, the number's normally on a payslip. Unless someone is being paid cash in hand, in which case they don't deserve a vote.
Probably best to restrict the vote to people who own property too.
The sensible suggestion is, of course, to restrict it to those who vote Tory.
Yeah, yeah: that was a speech. and some time ago. A speech is just words. It does not amount to any action at all. A speech has no legal standing whatsoever.
What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?
Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.
There are two aspects to that: what we want, and how best to get it.
Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?
(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.
(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.
If you agree with me so far, there are three main scenarios to consider:
1) We stay in, on the renegotiated terms. As part of that, we've explicitly agreed not to block (b), they've explicitly agreed to (c). We have the original treaty protections against discrimination, plus the extra protection of the renegotiation and formal acknowledgement that the EU is a multi-currency union. Yes it is legally binding. Yes we can go to court to enforce it. Yes government and EU lawyers have opined upon it.
[Snipped] .
1. Formal acknowledgement that there is more than one currency in the EU. Well, wow! And how - exactly - does that protect us from the Eurozone outvoting us via QMV and enacting rules which disadvantage the UK and the UK's financial services sector?
2. Where does it say that it is legally binding? We've already had various EU institutions saying that it isn't.
3. "Yes we can go to court to enforce it." Well, what is "it" exactly, given that that whatever "it" might be now, "it" might be changed after the referendum. This goes back the question I posed to you at the end of last week (to which I never got an answer). Is this agreement justiciable? And if so what do previous decisions by the ECJ on similar wording indicate to us about how such an agreement will be interpreted?
3. "Yes government and EU lawyers have opined on it." Really? Where?
And, we'd lose three million jobs too, if we left.
It looks to me that the government have hit the panic button awfully early. I do wonder if there is some private polling that paints an even worse picture for Remain than the public polls. They certainly aren't acting as though they are confident of carrying the public support on the back of the renegotiation.
It takes almost no effort to register to vote and then to go out and vote at most a couple of times a year or to return a postal vote. If people can't be bothered to do such a small thing, then their views are not worth worrying about. I asked my 24 year old niece who is a schoolteacher who she would vote for, her reply was that she wasn't interested and didn't know much about politics. Knowing that I have stood in elections before, she asked me what my party was, I replied UKIP and she said that she would vote for that then. This is what I think would happen, younger people who are not interested in politics would simply vote the same way as their parents or other relatives. Many people have suffered and died to give us the right to vote and to preserve that right but they also gave us the right not to vote if that's what we choose to do.
I wasn't talking about EU rules. I was talking about rules regulating our own economy. Given that we won't be in EU, EU rules would not apply to our companies. (Other than their exports to EU.)
That's true (except to the extent that we opt back in). That's not relevant to the particular point we are talking about.
We were talking about protection from Eurozone. Any bad regulation, including on the finance sector, supported by the Eurozone we would have to just swallow inside EU. Not so outside EU.
If they tried to stop Eurozone companies from doing bond sales or IPOs in London, New York and Hong Kong they would be screwing their entire economy. Companies would just leave EU to get cheaper credit. More likely is very harmful regulations just on finance sector, which would hurt us too if we stayed in. For example, if they banned banker bonuses. Outside EU we could ignore it, inside EU we could not.
Outside the EU, but inside the EEA, we couldn't ignore it, at least not without being subject to potential sanctions including in the limit being denied access to the Single Market for financial services.
Outside the EU and EEA, yes of course we could ignore it. Whether we could also negotiate access to the Single Market for financial services is moot; I doubt it, but that is precisely the kind of issue which I had naively hoped the Leave side would consider.
The way the narrative is going at present everything David Cameron is trying to achieve has failed and that he is losing the argument. I think he should have continued his viewpoint that the deal was not yet done and that he still has work to do and avoid entering controversial topics. The whole debate will change once (and if) the deal is done later this month as everyone enters the debate and the narrative will change to those wanting out to lay out a competent believable alternative that ensures our trade, protects our financial services and the Country's security. Above all else they have to convince the undecided that they can prevent free movement of labour by being out of the EU.
In essence, the argument for Remain is we're powerless, doomed, finished, regardless of what course of action we choose. But, it will be the worse for us if we vote Leave.
And it may work. But, I suspect it will be a pyrrhic victory.
''What does that mean? You think that parliament can legislate to stop the Eurozone doing things to damage the City if we're not EU or even EEA members? I'm all ears, tell me how. ''
The government can't do that now!! Richard, the EU are going to try to f8ck the City whether we are in or out. Let's face it. If we are out, at least we emerge with our sovereignty intact. And I reckon we will save a good deal of what the City has if we can decide our own destiny.
The bit that Richard is trying hard to gloss over is that inside the EU their regulations apply to our trade with everyone, in every country. Outside the EU, even in the EEA their regulations apply just to our trade with the EU. Big difference. At the moment our exports to say Japan have to comply with EU standards, even if the Japanese don't give a crap about EU standards and want us to apply their own, so we have to apply two sets of standards, all our non-EU competitors just have to comply with the Japanese standards. Talk about pricing yourself out of a market.
For example, if they banned banker bonuses. Outside EU we could ignore it, inside EU we could not.
Is there a single piece of regulation or legislation being brought in by the EU that isn't being brought in with the express aim of destroying the City???
Stay in and we will lose everything. They will keep the City until we have surrendered sovereignty completely and then when we have no power they will utterly destroy it.
The way the narrative is going at present everything David Cameron is trying to achieve has failed and that he is losing the argument. I think he should have continued his viewpoint that the deal was not yet done and that he still has work to do and avoid entering controversial topics. The whole debate will change once (and if) the deal is done later this month as everyone enters the debate and the narrative will change to those wanting out to lay out a competent believable alternative that ensures our trade, protects our financial services and the Country's security. Above all else they have to convince the undecided that they can prevent free movement of labour by being out of the EU.
In essence, the argument for Remain is we're powerless, doomed, finished, regardless of what course of action we choose. But, it will be the worse for us if we vote Leave.
And it may work. But, I suspect it will be a pyrrhic victory.
...and that's just from a bloke who "wasn't sure" which way he'd vote this time last week
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
4. We assume our parliament is sovereign for all matters including immigration and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away for trade in any circumstances.
And then we get what we can on trade with the EU, subject to those principles.
What does that mean? You think that parliament can legislate to stop the Eurozone doing things to damage the City if we're not EU or even EEA members? I'm all ears, tell me how.
Mr. Nabavi, The City does a lot of business with the EU countries it also does a lot more with the USA, China, South Korea and so on. Any of those countries could introduce legislation that could hurt the City. Is there any particular reason that I should be worried as to why, specifically and singularly, the EU might?
Once again Cameron's argument being torn apart within hours:
The French interior minister last year rubbished the idea promoted by Cameron today that France might tear up their agreement with Britain on border controls if we left the EU. Bernard Cazeneuve said:
“Calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution. It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue. It is a foolhardy path, and one the government will not pursue. On the contrary, we’re going to make the border even more watertight to dissuade smugglers and migrants, respect international rules and reduce the pressure on Calais.”
And, we'd lose three million jobs too, if we left.
It looks to me that the government have hit the panic button awfully early. I do wonder if there is some private polling that paints an even worse picture for Remain than the public polls. They certainly aren't acting as though they are confident of carrying the public support on the back of the renegotiation.
I think they've been spooked by the public reaction to the renegotiation. No doubt their private polling is replicating the Yougov findings.
1. Formal acknowledgement that there is more than one currency in the EU. Well, wow! And how - exactly - does that protect us from the Eurozone outvoting us via QMV and enacting rules which disadvantage the UK and the UK's financial services sector?
2. Where does it say that it is legally binding? We've already had various EU institutions saying that it isn't.
3. "Yes we can go to court to enforce it." Well, what is "it" exactly, given that that whatever "it" might be now, "it" might be changed after the referendum. This goes back the question I posed to you at the end of last week (to which I never got an answer). Is this agreement justiciable? And if so what do previous decisions by the ECJ on similar wording indicate to us about how such an agreement will be interpreted?
3. "Yes government and EU lawyers have opined on it." Really? Where?
Have you actually read the draft agreement? All those points are covered.
Mr. Nabavi, The City does a lot of business with the EU countries it also does a lot more with the USA, China, South Korea and so on. Any of those countries could introduce legislation that could hurt the City. Is there any particular reason that I should be worried as to why, specifically and singularly, the EU might?
Yes, because we have tighter integration with the EU, for example 'financial passporting rights'.
Mr. D, indeed, if it's true then it's literally distorting the evidence by making a certain time period, during which a crime was alleged to have occurred, appear twice as long.
1. Formal acknowledgement that there is more than one currency in the EU. Well, wow! And how - exactly - does that protect us from the Eurozone outvoting us via QMV and enacting rules which disadvantage the UK and the UK's financial services sector?
2. Where does it say that it is legally binding? We've already had various EU institutions saying that it isn't.
3. "Yes we can go to court to enforce it." Well, what is "it" exactly, given that that whatever "it" might be now, "it" might be changed after the referendum. This goes back the question I posed to you at the end of last week (to which I never got an answer). Is this agreement justiciable? And if so what do previous decisions by the ECJ on similar wording indicate to us about how such an agreement will be interpreted?
3. "Yes government and EU lawyers have opined on it." Really? Where?
Have you actually read the draft agreement? All those points are covered.
Your credibility is falling as far as that of your lord and master I am afraid. The DRAFT agreement, yet to be approved by the Council, and then to be modified and possible discarded by the European Parliament, is legally worthless, its a proposal by Mr Tusk and his advisers. You still havent told us about this government advise that is is worth more than spit.
This is the bit that makes the whole thing pointless:
Mr Schulz also said that MEPs could amend some of David Cameron's EU reforms after the referendum, telling Sky News that "nothing is irreversible", in apparent contradiction of Mr Cameron's claims that they would be binding.
This is the guy making the proposal lets remember.
If they tried to stop Eurozone companies from doing bond sales or IPOs in London, New York and Hong Kong they would be screwing their entire economy. Companies would just leave EU to get cheaper credit. More likely is very harmful regulations just on finance sector, which would hurt us too if we stayed in. For example, if they banned banker bonuses. Outside EU we could ignore it, inside EU we could not.
Outside the EU, but inside the EEA, we couldn't ignore it, at least not without being subject to potential sanctions including in the limit being denied access to the Single Market for financial services.
Outside the EU and EEA, yes of course we could ignore it. Whether we could also negotiate access to the Single Market for financial services is moot; I doubt it, but that is precisely the kind of issue which I had naively hoped the Leave side would consider.
So I think we're in agreement. Outside the EU/EEA the 85% of our economy that does not go to the EU would be protected against Eurozone hegemony in a way we would not inside the EU. Inside the EU the 15% of our economy that goes to EU will get protection for equal treatment from European courts but can not stop new regulations from Eurozone that is bad in an equal fashion.
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
''Is there any particular reason that I should be worried as to why, specifically and singularly, the EU might?''
IF we stay inside the EU, then the eurocrats will have the power to destroy the City entirely.
Outside the EU and any EEA agreement they can hit that part of the City that deals with the eurozone.
They want us to stay in so that they can destroy it entirely.
That's our choice. See the City destroyed entirely, or go completely independent and save some of it. Because make no mistake, they want to destroy it.
However, I've seen proposals in the past for a lottery-style prize based on ballot papers. You vote, your voting card number goes into the prize draw. If a few million was on offer that might push up voting. Personally, I'm against. If you can't be bothered to vote, then don't expect your views or needs to be taken into account. But it's an idea.
There are two aspects to that: what we want, and how best to get it.
Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?
(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.
(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.
[Snipped]
What we should be getting is an agreement which means that the UK cannot be forced by the Eurozone to agree to laws which have the effect of or risk damaging the UK's financial sector i.e. some sort of veto. That is important because this sector is a very important one for the UK economy. See, for instance, the proposed FTT - a measure which while aimed only at the Eurozone would - in its original form - have damaged the City. How would this proposal which you seem to think is the best he could ever have possibly got (Brown having given the game away, pre-Lisbon, yadda, yadda) have stopped tha?. The PM should have insisted on this in the same way that the French have dug their heels in over the CAP and agriculture.
Instead of which he's come back with some flim flam wording which I'm willing to predict will achieve precisely nothing.
The EEA may not give us any better protection. I agree that Leave's prospectus is full of holes - but the Remain case was meant to be - and in my view has to be - much more than "Well it could be worse and you'll get blown up if you leave".
At the moment the EZ has the ECB but very little else in the way of formal institutions. Their various agreements about deficits etc have proven practically impossible to enforce. The result is the sort of nonsense we had in Greece where people thought they had the right to spend more euros because they voted for it (bit like Labour party really). What the crisis made clear is that the Euros are not Greek's money, it is the collective money of all the member states through the ECB.
So we have a central bank which really has very little in the way of political control over it. This tends to mean that the strongest member, Germany, gets its way a disproportionate portion of the time. It is hardly surprising that other member States, such as France, want more democratic organisations, such as a EZ Parliament, to control that power and have a say on how their central bank operates.
How do we fit this into the EU? Well, they would say, ideally, all EU members become Euro members and then you can use the existing institutions and safeguards that have built up over the decades. But they can't do that when Britain, 12% of the EU, says it is never going to join. It doesn't help they keep electing those UKIP fruitcakes to pollute the place either.
What Cameron said he was going to ask for is not easy because the UK is preventing important parts of the agenda proceeding and the EZ pays consequences for that in an excessively tight monetary framework imposed as a result of German obsessions. I think he has tried to get the second level of QMV for non EZ members and been told that the UK cannot have a veto. We are already by far the largest non EZ country and may become even more dominant in the future if other smaller countries join the Euro.
This is genuinely difficult and all the superficial abuse about how Cameron cannot be bothered or is being humiliated etc really doesn't come close to addressing the seriousness of the question. But, in my view, it comes to this: either the EU reconciles itself to two different categories of membership with adequate protections or we have to leave. I really think this is that critical.
So I think we're in agreement. Outside the EU/EEA the 85% of our economy that does not go to the EU would be protected against Eurozone hegemony in a way we would not inside the EU. Inside the EU the 15% of our economy that goes to EU will get protection for equal treatment from European courts but can not stop new regulations from Eurozone that is bad in an equal fashion.
If the Leave were arguing that, then that would be coherent. Alternatively, if they were arguing the EEA route, that would also be coherent. What is not coherent is to choose some bits from one and some mutually exclusive bits from the other, and use both as arguments in favour of Leave.
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
They very quickly learn to eat in safe places (not 'safe place' in the Uni sense) and will revisit. They will devastate a wide range of ornamental plants in a very short time.
Exceedingly destructive garden pests. Beautiful animals in the wild.
The most important development regarding the EU ref, is that Cameron is no longer trying to convince people that he will strike a good deal. He has shifted from reforming the relationship with the EU to scare people to accept the present status quo with the EU.
He's changed from the EU can become better, to its this or death.
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
Go away you relentless bore.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
What we should be getting is an agreement which means that the UK cannot be forced by the Eurozone to agree to laws which have the effect of or risk damaging the UK's financial sector i.e. some sort of veto. That is important because this sector is a very important one for the UK economy.
We will NEVER get that. Ever. The EU wants to go the other way. They look upon our financial market with a mixture of envy, hatred and dread.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
At the moment the EZ has the ECB but very little else in the way of formal institutions. Their various agreements about deficits etc have proven practically impossible to enforce. The result is the sort of nonsense we had in Greece where people thought they had the right to spend more euros because they voted for it (bit like Labour party really). What the crisis made clear is that the Euros are not Greek's money, it is the collective money of all the member states through the ECB.
So we have a central bank which really has very little in the way of political control over it. This tends to mean that the strongest member, Germany, gets its way a disproportionate portion of the time. It is hardly surprising that other member States, such as France, want more democratic organisations, such as a EZ Parliament, to control that power and have a say on how their central bank operates.
How do we fit this into the EU? Well, they would say, ideally, all EU members become Euro members and then you can use the existing institutions and safeguards that have built up over the decades. But they can't do that when Britain, 12% of the EU, says it is never going to join. It doesn't help they keep electing those UKIP fruitcakes to pollute the place either.
What Cameron said he was going to ask for is not easy because the UK is preventing important parts of the agenda proceeding and the EZ pays consequences for that in an excessively tight monetary framework imposed as a result of German obsessions. I think he has tried to get the second level of QMV for non EZ members and been told that the UK cannot have a veto. We are already by far the largest non EZ country and may become even more dominant in the future if other smaller countries join the Euro.
This is genuinely difficult and all the superficial abuse about how Cameron cannot be bothered or is being humiliated etc really doesn't come close to addressing the seriousness of the question. But, in my view, it comes to this: either the EU reconciles itself to two different categories of membership with adequate protections or we have to leave. I really think this is that critical.
The ECB being (1) undemocratic and (2) quite German is a feature, not a bug. It was deliberately set up not to have too much political control on the model of the Bundesbank, which it was believed (rightly, IMO), to have proven successful in the past. Indeed, it's improbable that the Germans would have signed up to any significantly different model.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
No, it just requires the discussion to be dominated by groupthink from one side.
Even if we had only got a protection that required us to get most other non-Euro countries together to block a Eurozone position would have been enough for me to support Remain. Would have even leaned Remain if we had needed universal opposition from non-Euro countries. But how can we possibly support being in a position where anything a united Eurozone proposes passes as UK law with zero check?? Especially when noises for Eurozone integration have already started (e.g. France and German centrak banks supporting joint treasury) and Cameron has pledged to stand aside!! The UK vis-a-vis the EU would be the same situation as Pitcairn vis-a-vis the UK in every area that EU has QMV, which is A LOT.
1. Formal acknowledgement that there is more than one currency in the EU. Well, wow! And how - exactly - does that protect us from the Eurozone outvoting us via QMV and enacting rules which disadvantage the UK and the UK's financial services sector?
2. Where does it say that it is legally binding? We've already had various EU institutions saying that it isn't.
3. "Yes we can go to court to enforce it." Well, what is "it" exactly, given that that whatever "it" might be now, "it" might be changed after the referendum. This goes back the question I posed to you at the end of last week (to which I never got an answer). Is this agreement justiciable? And if so what do previous decisions by the ECJ on similar wording indicate to us about how such an agreement will be interpreted?
3. "Yes government and EU lawyers have opined on it." Really? Where?
Have you actually read the draft agreement? All those points are covered.
We went through this last week. I have been involved in EU negotiations - the Single European Act, as it happens - and only one v tiny piece of it where I played an infinitesimally insignificant part. Nonetheless, my experience there taught me that much of the wording that gets presented by the politicians to the public amounts to nothing very much.
The real stuff is done behind the scenes and is often very different to what is presented for public consumption.
You can choose to believe that the UK's interests - if they conflict with the Eurozone - are protected. But they aren't. And those who vote Remain, which may be for other and honourable reasons, of course, need to understand this, do this with their eyes open and, above all, not try and pretend that all is for the best in this Panglossian EU world.
Cameron is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It demeans him and insults us. He would do better to argue the case for the EU as it is and for what it is going to become and use his gifts to persuade us why that is good for the UK instead of coming out with this piffle.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
No, it just requires the discussion to be dominated by groupthink from one side.
At the moment the EZ has the ECB but very little else in the way of formal institutions. Their various agreements about deficits etc have proven practically impossible to enforce. The result is the sort of nonsense we had in Greece where people thought they had the right to spend more euros because they voted for it (bit like Labour party really). What the crisis made clear is that the Euros are not Greek's money, it is the collective money of all the member states through the ECB.
So we have a central bank which really has very little in the way of political control over it. This tends to mean that the strongest member, Germany, gets its way a disproportionate portion of the time. It is hardly surprising that other member States, such as France, want more democratic organisations, such as a EZ Parliament, to control that power and have a say on how their central bank operates.
How do we fit this into the EU? Well, they would say, ideally, all EU members become Euro members and then you can use the existing institutions and safeguards that have built up over the decades. But they can't do that when Britain, 12% of the EU, says it is never going to join. It doesn't help they keep electing those UKIP fruitcakes to pollute the place either.
What Cameron said he was going to ask for is not easy because the UK is preventing important parts of the agenda proceeding and the EZ pays consequences for that in an excessively tight monetary framework imposed as a result of German obsessions. I think he has tried to get the second level of QMV for non EZ members and been told that the UK cannot have a veto. We are already by far the largest non EZ country and may become even more dominant in the future if other smaller countries join the Euro.
This is genuinely difficult and all the superficial abuse about how Cameron cannot be bothered or is being humiliated etc really doesn't come close to addressing the seriousness of the question. But, in my view, it comes to this: either the EU reconciles itself to two different categories of membership with adequate protections or we have to leave. I really think this is that critical.
The ECB being (1) undemocratic and (2) quite German is a feature, not a bug. It was deliberately set up not to have too much political control on the model of the Bundesbank, which it was believed (rightly, IMO), to have proven successful in the past. Indeed, it's improbable that the Germans would have signed up to any significantly different model.
I think that is right David but the crisis has brought home to the other Member States what the consequences are and they don't like it. You should hear the Portuguese view of Germans these days. They blame them for mass unemployment.
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
Go away you relentless bore.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
No, I won't go away.
As for ignoring my posts; you didn't when I've helped you out in the past, given you pointers to a few things that might be of interest.
And someone who seems to worship Enoch Powell and finds any excuse to post his words is not in a position to call other people a 'relentless bore'.
I don't know why everyone bothers with Richard's inane arguments. There is little point arguing with someone who will never deviate from party line. All that time could be spent preparing arguments for use when out campaigning to leave the EU.
You can choose to believe that the UK's interests - if they conflict with the Eurozone - are protected. But they aren't.
So you say. That's a judgement.
My point still remains. Even if you are 100% right, I really cannot see how anyone with a straight face could possibly claim they are better protected if we leave and join the EEA (or agree something similar). Alternatively, if we leave and don't go for an EEA-style deal, there are other problems.
That is the choice we are being asked to make, and is why - in the absence of any explanation from anyone as to how I might have got this wrong - I shall be voting Remain.
It's not a vote of confidence in the EU, or a vote of desperation, or negative, it is simply based on my conclusion that the case for the alternative has not been made. Even more important, I am extremely struck by the fact that the Leave side seem almost completely uninterested in making the case.
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
Go away you relentless bore.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
No, I won't go away.
As for ignoring my posts; you didn't when I've helped you out in the past, given you pointers to a few things that might be of interest.
And someone who seems to worship Enoch Powell and finds any excuse to post his words is not in a position to call other people a 'relentless bore'.
With that out of the way, the final tracking polls show both Trump and Rubio going down, Kasich ,Bush and Christie going up.
I wish it were true for Christie as I have a wild bet on him stunning everyone and winning NH. But as far as I can see he was around 10-12% before Xmas and he is now around 5-6% and has been most of the new year.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
I don't know why everyone bothers with Richard's inane arguments. There is little point arguing with someone who will never deviate from party line. All that time could be spent preparing arguments for use when out campaigning to leave the EU.
I for one respect Mr Nabavi’s input to EU discussions & would hate to see him driven off PB.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
Go away you relentless bore.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
No, I won't go away.
As for ignoring my posts; you didn't when I've helped you out in the past, given you pointers to a few things that might be of interest.
And someone who seems to worship Enoch Powell and finds any excuse to post his words is not in a position to call other people a 'relentless bore'.
In all honest I wish we weren't having this referendum, now. It's come at the worst time, when even the smartest analyst cannot foresee what is going to happen to the EU, from eurozone governance to migration.
I'm reluctantly voting LEAVE - as of today, who knows tomorrow - but what if I'm wrong? I could damage my daughter's economic prospects. Equally, I could vote REMAIN and my worst fears about the EU come true, and I condemn my daughter (in my minuscule way) to live in a slow-growth country, with increasingly shrivelled prospects.
Cancel the referendum. Let's wait and see what happens to the EU. Have it in five years time. The deal changes nothing anyway, so it will be status quo ante.
Cancel!
If the UK holds a referendum, votes Leave, and the EU collapses shortly afterwards, we'll be hated by a lot of Europeans for having got it right, again. But if we don't hold one and it collapses we can avoid that problem.
I don't know why everyone bothers with Richard's inane arguments. There is little point arguing with someone who will never deviate from party line. All that time could be spent preparing arguments for use when out campaigning to leave the EU.
I for one respect Mr Nabavi’s input to EU discussions & would hate to see him driven off PB.
Seconded. He is absolutely right to point out we are not being given a clear choice of A or B. What would happen in the event of a Leave vote is uncertain and that needs to be weighed in the balance.
As I say, I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
I cant imagine a situation where I was unsure whether to choose one option or the other but only ever criticised one of the points of view... it must be bordering on some kind of mental illness
And here you show your true colours.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
Go away you relentless bore.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
No, I won't go away.
As for ignoring my posts; you didn't when I've helped you out in the past, given you pointers to a few things that might be of interest.
And someone who seems to worship Enoch Powell and finds any excuse to post his words is not in a position to call other people a 'relentless bore'.
With that out of the way, the final tracking polls show both Trump and Rubio going down, Kasich ,Bush and Christie going up.
I wish it were true for Christie as I have a wild bet on him stunning everyone and winning NH. But as far as I can see he was around 10-12% before Xmas and he is now around 5-6% and has been most of the new year.
The biggest problem is that there might be no polling that will be conducted entirely after Saturday's GOP debate, in Iowa most pollsters stopped polling days before the vote, already one of the N.H. trackers has stopped polling yesterday.
I don't know if ARG and CNN will continue polling, with 30% undecideds and no polling to show if there is a late swing coupled with the weather, it's very risky.
Weak. If someone can't be bothered to find their NI number, they're probably not that interested in voting.
Besides as has been pointed out already, the number's normally on a payslip. Unless someone is being paid cash in hand, in which case they don't deserve a vote.
(1) Not everyone is employed. It's a bit weird that you're so bubble-ensconced that you aren't aware of that. (2) Of those that are employed, not everyone keeps their payslips in an organised, easily-retrievable way. (3) Universal franchise is not supposed to be dependent on whether you're "that interested" (or indeed whether you are evading tax).
The system falls short of successfully registering everyone who is entitled to vote, and it falls short in a way that works against areas that are more urban, less organised, less educated and less employed. You might find the outcome politically gratifying, but in principle it's not ideal, any more than a requirement that everyone had to register at their nearest large city would be.
In all honest I wish we weren't having this referendum, now. It's come at the worst time, when even the smartest analyst cannot foresee what is going to happen to the EU, from eurozone governance to migration.
I'm reluctantly voting LEAVE - as of today, who knows tomorrow - but what if I'm wrong? I could damage my daughter's economic prospects. Equally, I could vote REMAIN and my worst fears about the EU come true, and I condemn my daughter (in my minuscule way) to live in a slow-growth country, with increasingly shrivelled prospects.
Cancel the referendum. Let's wait and see what happens to the EU. Have it in five years time. The deal changes nothing anyway, so it will be status quo ante.
Cancel!
If the UK holds a referendum, votes Leave, and the EU collapses shortly afterwards, we'll be hated by a lot of Europeans for having got it right, again. But if we don't hold one and it collapses we can avoid that problem.
On the other hand, if it collapses and we're still in, we might well get stuck with the contagion. If we're out we might be able to insulate ourselves somewhat. Perhaps. But we'll almost certainly be able to look after our own interests better. After all, the EU behaved fairly disgracefully over Greece et al, and I can see no reason to think they've learnt anything.
In all honest I wish we weren't having this referendum, now. It's come at the worst time, when even the smartest analyst cannot foresee what is going to happen to the EU, from eurozone governance to migration.
I'm reluctantly voting LEAVE - as of today, who knows tomorrow - but what if I'm wrong? I could damage my daughter's economic prospects. Equally, I could vote REMAIN and my worst fears about the EU come true, and I condemn my daughter (in my minuscule way) to live in a slow-growth country, with increasingly shrivelled prospects.
Cancel the referendum. Let's wait and see what happens to the EU. Have it in five years time. The deal changes nothing anyway, so it will be status quo ante.
Cancel!
Your daughter has a wealthy father. She can live anywhere in the world that pleases her. She must be both proud and grateful that you can provide those options for her.
For all the huffing and puffing on here, think of all the wild and whacky things that have happened in our lifetimes - most of which were not predicted by the experts. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to the fall of the USSR to 9/11 to the '08 crash. Life goes on, sometimes better, sometimes worse. We can't insure against the future - we just have to get on with it!
I still think the worst result for the referendum is anything like the staus quo.
In an organisation that has to coalesce around the Euro for survival we are at best semi detached as non members of the Euro.
I know it will take me a while to work out, but will the direction of travel be best for the members who share the Euro and have a common interest of the odd ball grumpy people who don't join the Euro and look on from the outside?
So tough to answer.
Belonging to a group where you don't share common aims, goals and objectives is a thankless task, and one that will continue to cause future friction.
Either go for it join the Euro and fully commit hook line and sinker or leave.
Any other option is an invitation for years of problems and disharmony within UK and within EU. The least sustainable position is our current (or renegotiated) relationship with the EU.
Comments
Sure, most people who are really motivated can hunt out both easily enough, but people who move frequently (short-term renters, very common in London) have to be really into politics to make it worth doing. And people on the fringes of organised society - the homeless, people whose English is poor, etc. - have no chance unless someone helps.
It is possible to argue that the franchise should be restricted to people who are reasonably well-informed and motivated. But that's not, in theory, how universal franchise is supposed to work, and if it's what we want we should have an exam, not just a practical hurdle. To add injury to insult (sic), constituencies are drawn on the assumption that people in this category don't exist at all - not just that they're not that interested.
That will vastly outnumber self assesment people.
Also, in case 3, we won't be governed by every new law the EU wants to pass at any point in future. Our exports to the EU will be but the other 85% of our econony is not.
If we remain in we remain bound by all the rules. If we come out we are bound by their rules for trade within the EU. If we remain in we remain the second largest contributor to the EU budget and are projected to become the largest single contributor. If we come out we will inevitably have to pay something but quite likely considerably less. If we remain in under anything like current arrangements our contributions to the EU budget can be allocated by QMV. The risk is QMV=EZ. I think we agree on that.
We need a different kind of QMV. One that recognises that there are at least 2 classes of membership and will be for a long time, possibly forever. Cameron has talked about it but so far as I can see he hasn't got it.
Really, of all the silly arguments (and there are many), the idea that we'd have more say in EU rules outside the EU than in it is one of the most bonkers.
The government can't do that now!! Richard, the EU are going to try to f8ck the City whether we are in or out. Let's face it. If we are out, at least we emerge with our sovereignty intact. And I reckon we will save a good deal of what the City has if we can decide our own destiny.
Much safer than having nothing to do with it
2+2=5
Besides as has been pointed out already, the number's normally on a payslip. Unless someone is being paid cash in hand, in which case they don't deserve a vote.
He knows that, but will keep repeating it anyway.
The 'fax democracy' argument is entirely dishonest and notably hasn't convinced the voters in Norway, where it originated...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35521801
Out of the EU we can choose who we let in
I'm not sure that's even legal under WTO rules, but fair enough. True, if we left we would lose some business. If we have our sovereignty we can adjust things so that other parts of the world can maybe take up some of the slack.
But given the EU's attitude to the City, if we stay in, we will lose it all eventually, because that is what they want. Everything.
Surely everyone has got this now? For the zillionth time, there's no difference, it's the same EU Directive which applies.
Very underhand of the CPS if true.
2. Where does it say that it is legally binding? We've already had various EU institutions saying that it isn't.
3. "Yes we can go to court to enforce it." Well, what is "it" exactly, given that that whatever "it" might be now, "it" might be changed after the referendum. This goes back the question I posed to you at the end of last week (to which I never got an answer). Is this agreement justiciable? And if so what do previous decisions by the ECJ on similar wording indicate to us about how such an agreement will be interpreted?
3. "Yes government and EU lawyers have opined on it." Really? Where?
If people can't be bothered to do such a small thing, then their views are not worth worrying about.
I asked my 24 year old niece who is a schoolteacher who she would vote for, her reply was that she wasn't interested and didn't know much about politics. Knowing that I have stood in elections before, she asked me what my party was, I replied UKIP and she said that she would vote for that then.
This is what I think would happen, younger people who are not interested in politics would simply vote the same way as their parents or other relatives.
Many people have suffered and died to give us the right to vote and to preserve that right but they also gave us the right not to vote if that's what we choose to do.
Outside the EU and EEA, yes of course we could ignore it. Whether we could also negotiate access to the Single Market for financial services is moot; I doubt it, but that is precisely the kind of issue which I had naively hoped the Leave side would consider.
And it may work. But, I suspect it will be a pyrrhic victory.
Is there a single piece of regulation or legislation being brought in by the EU that isn't being brought in with the express aim of destroying the City???
Stay in and we will lose everything. They will keep the City until we have surrendered sovereignty completely and then when we have no power they will utterly destroy it.
This is the bit that makes the whole thing pointless: This is the guy making the proposal lets remember.
IF we stay inside the EU, then the eurocrats will have the power to destroy the City entirely.
Outside the EU and any EEA agreement they can hit that part of the City that deals with the eurozone.
They want us to stay in so that they can destroy it entirely.
That's our choice. See the City destroyed entirely, or go completely independent and save some of it. Because make no mistake, they want to destroy it.
Of course, on his point, he is trivially right. No agreement between any number of parties is irreversible, if the parties choose to reverse it.
However, I've seen proposals in the past for a lottery-style prize based on ballot papers. You vote, your voting card number goes into the prize draw. If a few million was on offer that might push up voting. Personally, I'm against. If you can't be bothered to vote, then don't expect your views or needs to be taken into account. But it's an idea.
MEPs could amend some of David Cameron's EU reforms after the referendum
Not the parties, the EU Parliament.
Instead of which he's come back with some flim flam wording which I'm willing to predict will achieve precisely nothing.
The EEA may not give us any better protection. I agree that Leave's prospectus is full of holes - but the Remain case was meant to be - and in my view has to be - much more than "Well it could be worse and you'll get blown up if you leave".
So we have a central bank which really has very little in the way of political control over it. This tends to mean that the strongest member, Germany, gets its way a disproportionate portion of the time. It is hardly surprising that other member States, such as France, want more democratic organisations, such as a EZ Parliament, to control that power and have a say on how their central bank operates.
How do we fit this into the EU? Well, they would say, ideally, all EU members become Euro members and then you can use the existing institutions and safeguards that have built up over the decades. But they can't do that when Britain, 12% of the EU, says it is never going to join. It doesn't help they keep electing those UKIP fruitcakes to pollute the place either.
What Cameron said he was going to ask for is not easy because the UK is preventing important parts of the agenda proceeding and the EZ pays consequences for that in an excessively tight monetary framework imposed as a result of German obsessions. I think he has tried to get the second level of QMV for non EZ members and been told that the UK cannot have a veto. We are already by far the largest non EZ country and may become even more dominant in the future if other smaller countries join the Euro.
This is genuinely difficult and all the superficial abuse about how Cameron cannot be bothered or is being humiliated etc really doesn't come close to addressing the seriousness of the question. But, in my view, it comes to this: either the EU reconciles itself to two different categories of membership with adequate protections or we have to leave. I really think this is that critical.
Urgh.
Read my post fpt about why someone might do just that. Start by considering that not everyone might be quite so religiously certain of the arguments as you are (and perhaps have put a great deal more thought into them than you have).
I shouldn't let them do that.
They very quickly learn to eat in safe places (not 'safe place' in the Uni sense) and will revisit. They will devastate a wide range of ornamental plants in a very short time.
Exceedingly destructive garden pests. Beautiful animals in the wild.
He has shifted from reforming the relationship with the EU to scare people to accept the present status quo with the EU.
He's changed from the EU can become better, to its this or death.
I wasn't talking about you, I never am, because I find you deeply boring, so much so that, even as an argumentative person who rarely wants to leave an argument, I ignore your drivel for the greater good
Bore off about Turkey or Russia or something, because I am 100% not interested
We will NEVER get that. Ever. The EU wants to go the other way. They look upon our financial market with a mixture of envy, hatred and dread.
https://twitter.com/bpmehlman/status/696699218187198464
With that out of the way, the final tracking polls show both Trump and Rubio going down, Kasich ,Bush and Christie going up.
Excellent point.
Even if we had only got a protection that required us to get most other non-Euro countries together to block a Eurozone position would have been enough for me to support Remain. Would have even leaned Remain if we had needed universal opposition from non-Euro countries. But how can we possibly support being in a position where anything a united Eurozone proposes passes as UK law with zero check?? Especially when noises for Eurozone integration have already started (e.g. France and German centrak banks supporting joint treasury) and Cameron has pledged to stand aside!! The UK vis-a-vis the EU would be the same situation as Pitcairn vis-a-vis the UK in every area that EU has QMV, which is A LOT.
We went through this last week. I have been involved in EU negotiations - the Single European Act, as it happens - and only one v tiny piece of it where I played an infinitesimally insignificant part. Nonetheless, my experience there taught me that much of the wording that gets presented by the politicians to the public amounts to nothing very much.
The real stuff is done behind the scenes and is often very different to what is presented for public consumption.
You can choose to believe that the UK's interests - if they conflict with the Eurozone - are protected. But they aren't. And those who vote Remain, which may be for other and honourable reasons, of course, need to understand this, do this with their eyes open and, above all, not try and pretend that all is for the best in this Panglossian EU world.
Cameron is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It demeans him and insults us. He would do better to argue the case for the EU as it is and for what it is going to become and use his gifts to persuade us why that is good for the UK instead of coming out with this piffle.
As for ignoring my posts; you didn't when I've helped you out in the past, given you pointers to a few things that might be of interest.
And someone who seems to worship Enoch Powell and finds any excuse to post his words is not in a position to call other people a 'relentless bore'.
But in this day and age all pollsters are rubbish regardless of geographical location.
My point still remains. Even if you are 100% right, I really cannot see how anyone with a straight face could possibly claim they are better protected if we leave and join the EEA (or agree something similar). Alternatively, if we leave and don't go for an EEA-style deal, there are other problems.
That is the choice we are being asked to make, and is why - in the absence of any explanation from anyone as to how I might have got this wrong - I shall be voting Remain.
It's not a vote of confidence in the EU, or a vote of desperation, or negative, it is simply based on my conclusion that the case for the alternative has not been made. Even more important, I am extremely struck by the fact that the Leave side seem almost completely uninterested in making the case.
I don't know if ARG and CNN will continue polling, with 30% undecideds and no polling to show if there is a late swing coupled with the weather, it's very risky.
(2) Of those that are employed, not everyone keeps their payslips in an organised, easily-retrievable way.
(3) Universal franchise is not supposed to be dependent on whether you're "that interested" (or indeed whether you are evading tax).
The system falls short of successfully registering everyone who is entitled to vote, and it falls short in a way that works against areas that are more urban, less organised, less educated and less employed. You might find the outcome politically gratifying, but in principle it's not ideal, any more than a requirement that everyone had to register at their nearest large city would be.
For all the huffing and puffing on here, think of all the wild and whacky things that have happened in our lifetimes - most of which were not predicted by the experts. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to the fall of the USSR to 9/11 to the '08 crash. Life goes on, sometimes better, sometimes worse. We can't insure against the future - we just have to get on with it!
In an organisation that has to coalesce around the Euro for survival we are at best semi detached as non members of the Euro.
I know it will take me a while to work out, but will the direction of travel be best for the members who share the Euro and have a common interest of the odd ball grumpy people who don't join the Euro and look on from the outside?
So tough to answer.
Belonging to a group where you don't share common aims, goals and objectives is a thankless task, and one that will continue to cause future friction.
Either go for it join the Euro and fully commit hook line and sinker or leave.
Any other option is an invitation for years of problems and disharmony within UK and within EU. The least sustainable position is our current (or renegotiated) relationship with the EU.