Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions between the Contracting Parties on the movement of capital belonging to persons resident in EC Member States or EFTA State
The three EFTA states are defined on page 7. How on earth would the treaty suddenly rewrite itself so that we spontaneously moved from one category to the other?
Obviously, therefore, we'd need to negotiate a variant of the treaty, or a new treaty, with the 30 other signatories. We couldn't simply pop up and say 'Hi, We're an EFTA state now'
We could during the Article 50 process. Such amendments are made all the time to treaties as circumstances such as these change. To avoid formal amendment if all that is required is a technical change or a procedural change then an informal treaty amendment is made by the Treaty Executive Council. This is how the UN treaty and practically every other international treaty is amended whenever a country splits. You don't get every country to resign the treaty and you certainly don't have a new treaty. Just a technical amendment that reflects the new circumstances.
As I say that would not be the case if we actually left the EU and chose not to join EFTA as we would then be in breach of the terms of the EEA treaty. But otherwise as a sovereign signatory there would be an informal amendment to adjust to the new circumstances. This is all covered by treaty law.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
It is clearly good news. But it also raises some very difficult questions for Leave. The most important being what happens about free movement of people post-Brexit? How do we retain access to the free market without that?
The argument will be - "if the UK joins the EZ it will have 6% on the votes whereas it has no voice now and is being outvoted every time by the EZ bloc".
Something like that. I have heard precisely this line of argument from an acquaintance of mine at the FO by the way. The full version runs -
The Eurozone is going to integrate further and Britain will increasingly be outside the inner circle of decision making...
...so we need to reconsider our position on the euro if we are to retain our 'influence'...
...and maybe if we take a positive line on the euro we might get some concessions on blah blah blah
One-sixth of people who were born in Ireland now live outside the country. It's over 25% for those in their 20s. The female population aged between 20 and 24 has decreased by 34% since 2009.
Ireland had always had numbers like that; I think almost a third of Irish graduates... Graduated from a UK or US university.
@steverichards14: Boris Tel column shows he is not for 'out'. Instead he argues the rest of the EU will 'listen' if UK votes 'out'.. An unconvincing Third Way
The most prominent outer, is not an outer...
Is Cameron the luckiest PM in history?
No - he's showing up Cameron's useless deal by saying that he would have been for In had Cameron done a better job. He's not the only one who thinks that.
And the EU has form for making countries vote again if they give the "wrong" answer. The EU is pretty quick about reversing gear when it suits them, whatever they may have said beforehand.
As for the EMU rule book changes, these are - in effect - a disguised attempt to squeeze us into the euro in time. Once we're subject to all the rules, the arguments against going the whole way will become harder and harder to resist. A vote for Remain will inevitably mean a vote for full political and economic integration. We are being salami sliced into it.
The EU cannot make the UK vote again. In the event of an Out, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Suggesting anything else is disingenuous at best.
Agreed. That is the de jure position. I'm just mentioning what happened in practice when Denmark and Ireland voted "No" to new treaties.
@iainmartin1: Only a complete loon would think that after Brexit there wouldn't be several years of talks and establishment of a new relationship.
Iain Martin is clearly so thick he doesn't realise the talks and establishment of a new relationship come before Brexit not after. That is what Article 50 is all about.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
We could during the Article 50 process. Such amendments are made all the time to treaties as circumstances such as these change. To avoid formal amendment if all that is required is a technical change or a procedural change then an informal treaty amendment is made by the Treaty Executive Council. This is how the UN treaty and practically every other international treaty is amended whenever a country splits. You don't get every country to resign the treaty and you certainly don't have a new treaty. Just a technical amendment that reflects the new circumstances.
It wouldn't be just a technical amendment, it's a substantive change with big economic implications. It's fantasy to think that Norway, for example, would have no interest in the terms under which it would be swamped by a much larger new EFTA member.
I think the truth is that the treaty was written in such a way that it doesn't envisage any country leaving the EU. But I don't think any lawyer would agree that leaving the EU would leave us automatically on the other side of the EEA agreement.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so if you have a link to some authoritative source which says otherwise, I'll be happy to reconsider.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
Absolutely. Leave has won today hands down. Moreover, Boris's fence-sitting has helped to achieve this. Perhaps he knew what he was doing and might be given credit for that by his new allies.
As for his article, it's unreadable waffle but it really doesn't matter at all.
@steverichards14: Boris Tel column shows he is not for 'out'. Instead he argues the rest of the EU will 'listen' if UK votes 'out'.. An unconvincing Third Way
The most prominent outer, is not an outer...
Is Cameron the luckiest PM in history?
No - he's showing up Cameron's useless deal by saying that he would have been for In had Cameron done a better job. He's not the only one who thinks that.
And the EU has form for making countries vote again if they give the "wrong" answer. The EU is pretty quick about reversing gear when it suits them, whatever they may have said beforehand.
As for the EMU rule book changes, these are - in effect - a disguised attempt to squeeze us into the euro in time. Once we're subject to all the rules, the arguments against going the whole way will become harder and harder to resist. A vote for Remain will inevitably mean a vote for full political and economic integration. We are being salami sliced into it.
The EU cannot make the UK vote again. In the event of an Out, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Suggesting anything else is disingenuous at best.
Agreed. That is the de jure position. I'm just mentioning what happened in practice when Denmark and Ireland voted "No" to new treaties.
Yes, but that was also because the EU was in limbo. A certain number of countries had ratified a treaty and a few had not.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
It is clearly good news. But it also raises some very difficult questions for Leave. The most important being what happens about free movement of people post-Brexit? How do we retain access to the free market without that?
I don't think we do. This is an irreconcilable point I believe and should be dealt with head on. My choice is for the EFTA route. This obviously means we have free movement. No one should claim otherwise.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
1) Maybe 2) Corbyn isn't immortal (politically or otherwise)
I'm constantly staggered by how little credence many people on here give to Corbo's poor ratings. And even more so by the comfort they seek by the idea that he won't be around forever.
In the meantime, the Labour party is dying, and, after the boundaries are evened up, the path to No. 10 for anyone other than Cons is simply too difficult.
God, such complacency.
Reality often looks like complacency when it is not what you want to hear...
There's literally nothing I have ever wanted less, politically, than a Corbyn government. I joined the Conservative Party specifically to help prevent it. But I see that Conservative members such as yourself don't take the danger seriously. To be clear it's very unlikely but it's not impossible and in my view would be catastrophic.
As to Corbyn resigning or being replaced, that could happen at any time.
Also, whatever else its problems, Labour isn't dying. It has a large, young membership in stark contrast with the Conservatives.
Good point. The complacency of Tories on here about facing Corbyn in 2020 is staggering. In a normal climate this would be true. But 2020 is going to be about as far from normal as you can get once the global sovereign debt crisis has left a destructive trail in its wake. Extreme economic conditions are a necessary but not sufficient condition for political upheaval to occur. Hitler, Mao and Lenin all came to power off the back of domestic strife. Those Tories who ignore history are playing a very dangerous game with this shocking level of complacency around Corbyn.
Obviously once the general public have seen the front pages saying 'BORIS BACKS LEAVE' on the way to work, they will thoroughly read Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin and do a U Turn...
You obviously haven't read what I said on that score last night. Go back to last night's thread to see that 2016.202 means the turning point is around the 13th / 14th March (.202 x 366 is around 73 or 74 days) and that is the turning point in confidence in the Euro. The likely end of the Euro is 2018 / 2019.
When I and others pointed to Armstrong's turn date of 1st October 2015, that was the turn date of the global economy down, not the date of a sudden collapse. Well I think its working out pretty well so far, its not until we get through to January 2020 that the cycle turns back up again.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
The biggest problem for Leave is that so much will depend on mutual goodwill from the teams negotiating under Article 50, and a Leave vote will give the British side carte blanche to push for anything from as close as the status quo as possible to complete isolationism. There isn't an option available which won't cause immense bitterness and accusations of betrayal.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
It is clearly good news. But it also raises some very difficult questions for Leave. The most important being what happens about free movement of people post-Brexit? How do we retain access to the free market without that?
I don't think we do. This is an irreconcilable point I believe and should be dealt with head on. My choice is for the EFTA route. This obviously means we have free movement. No one should claim otherwise.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
We could during the Article 50 process. Such amendments are made all the time to treaties as circumstances such as these change. To avoid formal amendment if all that is required is a technical change or a procedural change then an informal treaty amendment is made by the Treaty Executive Council. This is how the UN treaty and practically every other international treaty is amended whenever a country splits. You don't get every country to resign the treaty and you certainly don't have a new treaty. Just a technical amendment that reflects the new circumstances.
It wouldn't be just a technical amendment, it's a substantive change with big economic implications. It's fantasy to think that Norway, for example, would have no interest in the terms under which it would be swamped by a much larger new EFTA member.
I think the truth is that the treaty was written in such a way that it doesn't envisage any country leaving the EU. But I don't think any lawyer would agree that leaving the EU would leave us automatically on the other side of the EEA agreement.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so if you have a link to some authoritative source which says otherwise, I'll be happy to reconsider.
That is a separate matter. As I made clear this is predicated on us joining EFTA. If we do not join EFTA then we are out of the EEA.
But the terms for us joining EFTA really are legally none of the EU's business. That is an entirely separate discussion to be had with the current EFTA members.
One-sixth of people who were born in Ireland now live outside the country. It's over 25% for those in their 20s. The female population aged between 20 and 24 has decreased by 34% since 2009.
Ireland had always had numbers like that; I think almost a third of Irish graduates... Graduated from a UK or US university.
I doubt the female population aged between 20 and 24 has always been declining by 34%!
Ireland was traditionally an emigrant country, but didn't that change in the years leading up to the crash?
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
It is clearly good news. But it also raises some very difficult questions for Leave. The most important being what happens about free movement of people post-Brexit? How do we retain access to the free market without that?
I don't think we do. This is an irreconcilable point I believe and should be dealt with head on. My choice is for the EFTA route. This obviously means we have free movement. No one should claim otherwise.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
So you are saying that someone who wants to leave because of immigration will vote to REMAIN because Boris backs LEAVE but isn't big on stopping freedom of movement?
Having made himself leader of Out, I'm sure a whole heap of filth will now be poured on him from those that know him best. Not sure Boris will come out of it as 'our most popular political figure'.
Having promised to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position - he emerged to the gathering throng and failed to make simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position. Then penned 1,500 words for his Telegraph column - and failed to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position.
As for the EMU rule book changes, these are - in effect - a disguised attempt to squeeze us into the euro in time. Once we're subject to all the rules, the arguments against going the whole way will become harder and harder to resist. A vote for Remain will inevitably mean a vote for full political and economic integration. We are being salami sliced into it.
yes yes yes
In a few years, 'undecideds' like Richard N will be telling us that euro membership, while not ideal, is our only option. Just like they tried to 15 years ago.
Indeed.
The argument will be - "if the UK joins the EZ it will have 6% on the votes whereas it has no voice now and is being outvoted every time by the EZ bloc".
If we do vote Remain there will be less than 10% in it, we will never join the Euro as over 80% of the country oppose it!
Whether he intended it or not, Boris is now the main Leave spokesman. The journalists will go to him for the quotes and soundbites.
I'm not sure if that's good or not for Leave.
It all depends on what he says about free movement. If that is effectively neutered as a campaign issue because Boris basically supports it, then it will be bad news for Leave. On the other hand, if he comes out forcibly against then it will electrify proceedings.
That said, Boris won't be doing debates and is very unlikely to do detailed interviews, especially on TV, so coverage of him may well not be as expansive as all that.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
But immigration isn't out of the equation. It might not be in my equation, or Boris's or Robert Smithson's or many other LEAVE advocates on here, but it is in the equation for many other people. And for them they believe they have a better chance of getting restrictions outside the EU than inside.
Boris is Teflon, like Reagan. Don't ask me why, but the normal rules of politics don't apply to him. He won't get tripped up by past comments, because he'll just shrug them all off.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
The biggest problem for Leave is that so much will depend on mutual goodwill from the teams negotiating under Article 50, and a Leave vote will give the British side carte blanche to push for anything from as close as the status quo as possible to complete isolationism. There isn't an option available which won't cause immense bitterness and accusations of betrayal.
Exactly the same applies if we stay in. Whatever happens there are going to be a lot of people feeling betrayed.
To be honest, much as the "second referendum" idea seems laughable, I now think it's going to be inevitable if there's a Leave vote. There's so many options for what Brexit will actually mean in practice that people will surely have to have their say.
(Personally, I would vote against the EEA option in a 2nd ref: that would continue most of the disadvantages of the EU, not least the lack of controls on immigration, and none of the advantages of the EU.)
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
The biggest problem for Leave is that so much will depend on mutual goodwill from the teams negotiating under Article 50, and a Leave vote will give the British side carte blanche to push for anything from as close as the status quo as possible to complete isolationism. There isn't an option available which won't cause immense bitterness and accusations of betrayal.
Exactly the same applies if we stay in. Whatever happens there are going to be a lot of people feeling betrayed.
That's true. So for the psychological health of our politics only a very convincing Remain vote will do any good. I'd define that as being in the same ballpark as the previous referendum or better.
The most popular politician in the country campaigns for Brexit... What a disaster say the in spin
the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
So say the headlines
And as he is the most popular politician in the country, that will probably be enough for the overwhelming number of people who aren't really interested in politics
You only have to see how many times Scott P has tried to make it seem bad news for Leave to know its a major plus for them
He is the most popular politician in the country because he carefully avoided doing anything political. Now he has: he sort of, kind of wants to leave the EU, but maybe not if things change. Let's see how popular that makes him.
It's good news for people who want out of the EU that he has done what he has done today, it's as simple as that
Obviously Boris supporting Leave is excellent news for them. It requires very tortured thinking to claim otherwise. The news cycle is dominated by the fact that the country's most popular politician supports Leave, not the minutiae of his article.
It is clearly good news. But it also raises some very difficult questions for Leave. The most important being what happens about free movement of people post-Brexit? How do we retain access to the free market without that?
I don't think we do. This is an irreconcilable point I believe and should be dealt with head on. My choice is for the EFTA route. This obviously means we have free movement. No one should claim otherwise.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
So you are saying that someone who wants to leave because of immigration will vote to REMAIN because Boris backs LEAVE but isn't big on stopping freedom of movement?
No, I'm saying most voters have not engaged with the referendum and need a reason to. Boris is supposed to be that reason for the Leave side. But I don't think it's likely if he essentially neuters immigration as an issue in the campaign. Without that, I imagine most of those without a strong opinion are likely to favour the status quo. We'll see.
1) Maybe 2) Corbyn isn't immortal (politically or otherwise)
I'm constantly staggered by how little credence many people on here give to Corbo's poor ratings. And even more so by the comfort they seek by the idea that he won't be around forever.
In the meantime, the Labour party is dying, and, after the boundaries are evened up, the path to No. 10 for anyone other than Cons is simply too difficult.
God, such complacency.
Reality often looks like complacency when it is not what you want to hear...
There's literally nothing I have ever wanted less, politically, than a Corbyn government. I joined the Conservative Party specifically to help prevent it. But I see that Conservative members such as yourself don't take the danger seriously. To be clear it's very unlikely but it's not impossible and in my view would be catastrophic.
As to Corbyn resigning or being replaced, that could happen at any time.
Also, whatever else its problems, Labour isn't dying. It has a large, young membership in stark contrast with the Conservatives.
As an electoral force, rather than the political version of the stop the war coalition, it is dying.
Boris is Teflon, like Reagan. Don't ask me why, but the normal rules of politics don't apply to him. He won't get tripped up by past comments, because he'll just shrug them all off.
There's a certain optimistic bonhomie that they have about their country and their opponents tried to paint them as idiots/clowns/evil that the public never bought.
Where Boris might trip (and has tripped over in the past) is his serial inability to keep his snake inside the pet store. But that never stopped Bill Clinton being a winner.
1) Maybe 2) Corbyn isn't immortal (politically or otherwise)
I'm constantly staggered by how little credence many people on here give to Corbo's poor ratings. And even more so by the comfort they seek by the idea that he won't be around forever.
In the meantime, the Labour party is dying, and, after the boundaries are evened up, the path to No. 10 for anyone other than Cons is simply too difficult.
God, such complacency.
Reality often looks like complacency when it is not what you want to hear...
There's literally nothing I have ever wanted less, politically, than a Corbyn government. I joined the Conservative Party specifically to help prevent it. But I see that Conservative members such as yourself don't take the danger seriously. To be clear it's very unlikely but it's not impossible and in my view would be catastrophic.
As to Corbyn resigning or being replaced, that could happen at any time.
Also, whatever else its problems, Labour isn't dying. It has a large, young membership in stark contrast with the Conservatives.
Good point. The complacency of Tories on here about facing Corbyn in 2020 is staggering. In a normal climate this would be true. But 2020 is going to be about as far from normal as you can get once the global sovereign debt crisis has left a destructive trail in its wake. Extreme economic conditions are a necessary but not sufficient condition for political upheaval to occur. Hitler, Mao and Lenin all came to power off the back of domestic strife. Those Tories who ignore history are playing a very dangerous game with this shocking level of complacency around Corbyn.
Ignoring doomsaying is not ignoring history.
Whatever happened to the end of the world is nigh boards in the high st?
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
But immigration isn't out of the equation. It might not be in my equation, or Boris's or Robert Smithson's or many other LEAVE advocates on here, but it is in the equation for many other people. And for them they believe they have a better chance of getting restrictions outside the EU than inside.
Then Leave will be arguing with itself, as well as with Remain. And who negotiates Brexit? It won't be Farage and UKIP, but whoever the Tories choose to replace Dave. If the bookies are right that person is likely to be Boris or a Remain supporter.
Boris is Teflon, like Reagan. Don't ask me why, but the normal rules of politics don't apply to him. He won't get tripped up by past comments, because he'll just shrug them all off.
There's a certain optimistic bonhomie that they have about their country and their opponents tried to paint them as idiots/clowns/evil that the public never bought.
Where Boris might trip (and has tripped over in the past) is his serial inability to keep his snake inside the pet store. But that never stopped Bill Clinton being a winner.
Actually I would disagree with that. Everybody knows about mini Boris', his affairs, it is absolutely no shock. What actually does for Boris is when he gets cornered in a serious interview and people expect a serious straight answer and he doesn't give one. A really good interviewer will "get him", and the more senior he is / he becomes the more it is expected of him not to simply go haazzaaah, insert humorous quip.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
But immigration isn't out of the equation. It might not be in my equation, or Boris's or Robert Smithson's or many other LEAVE advocates on here, but it is in the equation for many other people. And for them they believe they have a better chance of getting restrictions outside the EU than inside.
Then Leave will be arguing with itself, as well as with Remain. And who negotiates Brexit? It won't be Farage and UKIP, but whoever the Tories choose to replace Dave. If the bookies are right that person is likely to be Boris or a Remain supporter.
Nope. Leave will be arguing for leave.
Remain have people who want much closer union, people who want to stay in but resist any further integration and those who want us to join the Eurozone. Will they be fighting with each other?
Your sentence about replacing Dave applies equally to a remain result.
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
But immigration isn't out of the equation. It might not be in my equation, or Boris's or Robert Smithson's or many other LEAVE advocates on here, but it is in the equation for many other people. And for them they believe they have a better chance of getting restrictions outside the EU than inside.
Then Leave will be arguing with itself, as well as with Remain. And who negotiates Brexit? It won't be Farage and UKIP, but whoever the Tories choose to replace Dave. If the bookies are right that person is likely to be Boris or a Remain supporter.
There's been only one Tory that has brought me to ecstasy this weekend and that is Michael Gove.
That statement he issued on Saturday still makes me tingle.
Yes I need to get out more.
Me too. I agreed with every word of it and it wanted me to immediately align with Leave and shout it from the rooftops.
But it appealed to my emotions, yet failed to answer the difficult residual questions I keep going over in my head.
I know I'll be pulled towards Leave from now till 23rd June. But when I get in that voting booth, I can almost guarantee my head will make me vote Remain.
I suspect millions of others are in the same boat.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
The biggest problem for Leave is that so much will depend on mutual goodwill from the teams negotiating under Article 50, and a Leave vote will give the British side carte blanche to push for anything from as close as the status quo as possible to complete isolationism. There isn't an option available which won't cause immense bitterness and accusations of betrayal.
Exactly the same applies if we stay in. Whatever happens there are going to be a lot of people feeling betrayed.
That's true. So for the psychological health of our politics only a very convincing Remain vote will do any good. I'd define that as being in the same ballpark as the previous referendum or better.
A convincing Remain vote will also cause a huge sense of betrayal once the terms of Remain become clear.
I’m told that long-time allies of Boris, such as Lynton Crosby, who masterminded the Conservative general election victory, then privately urged him to throw his hat in with Leave.
To be honest, much as the "second referendum" idea seems laughable, I now think it's going to be inevitable if there's a Leave vote. There's so many options for what Brexit will actually mean in practice that people will surely have to have their say.
Point 1 What would the question in a second referendum be? If it's "REMAIN or LEAVE?", then that implies that the UK hasn't initiated the LEAVE process. Which requires the PM to have ignored the first referendum. Which is politically impossible.
Point 2 Once the LEAVE process has been initiated, there is no choice element. The agreement will be between the UK and the other 27 countries. The UK public will not be able to choose. They can express a preference ("we want this, this and this") but not enact a choice ("we want option a, not option b"). Or are you seriously suggesting the UK can revoke the LEAVE if the arrangements are not to its liking? You are aware that there is no "off" switch that the UK can unilaterally press to rescind the LEAVE process?
Take immigration out of the equation and I imagine it's a fairly easy Remain win. If that's what Boris is advocating - and he certainly hasn't said anything about wanting to restrict freedom of movement in any meaningful way - then Leave will have a problem in my view.
But immigration isn't out of the equation. It might not be in my equation, or Boris's or Robert Smithson's or many other LEAVE advocates on here, but it is in the equation for many other people. And for them they believe they have a better chance of getting restrictions outside the EU than inside.
Then Leave will be arguing with itself, as well as with Remain. And who negotiates Brexit? It won't be Farage and UKIP, but whoever the Tories choose to replace Dave. If the bookies are right that person is likely to be Boris or a Remain supporter.
Nope. Leave will be arguing for leave.
Remain have people who want much closer union, people who want to stay in but resist any further integration and those who want us to join the Eurozone. Will they be fighting with each other?
Your sentence about replacing Dave applies equally to a remain result.
The referendum will be covered as Cameron (and Osborne, May etc) against Leave. You are right about the Remain camp, but the people you refer to will be invisible and not heard - in particular because neither Labour nor the LDs are going to be close to power for many tears to come. Disagreements on issues such as immigration between high-profile Leavers will be covered.
'It all depends on what he says about free movement. If that is effectively neutered as a campaign issue because Boris basically supports it, then it will be bad news for Leave. On the other hand, if he comes out forcibly against then it will electrify proceedings.
That said, Boris won't be doing debates and is very unlikely to do detailed interviews, especially on TV, so coverage of him may well not be as expansive as all that.'
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say whatever Boris says or doesn't say or does or doesn't do it will have zero impact on the Leave campaign.
'It all depends on what he says about free movement. If that is effectively neutered as a campaign issue because Boris basically supports it, then it will be bad news for Leave. On the other hand, if he comes out forcibly against then it will electrify proceedings.
That said, Boris won't be doing debates and is very unlikely to do detailed interviews, especially on TV, so coverage of him may well not be as expansive as all that.'
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say whatever Boris says or doesn't say or does or doesn't do it will have zero impact on the Leave campaign.
Clearly you did not properly read or understand what I wrote.
Can someone put me off laying Rubio @ 2.26 and backing Cruz @ 40.0 for £50 each ?
No. Go for it!
(This is not investment advice, do your own research, etc etc!)
Cruz can't win SC, the maths are difficult and Nevada is a few days away (in which Rubio could well overperform & Cruz underperform).
The media narrative leading up to ST is likely to be squarely Rubio vs Trump.
Having said all that, buying a 2.5% chance for a solid conservative on >20% nationally in a 3 horse GOP race isn't a crazy punt at all.
Plus Cruz will win Texas on ST and maybe Arkansas and a few others, Rubio may win none at all and will probably lose Florida to Trump a fortnight later, thus ending his campaign!
Can someone put me off laying Rubio @ 2.26 and backing Cruz @ 40.0 for £50 each ?
No. Go for it!
(This is not investment advice, do your own research, etc etc!)
Cruz can't win SC, the maths are difficult and Nevada is a few days away (in which Rubio could well overperform & Cruz underperform).
The media narrative leading up to ST is likely to be squarely Rubio vs Trump.
Having said all that, buying a 2.5% chance for a solid conservative on >20% nationally in a 3 horse GOP race isn't a crazy punt at all.
Plus Cruz will win Texas on ST and maybe Arkansas and a few others, Rubio may win none at all and will probably lose Florida to Trump a fortnight later, thus ending his campaign!
Arkansas looks like a genuine 3 horse race actually.
In all honesty the bet probably would produce no change long term if I let it run as Trump looks set anyways - but it's worth a punt that the odds will shift back to Cruz against Rubio. Cruz didn't even poll allthat well in South Carolina tbh. He is ahead of Rubio nationally.
Can someone put me off laying Rubio @ 2.26 and backing Cruz @ 40.0 for £50 each ?
No. Go for it!
(This is not investment advice, do your own research, etc etc!)
Cruz can't win SC, the maths are difficult and Nevada is a few days away (in which Rubio could well overperform & Cruz underperform).
The media narrative leading up to ST is likely to be squarely Rubio vs Trump.
Having said all that, buying a 2.5% chance for a solid conservative on >20% nationally in a 3 horse GOP race isn't a crazy punt at all.
Plus Cruz will win Texas on ST and maybe Arkansas and a few others, Rubio may win none at all and will probably lose Florida to Trump a fortnight later, thus ending his campaign!
Arkansas looks like a genuine 3 horse race actually.
Regardless, Cruz at least wins Texas, the second largest state in the union, on ST. Arkansas is just a bonus. Goodnight!
Can someone put me off laying Rubio @ 2.26 and backing Cruz @ 40.0 for £50 each ?
No. Go for it!
(This is not investment advice, do your own research, etc etc!)
Cruz can't win SC, the maths are difficult and Nevada is a few days away (in which Rubio could well overperform & Cruz underperform).
The media narrative leading up to ST is likely to be squarely Rubio vs Trump.
Having said all that, buying a 2.5% chance for a solid conservative on >20% nationally in a 3 horse GOP race isn't a crazy punt at all.
Plus Cruz will win Texas on ST and maybe Arkansas and a few others, Rubio may win none at all and will probably lose Florida to Trump a fortnight later, thus ending his campaign!
Arkansas looks like a genuine 3 horse race actually.
In which case, owing to its electoral system, it will have negligible overall impact...
It came as doubts emerged over Mr Cameron’s EU reform package. The IoS can reveal that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, warned the Prime Minister that his pledge to change the EU treaties to lock in his reforms may never happen.
A leaked diplomatic report of the Brussels talks reveals that Ms Merkel told fellow EU leaders not to be overly concerned about Mr Cameron’s demand for treaty changes because “on the question of amending the Treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them”. The revelation undermines a key claim of Mr Cameron’s renegotiation.
There's been only one Tory that has brought me to ecstasy this weekend and that is Michael Gove.
That statement he issued on Saturday still makes me tingle.
Yes I need to get out more.
Me too. I agreed with every word of it and it wanted me to immediately align with Leave and shout it from the rooftops.
But it appealed to my emotions, yet failed to answer the difficult residual questions I keep going over in my head.
I know I'll be pulled towards Leave from now till 23rd June. But when I get in that voting booth, I can almost guarantee my head will make me vote Remain.
I suspect millions of others are in the same boat.
Carbon copy of Indy Ref and 2015 GE.
The give away is the Wisdom Index which very heavily shows people expect Remain to win.
I think Leave could have had a chance but it would need Boris to win a prime-time head to head against Cameron - and that won't be happening.
Without the above, people who might think they're going to vote Leave won't have the guts to go through with it - they'll bottle it at the last minute.
Will he be campaigning? We know he won't be debating. Interviews look like they'll be off limits too. The odd column, some jolly photos, the odd speech ... Others will be doing the heavy lifting. And Boris has raised all kinds of questions about what a Leave vote actually means.
Nobody knows what a LEAVE vote means, agreed, Mr Observer. And nobody has the least idea what a REMAIN vote means either.
The whole thing is a waste of time. Its only purpose was and is to prevent the Tory Party from splitting. I think the Tories ought to foot the bill. How much is it costing us taxpayers?
Whatever it's purpose, settling the issue would seem to be an endeavour worthy of its cost. Given how it is predicted to be close, it may be Tories most riled up by the issue but it is not an issue of concern only to them, so suggesting they should foot the bill is simply absurd, even if we accepted the proposition people should only have to foot the bill for things they are interested in.
Maybe, Mr Kle. But if we are going to settle the question, we need to have it very clearly defined, with all the implications. The question before us is so vague as to be useless.
Like the Scottish Independence question. Whether one is in favour or against depends on what the question means. And nobody knows.
Comments
As I say that would not be the case if we actually left the EU and chose not to join EFTA as we would then be in breach of the terms of the EEA treaty. But otherwise as a sovereign signatory there would be an informal amendment to adjust to the new circumstances. This is all covered by treaty law.
Something like that. I have heard precisely this line of argument from an acquaintance of mine at the FO by the way. The full version runs -
The Eurozone is going to integrate further and Britain will increasingly be outside the inner circle of decision making...
...so we need to reconsider our position on the euro if we are to retain our 'influence'...
...and maybe if we take a positive line on the euro we might get some concessions on blah blah blah
Does it all sound very familiar?
More seriously, it may not seem likely at the moment but there will come a time when Euro membership looks attractive.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/701537522254553089
I think the truth is that the treaty was written in such a way that it doesn't envisage any country leaving the EU. But I don't think any lawyer would agree that leaving the EU would leave us automatically on the other side of the EEA agreement.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so if you have a link to some authoritative source which says otherwise, I'll be happy to reconsider.
As for his article, it's unreadable waffle but it really doesn't matter at all.
This would be fundamentally different.
But for those thinking this is a problem for LEAVE I would make the observation that most of those who are bothered by immigration are probably fairly antipathetic towards the EU anyway. Stay with free movement and all the problems of the EU or leave with free movement and get rid of the problems of the EU. Those for me are the two choices although obviously I realise others would prefer the third option of complete withdrawal and no EFTA.
When I and others pointed to Armstrong's turn date of 1st October 2015, that was the turn date of the global economy down, not the date of a sudden collapse. Well I think its working out pretty well so far, its not until we get through to January 2020 that the cycle turns back up again.
I'm not sure if that's good or not for Leave.
That is certainly what should happen
(This is not investment advice, do your own research, etc etc!)
Good night all. 122 exciting days to come.
But the terms for us joining EFTA really are legally none of the EU's business. That is an entirely separate discussion to be had with the current EFTA members.
This is all covered by the Vienna Convention.
Ireland was traditionally an emigrant country, but didn't that change in the years leading up to the crash?
The impact is quite unpredictable, I think.
Having promised to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position - he emerged to the gathering throng and failed to make simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position. Then penned 1,500 words for his Telegraph column - and failed to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement of his position.
What a chump!
That said, Boris won't be doing debates and is very unlikely to do detailed interviews, especially on TV, so coverage of him may well not be as expansive as all that.
(Personally, I would vote against the EEA option in a 2nd ref: that would continue most of the disadvantages of the EU, not least the lack of controls on immigration, and none of the advantages of the EU.)
Where Boris might trip (and has tripped over in the past) is his serial inability to keep his snake inside the pet store. But that never stopped Bill Clinton being a winner.
That statement he issued on Saturday still makes me tingle.
Yes I need to get out more.
Whatever happened to the end of the world is nigh boards in the high st?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12167611/Captain-Eric-Winkle-Brown-obituary.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Remain have people who want much closer union, people who want to stay in but resist any further integration and those who want us to join the Eurozone. Will they be fighting with each other?
Your sentence about replacing Dave applies equally to a remain result.
But it appealed to my emotions, yet failed to answer the difficult residual questions I keep going over in my head.
I know I'll be pulled towards Leave from now till 23rd June. But when I get in that voting booth, I can almost guarantee my head will make me vote Remain.
I suspect millions of others are in the same boat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3457538/ANDREW-PIERCE-no-doubt-Mr-Ambition-wants-PM-s-job.html
What would the question in a second referendum be? If it's "REMAIN or LEAVE?", then that implies that the UK hasn't initiated the LEAVE process. Which requires the PM to have ignored the first referendum. Which is politically impossible.
Point 2
Once the LEAVE process has been initiated, there is no choice element. The agreement will be between the UK and the other 27 countries. The UK public will not be able to choose. They can express a preference ("we want this, this and this") but not enact a choice ("we want option a, not option b"). Or are you seriously suggesting the UK can revoke the LEAVE if the arrangements are not to its liking? You are aware that there is no "off" switch that the UK can unilaterally press to rescind the LEAVE process?
The media narrative leading up to ST is likely to be squarely Rubio vs Trump.
Having said all that, buying a 2.5% chance for a solid conservative on >20% nationally in a 3 horse GOP race isn't a crazy punt at all.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/02/nadhim-zahawi-mp-why-i-have-decided-to-vote-for-britain-to-leave-the-eu.html
'It all depends on what he says about free movement. If that is effectively neutered as a campaign issue because Boris basically supports it, then it will be bad news for Leave. On the other hand, if he comes out forcibly against then it will electrify proceedings.
That said, Boris won't be doing debates and is very unlikely to do detailed interviews, especially on TV, so coverage of him may well not be as expansive as all that.'
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say whatever Boris says or doesn't say or does or doesn't do it will have zero impact on the Leave campaign.
Boris wants to have his cake and not eat it?
Interesting.......
http://infacts.org/farage-makes-hat-trick-of-errors-in-marr-interview/
Ergo Trump. But it was always going to be Trump, whatever pygmies were in the race.
In all honesty the bet probably would produce no change long term if I let it run as Trump looks set anyways - but it's worth a punt that the odds will shift back to Cruz against Rubio. Cruz didn't even poll allthat well in South Carolina tbh. He is ahead of Rubio nationally.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/701531976566755330
Taken for fools ?
The give away is the Wisdom Index which very heavily shows people expect Remain to win.
I think Leave could have had a chance but it would need Boris to win a prime-time head to head against Cameron - and that won't be happening.
Without the above, people who might think they're going to vote Leave won't have the guts to go through with it - they'll bottle it at the last minute.
Like the Scottish Independence question. Whether one is in favour or against depends on what the question means. And nobody knows.