Here's the issue, though. There is a lot of the business and finance community - perhaps the majority - who would rather have EEA than EU. But they'd rather have EU than 'completely out'. They worry, understandably enough, that Leave might mean 'Completely Out'.
By not making it clear that the preference - one shared by you, me, Sean_F and a number of other people - is for EEA, then you run the risk that these people will choose, reluctantly and without enthusiasm, the EU over the unknown.
Conversely, a lot of those who are most keen to vote Leave are primarily motivated by concerns about immigration. I can't imagine they will be entirely chuffed when someone tells them 'Sorry Sunshine, we may be leaving the EU, but we're not changing anything that you care about.'.
As I said the other day though. We are stood on the Titanic and you are complaining about the colour of the lifeboats and using that as an excuse not to abandon ship
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
As I said the other day though. We are stood on the Titanic and you are complaining about the colour of the lifeboats and using that as an excuse not to abandon ship
I don't need an excuse. I need a coherent argument that persuades me that we'd be heading to a destination which is (a) better and (b) worth the economic dislocation of getting there. The fact that all I get for being unconvinced is vitriol and accusations of dishonesty is, how shall I put it kindly, not exactly persuasive.
In any case it's not me that the Leave side needs to persuade. It's those who will fear, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are at risk. If, as @Danny565 points out, they are not even going to get any advantage in terms of migration, voting Remain will be a no-brainer for them.
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
As I said the other day though. We are stood on the Titanic and you are complaining about the colour of the lifeboats and using that as an excuse not to abandon ship
I don't need an excuse. I need a coherent argument that persuades me that we'd be heading to a destination which is (a) better and (b) worth the economic dislocation of getting there. The fact that all I get for being unconvinced is vitriol and accusations of dishonesty is, how shall I put it kindly, not exactly persuasive.
In any case it's not me that the Leave side needs to persuade. It's those who will fear, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are at risk.
Let me see if I have this straight.
If REMAIN wins, it will the votes of Celts and Londoners outweighing those of the English shires.
If LEAVE wins, it will be the votes of pensioners outweighing those of voters of working age.
Be clear about Russia, it is strategically weak. It is simply not being challenged. Medvedev stated the obvious that too many people in the West want to bury their head in the sand about. Russia is a strategic opponent and we are certainly in what can be described as a cold-war like scenario.
Saudi aircraft have turned up at a Turkish airbase. If the numbers are correct, its a notable sum of some very powerful kit designed to play in contested airspace.
Perhaps more notable is the Turkish shelling of YPG positions near Aleppo today. This has been fully expected, the Russians put up near half their fighting jet air power in-country up on the Northern Syria border as a deterrent today (there is probably some kind of contribution from Assads' airforce in there) . That, by the way, is about 20 aircraft. The Turks playing a bit of an asymmetric game. What is Russia going to do, bomb Turkish artillery sitting in Turkey? Tricky.
In the unlikely event of a proper punch up between Turkey & Russia, Turkey has a number of advantages that many seem to have missed. It wouldn't be a forgone conclusion. Not least Russia couldn't ultimately halt any concerted large formation incursion by Turkish forces into Syria. Nor could the 30k or of Assad's army left, and the various militias which now outstrip his regular army.
Have the Turks and Saudis the cojones? Possibly more than probably
It will end up in a proper great power war if the Turks and the Saudis invade Syria.
The west will stay neutral as it will be a war that is properly big and will result with some western allies fighting other western allies in the middle east.
At least the price of oil is very low so even if Saudi oil fields get destroyed in the war the price will only return at the 2014 level max.
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
Danny, most right-wingers don't think we lefties should have votes at all.
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
You could protect workers rights from Tory governments by electing Labour governments. I'm really not sure why you don't trust the British electorate.
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
Danny, most right-wingers don't think we lefties should have votes at all.
For the last 2 days she is the most discussed person in S.Carolina, she was also on most TV channels yesterday talking about her and Cruz, Cruz made a mistake by making a small issue into a big one.
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
Danny, most right-wingers don't think we lefties should have votes at all.
I can't remember anyone saying that here.
Not in so many words, perhaps. But Tories and Kippers do tend towards claiming a monopoly of patriotism. And I expect the next Tory manifesto to propose to replace a nominated Upper House by one elected by voters with a substantial property qualification. Don't you?
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And I expect the next Tory manifesto to propose to replace a nominated Upper House by one elected by voters with a substantial property qualification. Don't you?
As I said the other day though. We are stood on the Titanic and you are complaining about the colour of the lifeboats and using that as an excuse not to abandon ship
I don't need an excuse. I need a coherent argument that persuades me that we'd be heading to a destination which is (a) better and (b) worth the economic dislocation of getting there. The fact that all I get for being unconvinced is vitriol and accusations of dishonesty is, how shall I put it kindly, not exactly persuasive.
In any case it's not me that the Leave side needs to persuade. It's those who will fear, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are at risk. If, as @Danny565 points out, they are not even going to get any advantage in terms of migration, voting Remain will be a no-brainer for them.
You have had plenty of coherent arguments offered. You have simply chosen to rubbish them because they undermine your devout REMAIN position. You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE. And when he came back with a deal that was, almost universally, considered to be complete rubbish and no real change at all you declared it enough. You attack any and all proposals by LEAVE whilst clinging to the twig that Cameron is offering as if it were a fully provisioned liferaft.
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
And I expect the next Tory manifesto to propose to replace a nominated Upper House by one elected by voters with a substantial property qualification. Don't you?
No.
Well if they don't, they'll be utter and complete fools.
Bush's continued presence in the race is getting a bit ridiculous IMO. His polling numbers could hardly be worse.
I think Bush is the only candidate who can beat Trump to the Republican nomination. Jeb might just be the low-energy tortoise to Trump's hare.
Cruz is Trump's main rival and the only other candidate to have won a state, he is also more likely to carry his home state, Texas, than Bush is to carry Florida
You have had plenty of coherent arguments offered. You have simply chosen to rubbish them because they undermine your devout REMAIN position. You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE. And when he came back with a deal that was, almost universally, considered to be complete rubbish and no real change at all you declared it enough. You attack any and all proposals by LEAVE whilst clinging to the twig that Cameron is offering as if it were a fully provisioned liferaft.
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
I rubbish the arguments because they seem to me to be rubbish. I know you are incapable of understanding this, but I am simply being logical. I get the concerns about Eurozone hegemony if we Remain, but, as I have pointed out, the alternative of an EEA-style deal is unquestionably worse on that score.
As for my credibility, open-minded people will read what I say with interest, even if they disagree with it. Zealots, fruitcakes and loons will no doubt continue to take the completely bonkers view that I am being partisan or dishonest because I'm unpersuaded that the advantages of the alternatives to Remain, whatever those unknown alternatives might be. Some will make up things like "You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE", which I've never said. Some of the most wilfully blind will, hilariously, even convince themselves that I have a "devout REMAIN position"!
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
Danny, most right-wingers don't think we lefties should have votes at all.
Agreed However they might let us when we agree on leave.
Farage and Galloway were agreeing on many aspects of leave on RT. I am voting leave as the UK with all its flaws is more democratic than the EU.
"Watch Corporate America Turn A Room Full Of Workers Into Bernie Sanders And Donald Trump Supporters"
"On Wednesday, Carrier, the air conditioner manufacturing wing of United Technologies, told workers at its Indianapolis plant that it would be outsourcing their jobs to Monterrey, Mexico."
"Watch the reaction in the video"
At this rate it won't be long until socialists and populists become a majority in the USA.
The EEA is a deal between the EU and a series of small countries. The largest has fewer people than Ireland; the middle one is the size of Reading; the smallest, Rutland on a mountain precipice. The presumption that the UK would enter this arrangement, as opposed to a sui generis deal, is odd. More worryingly, the actual Out campaigns would surely not want the UK to be in a free market in labour with the EU?
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
Bush's continued presence in the race is getting a bit ridiculous IMO. His polling numbers could hardly be worse.
I think Bush is the only candidate who can beat Trump to the Republican nomination. Jeb might just be the low-energy tortoise to Trump's hare.
Cruz is Trump's main rival and the only other candidate to have won a state, he is also more likely to carry his home state, Texas, than Bush is to carry Florida
Cruz and his fellow Cuban Rubio are in the Santorum/Huckabee class, I take neither seriously as potential Presidents.
You have had plenty of coherent arguments offered. You have simply chosen to rubbish them because they undermine your devout REMAIN position. You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE. And when he came back with a deal that was, almost universally, considered to be complete rubbish and no real change at all you declared it enough. You attack any and all proposals by LEAVE whilst clinging to the twig that Cameron is offering as if it were a fully provisioned liferaft.
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
I rubbish the arguments because they seem to me to be rubbish. I know you are incapable of understanding this, but I am simply being logical. I get the concerns about Eurozone hegemony if we Remain, but, as I have pointed out, the alternative of an EEA-style deal is unquestionably worse on that score.
As for my credibility, open-minded people will read what I say with interest, even if they disagree with it. Zealots, fruitcakes and loons will no doubt continue to take the completely bonkers view that I am being partisan or dishonest because I'm unpersuaded that the advantages of the alternatives to Remain, whatever those unknown alternatives might be. Some will make up things like "You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE", which I've never said. Some of the most wilfully blind will, hilariously, even convince themselves that I have a "devout REMAIN position"!
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
Bush's continued presence in the race is getting a bit ridiculous IMO. His polling numbers could hardly be worse.
I think Bush is the only candidate who can beat Trump to the Republican nomination. Jeb might just be the low-energy tortoise to Trump's hare.
Cruz is Trump's main rival and the only other candidate to have won a state, he is also more likely to carry his home state, Texas, than Bush is to carry Florida
Cruz and his fellow Cuban Rubio are in the Santorum/Huckabee class, I take neither seriously as potential Presidents.
Maybe but I was talking about the GOP nomination, not the presidency. Just as Sanders is the liberal/left rival to Clinton, so Cruz will end up the conservative rival to Trump and I expect the two to fight it out until at least mid April once Rubio drops out on March 15th after he has lost Florida (Bush will also drop out then if he has not already dropped out after South Carolina). Indeed if Trump is the nominee but loses the general election I would expect Cruz to win the GOP nomination in 2020
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
I don't like targeting one forum member so speaking in general terms here, but people DO seem to be less credible when they only criticise rubbishness on one side. I support leaving, but am still happy to point out general uselessness of leave campaigns.
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
Is Cameron supporting being part of a common European foreign policy now? Thought Conservatives, even pro-EU ones opposed this??
You have had plenty of coherent arguments offered. You have simply chosen to rubbish them because they undermine your devout REMAIN position. You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE. And when he came back with a deal that was, almost universally, considered to be complete rubbish and no real change at all you declared it enough. You attack any and all proposals by LEAVE whilst clinging to the twig that Cameron is offering as if it were a fully provisioned liferaft.
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
I rubbish the arguments because they seem to me to be rubbish. I know you are incapable of understanding this, but I am simply being logical. I get the concerns about Eurozone hegemony if we Remain, but, as I have pointed out, the alternative of an EEA-style deal is unquestionably worse on that score.
As for my credibility, open-minded people will read what I say with interest, even if they disagree with it. Zealots, fruitcakes and loons will no doubt continue to take the completely bonkers view that I am being partisan or dishonest because I'm unpersuaded that the advantages of the alternatives to Remain, whatever those unknown alternatives might be. Some will make up things like "You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE", which I've never said. Some of the most wilfully blind will, hilariously, even convince themselves that I have a "devout REMAIN position"!
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I note with interest that the common call from the remainers are for the leavers to outline what will happen after Brexit.
I would be more interested for the remainers to explain what they thought would happen if we stayed in and more importantly what demands the EU won't make on us.
( I have said won't make because it will be damn site quicker to list that will make)
I don't like targeting one forum member so speaking in general terms here, but people DO seem to be less credible when they only criticise rubbishness on one side. I support leaving, but am still happy to point out general uselessness of leave campaigns.
If I seem to be doing that, it's because almost no-one is arguing for Remain here. Of course there are lots of rubbish arguments on the Remain side - such as Cameron's one about Calais, or the attempt by the Remain side to imply that three million jobs would be at risk if we left. But I don't think anyone here is pushing those arguments, are they?
The EEA is a deal between the EU and a series of small countries. The largest has fewer people than Ireland; the middle one is the size of Reading; the smallest, Rutland on a mountain precipice. The presumption that the UK would enter this arrangement, as opposed to a sui generis deal, is odd. More worryingly, the actual Out campaigns would surely not want the UK to be in a free market in labour with the EU?
More I read up on it, more I think we should join EEA in interim, and then negotiate bilateral deal in longer term so we ain't pressured by two year Article limit.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
Just my 2p, but I'd pull out completely and end free movement of labour. As for the city, IANAE but from hat I've seen over the last few years we've had to fight bloody hard to protect it - sooner or later we'll lose and being in the EU will have made no difference.
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
I would love to see a couple of scenarios where the EU saves the UK from North Korea. That is completely ignoring how and why North Korea would even want to attack the UK.
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
He is an even bigger bellend than I imagined he could possibly be
Indeed if Trump is the nominee but loses the general election I would expect Cruz to win the GOP nomination in 2020
Nah, he is too conservative. Another relative "moderate" will come in and beat him. (See Romney/McCain etc)
Both those 'relative moderates' lost and the GOP base now wants a proper red meat candidate which is why Trump and Cruz are doing so well. After all George W Bush was the candidate before Romney and McCain and Reagan before Bush Snr and Dole and Goldwater before Nixon and Ford, most parties alternate between ideologues and moderates and the GOP is no exception!
The GOP also tends to pick the 'next in line' and if Cruz is runner-up in 2016 it will be his turn in 2020
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
I would love to see a couple of scenarios where the EU saves the UK from North Korea. That is completely ignoring how and why North Korea would even want to attack the UK.
Realising his deal is a dud, Dave's coming up with ever more ridiculous arguments.
More I read up on it, more I think we should join EEA in interim, and then negotiate bilateral deal in longer term so we ain't pressured by two year Article limit.
Joining the EEA is not a question of sending off a form and a cheque for the membership fee. It would (I think) require the unanimous consent of the thirty countries involved. I can't see it being finalised in two years TBH. I think it's more likely that we'd agree some kind of extension or temporary arrangement with the EU while negotiations continue.
Of course, it's a bit late to be thinking about these issues now. The preparatory work should have been done over the last three years.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
More I read up on it, more I think we should join EEA in interim, and then negotiate bilateral deal in longer term so we ain't pressured by two year Article limit.
Joining the EEA is not a question of sending off a form and a cheque for the membership fee. It would (I think) require the unanimous consent of the thirty countries involved. I can't see it being finalised in two years TBH. I think it's more likely that we'd agree some kind of extension or temporary arrangement with the EU while negotiations continue.
Of course, it's a bit late to be thinking about these issues now. The preparatory work should have been done over the last three years.
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
The future is always uncertain. You have to factor that in to your judgement.
You have had plenty of coherent arguments offered. You have simply chosen to rubbish them because they undermine your devout REMAIN position. You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE. And when he came back with a deal that was, almost universally, considered to be complete rubbish and no real change at all you declared it enough. You attack any and all proposals by LEAVE whilst clinging to the twig that Cameron is offering as if it were a fully provisioned liferaft.
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
I rubbish the arguments because they seem to me to be rubbish. I know you are incapable of understanding this, but I am simply being logical. I get the concerns about Eurozone hegemony if we Remain, but, as I have pointed out, the alternative of an EEA-style deal is unquestionably worse on that score.
As for my credibility, open-minded people will read what I say with interest, even if they disagree with it. Zealots, fruitcakes and loons will no doubt continue to take the completely bonkers view that I am being partisan or dishonest because I'm unpersuaded that the advantages of the alternatives to Remain, whatever those unknown alternatives might be. Some will make up things like "You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE", which I've never said. Some of the most wilfully blind will, hilariously, even convince themselves that I have a "devout REMAIN position"!
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I note with interest that the common call from the remainers are for the leavers to outline what will happen after Brexit.
I would be more interested for the remainers to explain what they thought would happen if we stayed in and more importantly what demands the EU won't make on us.
( I have said won't make because it will be damn site quicker to list that will make)
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
The future is always uncertain. You have to factor that in to your judgement.
Yes, that was my point: but you are demanding certainties from Remain.
By the Leave side. I think they will lose because they don't have answers to questions like this.
I might be wrong that they will lose, of course - if I am, it will mostly be because of Angela Merkel's migration blunder. In a way that makes it worse that they haven't done the preparation.
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
I would love to see a couple of scenarios where the EU saves the UK from North Korea. That is completely ignoring how and why North Korea would even want to attack the UK.
U.K. Sanction cheese exports to Pyongyang resulting in Fat boy using one of his missile thingies to take out Cheddar Gorge with an independent nuclear strike?
Indeed and I agree with you entirely on that. Hence the reason that I have always been absolutely clear that is the way we should go as have many other Eurosceptics. It is the preferred choice of Vote.Leave and really the only organisation that is arguing against it is UKIP and their affiliates.
What I was making clear to Edmund is his claim that EEA membership was just a rebranding of EU membership is farcically wrong.
But the things that people hate most about the EU would also be contained in the EEA (most of all immigration). I'm not at all convinced that if "Out" meant the EEA that it would be a vote-winner.
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
And before people say that, as a leftie, Leave shouldn't care what I think -- I might remind people that there is NO route to a Leave victory which doesn't involve a chunk of Labour voters.
Danny, most right-wingers don't think we lefties should have votes at all.
I can't remember anyone saying that here.
Don't take the left's strawmen arguments away from them. It's all they have left.
As I said the other day though. We are stood on the Titanic and you are complaining about the colour of the lifeboats and using that as an excuse not to abandon ship
I don't need an excuse. I need a coherent argument that persuades me that we'd be heading to a destination which is (a) better and (b) worth the economic dislocation of getting there. The fact that all I get for being unconvinced is vitriol and accusations of dishonesty is, how shall I put it kindly, not exactly persuasive.
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
I very much like your post. For me, it really is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Pain now or more pain later.
Cameron seems to have gone out of his mind. Has he never heard of NATO? What the flying fuck has a single market etc got to do with defence?
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
I would love to see a couple of scenarios where the EU saves the UK from North Korea. That is completely ignoring how and why North Korea would even want to attack the UK.
Realising his deal is a dud, Dave's coming up with ever more ridiculous arguments.
I don't understand how a moderately intelligent man can come out with such nonsense.
Yes, that was my point: but you are demanding certainties from Remain.
No I'm not. But I do think the Leave side has a massively bigger problem in this respect, because for normal people, the status quo is a known. The argument that we don't know where the EU is headed is one that will appeal mainly to those who are already Leavers.
By the Leave side. I think they will lose because they don't have answers to questions like this.
I might be wrong that they will lose, of course - if I am, it will mostly be because of Angela Merkel's migration blunder. In a way that makes it worse that they haven't done the preparation.
The Leave side didn't even exist a year ago. Again you are demanding impossibilities.
Britain should stay in a reformed European Union so countries can stand together against the aggression of Russia, North Korea and Islamic State, David Cameron has said.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he ?
And what exactly has N.Korea to do with Britain and the EU ? The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
I would love to see a couple of scenarios where the EU saves the UK from North Korea. That is completely ignoring how and why North Korea would even want to attack the UK.
Realising his deal is a dud, Dave's coming up with ever more ridiculous arguments.
I don't understand how a moderately intelligent man can come out with such nonsense.
Like a lot Farron's new policy on cannabis. If Lib Dems can do a few good policies breaking from consensus like this might look at voting for them again. Especially if we leave EU.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
I very much like your post. For me, it really is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Pain now or more pain later.
Cameron seems to have gone out of his mind. Has he never heard of NATO? What the flying fuck has a single market etc got to do with defence?
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
Some things have no right answer. I think it's likely there will be economic pain in the short term if we Leave, and similarly that if we Remain we'll be dragged along the road to a country called Europe against our will with the vote used as an excuse.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
I very much like your post. For me, it really is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Pain now or more pain later. Cameron seems to have gone out of his mind. Has he never heard of NATO? What the flying fuck has a single market etc got to do with defence?
Maybe he thinks we should join that European army which France and Germany are working on?
Like a lot Farron's new policy on cannabis. If Lib Dems can do a few good policies breaking from consensus like this might look at voting for them again. Especially if we leave EU.
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
You're making the wrong comparison, as explained in my post at 6:20.
'The argument that we don't know where the EU is headed is one that will appeal mainly to those who are already Leavers.'
That isn't the argument. The argument is that we do know where it is headed - towards becoming a single state or something very close to one. And that that is not a direction we wish to go in.
There is no uncertainty about the direction of travel of the EU at all. The only people who are pretending otherwise are the dwindling band of ageing Europhiles (sorry, 'undecideds') who are continuing to spin the dishonest lines they have been spinning these last 40-odd years.
More I read up on it, more I think we should join EEA in interim, and then negotiate bilateral deal in longer term so we ain't pressured by two year Article limit.
Of course, it's a bit late to be thinking about these issues now. The preparatory work should have been done over the last three years.
A real shame that Cameron's two governments and Osborne's department in particular has not been doing this. Bad government.
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
The answer, then is to hold a general election if there's a Leave vote. The Tories can stand on a platform of EEA membership. UKIP can run against it. The voters can choose.
Like a lot Farron's new policy on cannabis. If Lib Dems can do a few good policies breaking from consensus like this might look at voting for them again. Especially if we leave EU.
The LibDems are the political party who benefit most from Brexit. Ironically.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
What would be the point. The Leave campaign could ask for a moon-on-a-stick. They don't get to make the decision, the government does. The Leave Campaign's job is to get us out of the EU, the governments jobs is then to pick up the pieces in a way that would be acceptable to the electorate and command the confidence of the house.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that we do know where it is headed - towards becoming a single state or something very close to one. And that that is not a direction we wish to go in.
Yes I know it is. For those who can't read English, I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with it. I was making the point - I'd have thought an uncontroversial point - that most ordinary voters (who aren't already leaning or committed to Leave) won't see it that way, so the Leave side have a bigger job making that argument stick than the Remain side do in portraying Leave as a leap in the dark.
Who was it on here said at the last minute Cameron's deal will be improved to give the impression he had won a victory over the EU in negotiations....? So it came to pass.
The Prime Minister will claim his ‘emergency brake’ has been beefed up
'The argument that we don't know where the EU is headed is one that will appeal mainly to those who are already Leavers.'
That isn't the argument. The argument is that we do know where it is headed - towards becoming a single state or something very close to one. And that that is not a direction we wish to go in.
There is no uncertainty about the direction of travel of the EU at all. The only people who are pretending otherwise are the dwindling band of ageing Europhiles (sorry, 'undecideds') who are continuing to spin the dishonest lines they have been spinning these last 40-odd years.
I'm no more likely to persuade Richard N than he to persuade me, given that arguing on the Internet is an occupation for modern-day Don Quixotes. However, I did ruminate on what would change my mind.
Answer: probably nothing, but I would like (before I shuffle off this mortal coil) to hear a European leader, when confronted with a problem, say "Hey, what we need now is less Europe".
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
What would be the point. The Leave campaign could ask for a moon-on-a-stick. They don't get to make the decision, the government does. The Leave Campaign's job is to get us out of the EU, the governments jobs is then to pick up the pieces in a way that would be acceptable to the electorate and command the confidence of the house.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
How would a government that has campaigned to stay in the EU pick up the pieces in the way you describe?
One way or another, the lunatics would take over the asylum.
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
You are then adopting the Clegg position when asked in 2014 about the EU would look like in a number of years time and he said "much the same". Locked into a failing entity, dying slowly.
The answer, then is to hold a general election if there's a Leave vote. The Tories can stand on a platform of EEA membership. UKIP can run against it. The voters can choose.
Yes, that's a possibility. I'm not sure how the timing works though.
Lots of Tories would be on the UKIP side on that, mind.
More I read up on it, more I think we should join EEA in interim, and then negotiate bilateral deal in longer term so we ain't pressured by two year Article limit.
Joining the EEA is not a question of sending off a form and a cheque for the membership fee. It would (I think) require the unanimous consent of the thirty countries involved. I can't see it being finalised in two years TBH. I think it's more likely that we'd agree some kind of extension or temporary arrangement with the EU while negotiations continue.
Of course, it's a bit late to be thinking about these issues now. The preparatory work should have been done over the last three years.
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
What would be the point. The Leave campaign could ask for a moon-on-a-stick. They don't get to make the decision, the government does. The Leave Campaign's job is to get us out of the EU, the governments jobs is then to pick up the pieces in a way that would be acceptable to the electorate and command the confidence of the house.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
How would a government that has campaigned to stay in the EU pick up the pieces in the way you describe?
One way or another, the lunatics would take over the asylum.
I don't like targeting one forum member so speaking in general terms here, but people DO seem to be less credible when they only criticise rubbishness on one side. I support leaving, but am still happy to point out general uselessness of leave campaigns.
If I seem to be doing that, it's because almost no-one is arguing for Remain here. Of course there are lots of rubbish arguments on the Remain side - such as Cameron's one about Calais, or the attempt by the Remain side to imply that three million jobs would be at risk if we left. But I don't think anyone here is pushing those arguments, are they?
Wasn't levelling charge at you. Just commenting on distinction between being 'right' and 'honest' you mentioned. Sorry if I offended.
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
The answer, then is to hold a general election if there's a Leave vote. The Tories can stand on a platform of EEA membership. UKIP can run against it. The voters can choose.
EEA membership is a good and obvious holding position, for a few years, as the British decide what they want to do, longterm.
This is what LEAVE should be selling to the people: if you vote OUT then YOU, the electorate, will decide your country's future, from here on.
LEAVE doesn't need to present a single alternative to the EU. They just have to say, vote LEAVE and parliamentary democracy returns to its birthplace. The UK can have free movement, or no movement, tariffs or trade, EU laws or NAFTA membership - who cares, the British people will choose.
Framed that way, LEAVE is very hard to argue against.
Does make it difficult to talk about migration or escaping EU rules though. Think putting forward a primary proposal of EU --> EEA --> FTA, plus budget of how we would spend extra cash on Wales/NHS/rural areas/science grants etc would be good for campaign.
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
We are in it in our capacity as members of the EU. Read the treaty.
We've been though all this before.
Indeed, so since we have two years after Article 50, the question would not be about filling in application forms, it would be about arranging not to leave. Even if it was about joining, Croatia managed it recently.
The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows them to be part of the EU’s single market.
We are in it in our capacity as members of the EU. Read the treaty.
We've been though all this before.
So you concede that we are in it. It doesn't matter how we got in. Job jobbed.
I concede that we are signatories to the EEA treaty, which is a treaty between the EU states and three other states. That does not mean that if we left the EU we'd automatically become members of the other side of the treaty.
You seem to think that the UK would somehow be in a weak negotiating position if we vote to Leave.
A 10 billion annual EU subscription , a 65 million market with a 70 billion trade deficit with the EU is hardly a weak position . Are the German car manufacturers just going to say that's ok we are happy to have duties imposed in our largest EU export market ?
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
What would be the point. The Leave campaign could ask for a moon-on-a-stick. They don't get to make the decision, the government does. The Leave Campaign's job is to get us out of the EU, the governments jobs is then to pick up the pieces in a way that would be acceptable to the electorate and command the confidence of the house.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
How would a government that has campaigned to stay in the EU pick up the pieces in the way you describe?
One way or another, the lunatics would take over the asylum.
Alastair, you operate (like me) in the services sector. It represents according to the EC 70% of the economy and a similar % of the employed. Yet it is much less open that the physical products markets. Is insurance able to operate across the EC unhindered by national rules and regulations?
You seem to think that the UK would somehow be in a weak negotiating position if we vote to Leave.
A 10 billion annual EU subscription , a 65 million market with a 70 billion trade deficit with the EU is hardly a weak position . Are the German car manufacturers just going to say that's ok we are happy to have duties imposed in our largest EU export market ?
No they are not. Just as well, given that our own car industry is extremely tightly bound up with theirs.
I don't see any conceivable scenario in which we wouldn't buy straight back into the Single Market for manufactured goods, including all the associated rules.
Who was it on here said at the last minute Cameron's deal will be improved to give the impression he had won a victory over the EU in negotiations....? So it came to pass.
The Prime Minister will claim his ‘emergency brake’ has been beefed up
Except its not his emergency brake, its the EU's emergency brake. Oddly Social Security is supposed to be a national matter at the moment, but here were are with the PM of the UK going to Brussels to ask if its it okay to chance his welfare laws.
Is someone who walks around blissfully unaware of what is really going on, lacking in parts of their mental capacity? Or is it a form of blindness that a person in love develops to the faults of their current partner?
It seems that you genuinely can't understand why you're seen the way you are.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
I'm not demanding certainties, I'm asking what the general direction is. Freedom of movement or not? That's a biggie, right? Is the City likely to prosper more under the alternative or not? That's a key one for me.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
What would be the point. The Leave campaign could ask for a moon-on-a-stick. They don't get to make the decision, the government does. The Leave Campaign's job is to get us out of the EU, the governments jobs is then to pick up the pieces in a way that would be acceptable to the electorate and command the confidence of the house.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
How would a government that has campaigned to stay in the EU pick up the pieces in the way you describe?
One way or another, the lunatics would take over the asylum.
Oh, I thought it was the job of governments to react to crises. The Conservative government would still be in charge, they would have just have been given (directly) a new mandate from the voters, shorn of any pretence about how they might have really been voting for other policies, and instruction which says "get us out, as cleanly and expeditiously as possible"
You are fine with a grouping that is either too slow to tackle its problems or never tackles them. Over the last 10 years with Labour, the Coalition and now Cameron's Conservatives the problems have grown and the fixes always fall short. EU problems never fixed. Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed, Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Sigh, for the zillionth time, no, I'm not 'fine' with the EU. I get every one of the (sane) arguments about what is wrong with it. So does Cameron, for that matter.
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
The answer, then is to hold a general election if there's a Leave vote. The Tories can stand on a platform of EEA membership. UKIP can run against it. The voters can choose.
EEA membership is a good and obvious holding position, for a few years, as the British decide what they want to do, longterm.
This is what LEAVE should be selling to the people: if you vote OUT then YOU, the electorate, will decide your country's future, from here on.
LEAVE doesn't need to present a single alternative to the EU. They just have to say, vote LEAVE and parliamentary democracy returns to its birthplace. The UK can have free movement, or no movement, tariffs or trade, EU laws or NAFTA membership - who cares, the British people will choose.
Framed that way, LEAVE is very hard to argue against.
That's all I want.. how can you hold a govt to account that says it wants to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, fails, and uses the excuse that they're not allowed to control who comes in from certain parts of the world
Comments
Certainly I would personally go from being undecided, to being a firm Remain if the alternative was the EEA - from my perspective, if we're going to keep the annoyances of uncontrolled immigration, screwing over of British industry in the name of "free trade" and endless money wasted on Brussels super-bureaucracy, then I'd rather atleast that workers' rights were protected from Tory governments by the EU.
In any case it's not me that the Leave side needs to persuade. It's those who will fear, rightly or wrongly, that their jobs are at risk. If, as @Danny565 points out, they are not even going to get any advantage in terms of migration, voting Remain will be a no-brainer for them.
If REMAIN wins, it will the votes of Celts and Londoners outweighing those of the English shires.
If LEAVE wins, it will be the votes of pensioners outweighing those of voters of working age.
No wonder Cammo's had enough!
The west will stay neutral as it will be a war that is properly big and will result with some western allies fighting other western allies in the middle east.
At least the price of oil is very low so even if Saudi oil fields get destroyed in the war the price will only return at the 2014 level max.
The news from S.Carolina seems to be all about Cruz and that porn star Amy Lindsay:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=/m/0cqt90, /m/07j6ty, /m/0dpr5f, /m/02zzm_, /m/0823rp&geo=US-SC&date=now 1-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT
For the last 2 days she is the most discussed person in S.Carolina, she was also on most TV channels yesterday talking about her and Cruz, Cruz made a mistake by making a small issue into a big one.
Jeb might just be the low-energy tortoise to Trump's hare.
"He made the remarks in his final set-piece speech on the EU before he meets other leaders for a summit on 18-19 February to agree Britain’s renegotiation demands in Brussels. "
Dave isn't exactly playing hard to get in his negotiations with the EU is he
As so many other people have pointed out in recent days, your credibility on this issue is completely shot.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/11/tim-farron-legalisation-cannabis-recreational-use
As for my credibility, open-minded people will read what I say with interest, even if they disagree with it. Zealots, fruitcakes and loons will no doubt continue to take the completely bonkers view that I am being partisan or dishonest because I'm unpersuaded that the advantages of the alternatives to Remain, whatever those unknown alternatives might be. Some will make up things like "You said that if Cameron could not come back with a good deal from the renegotiations then that would swing you to LEAVE", which I've never said. Some of the most wilfully blind will, hilariously, even convince themselves that I have a "devout REMAIN position"!
However they might let us when we agree on leave.
Farage and Galloway were agreeing on many aspects of leave on RT.
I am voting leave as the UK with all its flaws is more democratic than the EU.
"Watch Corporate America Turn A Room Full Of Workers Into Bernie Sanders And Donald Trump Supporters"
"On Wednesday, Carrier, the air conditioner manufacturing wing of United Technologies, told workers at its Indianapolis plant that it would be outsourcing their jobs to Monterrey, Mexico."
"Watch the reaction in the video"
At this rate it won't be long until socialists and populists become a majority in the USA.
The EU is not a security or defence organization and certainly not of global proportions.
You're demanding certainties from Leave but not from Remain in a situation when neither can give absolute assurances about the future. This might be a legitimate position to hold, but not if one wishes to be seen as dispassionate and even-handed.
As for being dispassionate or even-handed, I'm not trying to be even-handed, I'm trying to be right. If an argument is rubbish, it is rubbish. Saying so - even if I am wrong - doesn't make me dishonest, partisan, a 'Europhile', or 'devout'.
I would be more interested for the remainers to explain what they thought would happen if we stayed in and more importantly what demands the EU won't make on us.
( I have said won't make because it will be damn site quicker to list that will make)
The GOP also tends to pick the 'next in line' and if Cruz is runner-up in 2016 it will be his turn in 2020
Of course, it's a bit late to be thinking about these issues now. The preparatory work should have been done over the last three years.
When the status quo isn't an option and both choices are worse, how do you choose?
I might be wrong that they will lose, of course - if I am, it will mostly be because of Angela Merkel's migration blunder. In a way that makes it worse that they haven't done the preparation.
EU problems never fixed.
Migration from the Med, Accounts never signed off, CAP unreformed,
Lower growth in EU compared to America or Asia, Two parliament buildings, the Greek eurozone issues etc etc.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
Where exactly is the big reform plan which would tackle these issues, that the EU's countries and its civil servants are signed up to implement?
Cameron seems to have gone out of his mind. Has he never heard of NATO? What the flying fuck has a single market etc got to do with defence?
Oh?
How hard is it to understand that the reason the Remain side hasn't persuaded people like me is not because they have failed to persuade us of the problems of the EU, but because they have failed to persuade us that the alternative is better?
Surprised North scored so easily.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that we do know where it is headed - towards becoming a single state or something very close to one. And that that is not a direction we wish to go in.
There is no uncertainty about the direction of travel of the EU at all. The only people who are pretending otherwise are the dwindling band of ageing Europhiles (sorry, 'undecideds') who are continuing to spin the dishonest lines they have been spinning these last 40-odd years.
But you know all this, you are just arguing semantics because it's all remain have except for fanciful crap about defending us against North Korea.
The Prime Minister will claim his ‘emergency brake’ has been beefed up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445134/EU-benefits-deal-seven-years-Britain-allowed-stop-migrant-handouts-longer-new-Europe-deal.html#ixzz404gwDFCr
Answer: probably nothing, but I would like (before I shuffle off this mortal coil) to hear a European leader, when confronted with a problem, say "Hey, what we need now is less Europe".
One way or another, the lunatics would take over the asylum.
Lots of Tories would be on the UKIP side on that, mind.
https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago
I am the only one who can fix this. Very sad. Will not happen under my watch! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
http://nypost.com/video/stomach-turning-moment-1400-workers-lost-their-jobs/ …
We've been though all this before.
Oh stop this charade Richard, no-one believes you were ever persuadable now. For some of us that has been obvious for a very long time.
We've been though all this before.
So you concede that we are in it.
It doesn't matter how we got in.
Job jobbed.
We've been though all this before.
Indeed, so since we have two years after Article 50, the question would not be about filling in application forms, it would be about arranging not to leave. Even if it was about joining, Croatia managed it recently.
The one that Clegg said didn't exist and was a dangerous fantasy
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/563490/Even-Nick-Clegg-disagrees-Deputy-PM-blasts-plans-EU-army-dangerous-fantasy
and Ed Miliband agreed
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-says-wont-european-5531945
except sadly Farage was right.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/612710/European-leaders-EU-ARMY-close-to-reality-Juncker
It doesn't matter how we got in.
Job jobbed.
I concede that we are signatories to the EEA treaty, which is a treaty between the EU states and three other states. That does not mean that if we left the EU we'd automatically become members of the other side of the treaty.
You seem to think that the UK would somehow be in a weak negotiating position if we vote to Leave.
A 10 billion annual EU subscription , a 65 million market with a 70 billion trade deficit with the EU is hardly a weak position . Are the German car manufacturers just going to say that's ok we are happy to have duties imposed in our largest EU export market ?
And I thought the loons who post here were on the fringe.
I don't see any conceivable scenario in which we wouldn't buy straight back into the Single Market for manufactured goods, including all the associated rules.