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 ?
Our trade deficit is actually not as bad as it looks, as there is a lot of trans shipment from Rotterdam. (I.e. goods from China arrive at Rotterdam, and then come by truck to the UK)
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.
Or we have a new general election.
That's what I'd expect (20/1 for 2016 with Ladbrokes, which I'm on). In the event of a Leave vote and a subsequent general election, we would then have a debate about what Leave actually meant. Which is putting the horse after the cart.
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 ?
That's why on that Brexit war game video, the EU concedes immediately on a free trade agreement.
The problem will be on everything else, especially at the beginning of the negotiations when the EU is trying to apply the tactics used against Greece on Britain only for the slow realization that Britain is not Greece. Only after that realization do they commence proper negotiations but they still retain a fallacy of superiority of eurozone economics throughout, the french position that it will only take a call from the French President in order for french banks to leave London for Paris is an example of such fallacy.
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.
No it would not. It would require the agreement of just the 4 existing members of EFTA.
We are already an individual signatory to the EEA independent of our membership of the EU. Indeed the EU also signed in its own right as well as each individual country.
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.
Either way it's OK though because Frau Merkel has already agreed when Dave asked permission and as we know we must always ask Merkel before we do anything.
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
I would argue that nothing had changed in the rules between making the promise and admitting they couldn't keep it, ergo it was a plain old fashioned LIE. If you don't know you can do something don't f*cking promise it!
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
I wonder if Cameron will be asked at some point during this campaign "If you support staying in the EU, how will you get immigration below 100,000?" He surely won't have a credible answer.
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"
Get us out on what terms? With Leavers clueless about what they want collectively, how is a Leave vote to be interpreted?
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.
Either way it's OK though because Frau Merkel has already agreed when Dave asked permission and as we know we must always ask Merkel before we do anything.
However, the emergency brake would only apply when the EU is convinced that the influx of workers is of such an ‘exceptional magnitude’ that it overwhelms the welfare system or public services.
Good luck with that... and which EU? Commission ? Council ? Member states? National Parliaments? More than one of the preceding ?
I agree with this. First, he would have no credibility for the Leave negotiations. Secondly, I expect he'd think "sod this for a game of soldiers".
Agree too.
He'll have done over a decade as party leader and six as PM, he gives every impression of wanting to see his kids grow up away from the spotlight and stress of the top job. One disadvantage of coming to the forefront at a young age, I wonder if the next leader will be closer to 60 than 40.
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"
Get us out on what terms? With Leavers clueless about what they want collectively, how is a Leave vote to be interpreted?
Some one else put if very well last night. It is not the job of the wrecking ball to propose or approve the plans for the new buildings that may come afterwards.
What happened to the Independent this week is a footnote in a huge story – the wave of creative destruction overturning all traditional media – and a very important local political and cultural story.
The way they are banging on about this, it as if The Times of London had closed down. The reality is in the grand scheme of things relativity new title never read by many is now read by bugger all. I wonder if they would be holding this multi-day wake if some other newspapers went down the tubes, cough The Telegraph?
Actually if the soft left would stop looking up their own arseholes, they would see that this space is being occupied by far more interesting and creative products e.g. Vice. For instance, I don't remember reading anywhere in the deadtree press the accounts of being embedded on the front line with ISIS for a year+ on end. But via Vice I get regular dispatches.
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
I wonder if Cameron will be asked at some point during this campaign "If you support staying in the EU, how will you get immigration below 100,000?" He surely won't have a credible answer.
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"
Get us out on what terms? With Leavers clueless about what they want collectively, how is a Leave vote to be interpreted?
Some one else put if very well last night. It is not the job of the wrecking ball to propose or approve the plans for the new buildings that may come afterwards.
So the Leave response to "what comes next?" is "who cares?'. Interesting gambit.
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"!
You clearly haven't been reading the number of conservative and undecided posters on here who think you have completely lost the plot over the renegotiation.
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"
Get us out on what terms? With Leavers clueless about what they want collectively, how is a Leave vote to be interpreted?
Are Remainers clueless as to what the EC will mean for us over the next 5 - 10 years? Your argument assumes that the EC will not affect us anymore than we have already had. the Service Directive of 2006 only applies to some aspects of the 46% of GDP generated within its definitions. New directives and regulations are scheduled for this year and next. Standardisation etc. Do you have a crystal ball into its impacts on the 46% and how far upto the rest of the 70% of the service economy will it reach and when?
What happened to the Independent this week is a footnote in a huge story – the wave of creative destruction overturning all traditional media – and a very important local political and cultural story.
The way they are banging on about this, it as if The Times of London had closed down. The reality is in the grand scheme of things relativity new title never read by many is now read by bugger all. I wonder if they would be holding this multi-day wake if some other newspapers went down the tubes, cough The Telegraph?
Actually if the soft left would stop looking up their own arseholes, they would see that this space is being occupied by far more interesting and creative products e.g. Vice. For instance, I don't remember reading anywhere in the deadtree press the accounts of being embedded on the front line with ISIS for a year+ on end. But via Vice I get regular dispatches.
Compare their reactions now to those expressed when the 168 year history of the News of the World came to an end a few years back.
Edit. Wait until the Graunad goes for the real over-the-top reaction.
Mr. Meeks, the EU's objectives are diametrically opposed to the UK's interests, in the same way me being in a burning building is diametrically opposed to my interests.
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"
Get us out on what terms? With Leavers clueless about what they want collectively, how is a Leave vote to be interpreted?
Some one else put if very well last night. It is not the job of the wrecking ball to propose or approve the plans for the new buildings that may come afterwards.
So the Leave response to "what comes next?" is "who cares?'. Interesting gambit.
For f*cks sake. I am sure lots of leave members have lots of different views on why they want to leave, in just the same way as lots of remainers have lots different reasons why they want to stay. Some of those views will be met by one solution, others by another.
If LEAVE said, okay lets go for a full non-EEA, non-EFTA bespoke solutions (ie the Kipper approach) would it actually matter a toss ? No one who is going to be in a position that make that decision is going to chose that option, and even if they did it would be because they had looked at the options and chose what they thought was the best, not because Farage and co had been jumping up and down about it on the TV.
Your approach is painfully obvious anyway as is Mr Navabi's, you want someone to come up with a "solution" for LEAVE so that lots of leavers can disagree with it. The "undecided" bullshit is a rather transparent attempt to try and divide your opponents whilst having the veneer of respectability of not appearing committed to one side.
Mr. Meeks, if you're jumping out of a burning building, how long do you spend pondering what you're going to land in?
The EU is not a burning building. So your analogy doesn't work.
But sadly this is the whipped up hysterical analogy that is being pandered to. It would also be wrong to say the EU is a safe haven on an island surrounded by sharks. Fancy a swim?
Short term - mass migration driven by Merkel's madness causing serious problems all through the EU, especially Greece, Germany and Sweden.
Medium term - the eurozone has a critical mass of QMV voting power and the amazing 'deal' Cameron has negotiated means we'll be subject to financial regulation, at least to some degree, by QMV.
Long term - the EU wants ever greater integration, to swallow ever more national sovereignty.
The EU is not a burning building. So your analogy doesn't work.
A couple of million migrants getting EU passports in 3 or so years, with more on the way says otherwise. I know this doesn't bother you personally. But any party not taking it very seriously is going to be in the shit. Remember the British Social Attitudes Survey, 76% want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduce by a lot. This was before the refugee crisis, do you think those number are going to be better or worse now ?
So the Leave response to "what comes next?" is "who cares?'. Interesting gambit.
Works for the SNP
No it self evidently didn't. And what did come next was the rug pulled from under their oner alleged economic trump card.
Oh.. Did I miss their vote plummeting while I was down the pub ? There I was thinking the SNP was actually doing remarkably well with just that sort of policy.
The EU is not a burning building. So your analogy doesn't work.
A couple of million migrants getting EU passports in 3 or so years, with more on the way says otherwise. I know this doesn't bother you personally. But any party not taking it very seriously is going to be in the shit. Remember the British Social Attitudes Survey, 76% want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduce by a lot. This was before the refugee crisis, do you think those number are going to be better or worse now ?
The EU is not a burning building. Of course it has problems. In the grand scheme of things they are relatively minor and in large part problems of affluence. There would be no migration crisis if European countries weren't seen as desirable places to come to.
Such manic hysteria does Leavers no credit at all.
The question is whether the many undoubted flaws of the EU mean that we should leave. To decide that, we need to know what is proposed next if we do. And to that I'm getting no answer but a lot of frothing.
Dave takes a hit and he's still better ratings than Farage. And there's a boost for the Tories and UKIP are on the slide.
Surely we're approaching tipping point for the PLP.
In Feb 2011 Lab had a six point lead with ComRes.
Jez truly is dire.
Con 41% +1 Lab 27%-2 LD 9%+2 UKIP 15%-1 GRN 3%=
UKIP up 2% on the general election, the Tories up 4%. Labour on the same score it got in 1983, so Corbyn is now officially Labour's worst leader since Michael Foot!
New analysis finds that two thirds of higher rate taxpayers will not have adequete savings in their retirement amid mounting concerns about plans to raid pensions
Lots of pissed off notionally Tory voters... better hope the referendum is on the EU and not the government, no danger of Corbyn and all that.
The question is whether the many undoubted flaws of the EU mean that we should leave. To decide that, we need to know what is proposed next if we do. And to that I'm getting no answer but a lot of frothing.
I am not going to play your silly game for the reason I mentioned above. Good luck baiting someone else.
So the Leave response to "what comes next?" is "who cares?'. Interesting gambit.
Works for the SNP
No it self evidently didn't. And what did come next was the rug pulled from under their oner alleged economic trump card.
Oh.. Did I miss their vote plummeting while I was down the pub ? There I was thinking the SNP was actually doing remarkably well with just that sort of policy.
What use is their vote? They have no UK wide national power. They run a devolved scotland and good luck to them. They are not doing a brilliant job and the Scottish economy is not a bed of roses without UK assistance.
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?
In the 1840s we gave a lot of our Irish land to the tenants who farmed it. The logic was that they might still starve to death, but at least they would do it as free men.
Comments
The problem will be on everything else, especially at the beginning of the negotiations when the EU is trying to apply the tactics used against Greece on Britain only for the slow realization that Britain is not Greece.
Only after that realization do they commence proper negotiations but they still retain a fallacy of superiority of eurozone economics throughout, the french position that it will only take a call from the French President in order for french banks to leave London for Paris is an example of such fallacy.
We are already an individual signatory to the EEA independent of our membership of the EU. Indeed the EU also signed in its own right as well as each individual country.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/13/dimblebys-questionable-tirade-against-right-wing/
He'll have done over a decade as party leader and six as PM, he gives every impression of wanting to see his kids grow up away from the spotlight and stress of the top job. One disadvantage of coming to the forefront at a young age, I wonder if the next leader will be closer to 60 than 40.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/13/the-independent-gave-me-some-of-the-most-exciting-times-of-my-career
The way they are banging on about this, it as if The Times of London had closed down. The reality is in the grand scheme of things relativity new title never read by many is now read by bugger all. I wonder if they would be holding this multi-day wake if some other newspapers went down the tubes, cough The Telegraph?
Actually if the soft left would stop looking up their own arseholes, they would see that this space is being occupied by far more interesting and creative products e.g. Vice. For instance, I don't remember reading anywhere in the deadtree press the accounts of being embedded on the front line with ISIS for a year+ on end. But via Vice I get regular dispatches.
Edit. Wait until the Graunad goes for the real over-the-top reaction.
If LEAVE said, okay lets go for a full non-EEA, non-EFTA bespoke solutions (ie the Kipper approach) would it actually matter a toss ? No one who is going to be in a position that make that decision is going to chose that option, and even if they did it would be because they had looked at the options and chose what they thought was the best, not because Farage and co had been jumping up and down about it on the TV.
Your approach is painfully obvious anyway as is Mr Navabi's, you want someone to come up with a "solution" for LEAVE so that lots of leavers can disagree with it. The "undecided" bullshit is a rather transparent attempt to try and divide your opponents whilst having the veneer of respectability of not appearing committed to one side.
It would also be wrong to say the EU is a safe haven on an island surrounded by sharks. Fancy a swim?
Then let me point out three problems.
Short term - mass migration driven by Merkel's madness causing serious problems all through the EU, especially Greece, Germany and Sweden.
Medium term - the eurozone has a critical mass of QMV voting power and the amazing 'deal' Cameron has negotiated means we'll be subject to financial regulation, at least to some degree, by QMV.
Long term - the EU wants ever greater integration, to swallow ever more national sovereignty.
PS: Dream on about friends, loons like yourself on twitter is best you will get.
Dave takes a hit and he's still better ratings than Farage. And there's a boost for the Tories and UKIP are on the slide.
Surely we're approaching tipping point for the PLP.
In Feb 2011 Lab had a six point lead with ComRes.
Jez truly is dire.
Con 41% +1
Lab 27%-2
LD 9%+2
UKIP 15%-1
GRN 3%=
Such manic hysteria does Leavers no credit at all.
The question is whether the many undoubted flaws of the EU mean that we should leave. To decide that, we need to know what is proposed next if we do. And to that I'm getting no answer but a lot of frothing.
Presidential debate in ... Uganda !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12154770/retirement-crisis-pensions-tax-raid.html Lots of pissed off notionally Tory voters... better hope the referendum is on the EU and not the government, no danger of Corbyn and all that.
New Thread New Thread
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/13/the-independent-gave-me-some-of-the-most-exciting-times-of-my-career
This is an example of the sloppy factless checking that our newspapers are plagued with.
At one point Marr writes "the Times and the Telegraph are both having a torrid time"
For the Times they have gone from a £72million annual loss in 2009 to a £1.7m profit in June 2014. (Not found the 2015 figures).
14 point lead gap at the top must be a record since the early days of Blair?
Labour are now closer to UKIP than the Tories. LOL.