It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
FFS. He is supporting Leave, the Corporatists and corporations want to Remain, that should be a big enough clue even for you.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
You appear fascinated by Boris, frankly I don't give a shit what he thinks.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
So in your world you want Dave to sand up at Dover and channel Mrs Merkel ? Its a view I suppose.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Well lots of the big businesses and multinats avoid tax and leave the bill for us to pick up. And that huge slew of small businesses in the country might look at the Conservatives and say what do they do for us these days ?
It would be interesting to consider how many Conservative MP's are for leave because they would be under pressure from UKIP and their constituency if they were for remain. This situation must have changed the dynamic, particularly in England, as UKIP become irrelevant. It must also have an effect on the English local elections in May and would non doubt give a big boost to the Conservative councillors
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
Conor McGinn New poll of Labour members: 75% ABC1 & 40% read Guardian. Lots to be done to engage & reflect working class concerns https://t.co/fVcxbf0sbc
Nick Cohen is spot on about this:
If you have the honesty to acknowledge your good fortune, which may well be dependent on who your parents were and what advantages they gave you, you should accept another hard truth. A Conservative government suits you very well. You may profoundly disagree with it, but you have a financial interest in keeping it in power. By supporting Corbyn and his fellow travellers, you are helping the Conservatives, who won’t raise taxes on wealthy people such as, well, you, and will when it can cut them. And maybe you are doing something worse. Maybe you are not as concerned with building a just society, as you claim. Perhaps, like so many wealthy revolutionaries, you want to use the victims of injustice as an army of silent extras in an agitprop psychodrama, directed by and starring yourself. You don’t care, if the revolution never comes. You do not worry that Corbyn and Momentum are ensuring that the Conservatives stay in power until 2025 or 2030. You want to vent your fury, fight your sectarian wars, hate the Tory scum and destroy the Blairite traitors, without once noticing the grateful smiles on the faces of Cameron and Osborne.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
FFS. He is supporting Leave, the Corporatists and corporations want to Remain, that should be a big enough clue even for you.
Boris is a City boy. He is not supporting leave to set SMEs free. Like the big corporations and the banks, he supports free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
You appear fascinated by Boris, frankly I don't give a shit what he thinks.
Leave me off the trolling list.
You are not being forced to respond to any of my posts.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Well lots of the big businesses and multinats avoid tax and leave the bill for us to pick up. And that huge slew of small businesses in the country might look at the Conservatives and say what do they do for us these days ?
As a member of the metropolitan liberal elite you have to be pro big multi nat business, so I have to look at it from a slightly different view. I'm someone who has benefitted from mass movement/immigration both personally and professionally.
All these multi nats have high paid employees who contribute lots to the exchequer and the economy as whole.
You need to take a patrician view of things and not as a pleb.
The most important decision in this referendum has yet to be made.
The electoral commission has to appoint the official Leave campaign, if it Grassroots Out then that's a blow for leave.
Whilst Cameron is on the same side as Gerry Adams and John McDonnell, you can be damn sure Remain won't hold a rally and introduce Adams or McDonnell as their special guest.
Lord only knows how they will decide bertween the two.
It's essentially a highly-charged political decision about whether free movement will be the centrepiece of the campaign.
Vote Leave appears to be the Tory Leave team.
Grassroots Out appears to have more supporters from different parties.
You can see how and why the electoral commission gives it to Grassroots Out
John Mills is the founder and co-chairman of Vote Leave. He's as left wing as they come.
I know. But it isn't as broad based as Grassroots Out.
With Galloway on one end and Farage on the other is it actually possible to be more broad based?
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
You appear fascinated by Boris, frankly I don't give a shit what he thinks.
Leave me off the trolling list.
You are not being forced to respond to any of my posts.
"The Prime Minister has done his best but Brussels was not prepared to give up sufficient control over our sovereignty to make our membership of the EU legitimate. And its dysfunction and disorder make staying as we are the truly risky option.
"We need a radically different relationship with our European neighbours to reclaim our sovereignty and with it the legitimacy of our law making."
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
You appear fascinated by Boris, frankly I don't give a shit what he thinks.
Leave me off the trolling list.
You are not being forced to respond to any of my posts.
The most important decision in this referendum has yet to be made.
The electoral commission has to appoint the official Leave campaign, if it Grassroots Out then that's a blow for leave.
Whilst Cameron is on the same side as Gerry Adams and John McDonnell, you can be damn sure Remain won't hold a rally and introduce Adams or McDonnell as their special guest.
Lord only knows how they will decide bertween the two.
It's essentially a highly-charged political decision about whether free movement will be the centrepiece of the campaign.
Vote Leave appears to be the Tory Leave team.
Grassroots Out appears to have more supporters from different parties.
You can see how and why the electoral commission gives it to Grassroots Out
John Mills is the founder and co-chairman of Vote Leave. He's as left wing as they come.
I know. But it isn't as broad based as Grassroots Out.
With Galloway on one end and Farage on the other is it actually possible to be more broad based?
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
Does the EC have to pick one? Could they say to both "neither of you gets it unless you merge"?
There's a most amusing scene in The Good Wife where her daughter's friend recommends playing Muslim call to prayer loudly if she wants her parents to give her what she wants
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
My daughter playing crap music in her bedroom rather too loudly isn't a huge issue for me, it doesn't mean I approve of it, or don't want it to stop, I just have other things further up the priority list.
The big businesses bit got me - using the regulations to crush small businesses and make lives worse for employees (I see the grinding results of it every day). That makes me fear for the future of our children more than anything else - I see people in our factory who are akin to zero-hour contract slaves.
I'm a natural risk taker, so screw it, I'm gonna vote for leave.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
The peace within EU countries was imposed from outside. Europe lost both world wars and ceased to be the power base of the world as a result. The EU grew up under a US umbrella that kept any rain away.
I agree with your second point. This is indeed a very difficult decision. I am not sure that I do admire those who are so certain one way or another because it seems to me that they must have a very partial view of the conflicting evidence selecting what suits their prejudice.
In my opinion the balance favours coming out of the EU but remaining within the EEA. But I fully accept that anyone could rationally and reasonably come to different views.
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
So Boris will be on the losing side, hated by the conservative leadership.
Conor McGinn New poll of Labour members: 75% ABC1 & 40% read Guardian. Lots to be done to engage & reflect working class concerns https://t.co/fVcxbf0sbc
Nick Cohen is spot on about this:
If you have the honesty to acknowledge your good fortune, which may well be dependent on who your parents were and what advantages they gave you, you should accept another hard truth. A Conservative government suits you very well. You may profoundly disagree with it, but you have a financial interest in keeping it in power. By supporting Corbyn and his fellow travellers, you are helping the Conservatives, who won’t raise taxes on wealthy people such as, well, you, and will when it can cut them. And maybe you are doing something worse. Maybe you are not as concerned with building a just society, as you claim. Perhaps, like so many wealthy revolutionaries, you want to use the victims of injustice as an army of silent extras in an agitprop psychodrama, directed by and starring yourself. You don’t care, if the revolution never comes. You do not worry that Corbyn and Momentum are ensuring that the Conservatives stay in power until 2025 or 2030. You want to vent your fury, fight your sectarian wars, hate the Tory scum and destroy the Blairite traitors, without once noticing the grateful smiles on the faces of Cameron and Osborne.
The belief that, whoever is in office, the Tories are always in power goes back a long way - probably before WW2 altho' I can only surmise that.
I notice that no matter how morally vicious Peebies and Speccies consider Guardianistas to be, they are always wholly opposed to any suggestion of criminal sanctions against them.
Commons Library In or Out? You decide on the 23 June. Read our impartial briefing on the possible impact of a #Brexit https://t.co/oXPYLMsPOg
This is the sort of thing I want to read!
I will digest the full 100 page+ report at some point, but reading the fairly well-balanced exec summary, it's hard to come out of it feeling more inclined to vote Leave. It confirms my gut feeling that leaving the EU may simply not be worth the hassle and grief it would entail (including hastening the exit of Scotland and the reunification of Ireland), not least because on so many areas we would probably keep UK law in line with EU law not least for the entirely logical reason that we remain geographically part of Europe, they are our next door neighbours, we buy and sell goods from and to them (so would need to keep on meeting their standards), and we all like to travel to and work in Europe. And if we want to stay in the EEA and/or maintain a common trade area, then we will forcibly have to comply, not choose to.
It confirms my instinctive view that we're better off staying in and having piffling influence but still some ability to shape what affects us (perhaps by retaining the ability to throw a proper Brexit bomb in there a few years hence when it is really needed!), than leaving and tinkering around the edges by reducing some regulatory burdens we don't like but having to swallow all the stuff we do still want lock stock and barrel with no ability to change it.
What it does also demonstrate to me is how a slightly more ambitious, properly focused and concentrated effort by Cameron on the handful of areas that really are the concern might well have delivered him an absolute slam-dunk Remain landslide, and his place in history.
Instead, it's all a bit of a mess. Though I expect Remain will win.
Yes the respective fates of the ex-Warsaw pact countries which turned to the EU and those which remained in the Russian sphere is a very good advert for the EU. There can be no doubt that the Kremlin is hoping for Brexit and the start of the unravelling of the EU so they can more easily corrupt the politics of Europe.
NATO ?
NATO doesn't affect energy policy, trade, immigration, or any of a whole range of issues that Russia has an interest in influencing across the continent.
And regarding NATO, Russia seems to be doing a good job in creating an open conflict with one of its members in which NATO will not help, therefore bringing the future of the whole organisation in doubt.
I have no liking for Russia at all but I would suggest that much of the current crisis is because Turkey is trying to play both sides against the middle in Syria. It is clear they are supporting Isis whilst using the crisis as an excuse to try to attack the Kurds. Just in the same way as the Russians are using Isis as an excuse to bomb any opponent of Assad. Both Turkey and Russia are equally responsible for the current problems between the two countries.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Well lots of the big businesses and multinats avoid tax and leave the bill for us to pick up. And that huge slew of small businesses in the country might look at the Conservatives and say what do they do for us these days ?
As a member of the metropolitan elite you have to be pro big multi nat business, so I have to look at it from a slightly different view. I'm someone who has benefitted from mass movement/immigration both personally and professionally.
All these multi nats have high paid employees who contribute lots to the exchequer and the economy as whole.
You need to take a patrician view of things and not as a pleb.
Well it's a view. Of course there was a time when the Conservatives were a broader church and able to manage a fairly wide range of business interests. As for your faith in multinats I'm afraid I don;t share it, mulitinats are in it for multinats, not the well being of any one country and while they contribute to the economy they are not the only strand. The economy needs to be more broadly balanced.
Does the EC have to pick one? Could they say to both "neither of you gets it unless you merge"?
Yes, the guidance explicitly says they don't have have to designate one. But, in practice, I can't see them doing that: it would hardly be fair play to have only the Remain side having official status.
It would be interesting to consider how many Conservative MP's are for leave because they would be under pressure from UKIP and their constituency if they were for remain. This situation must have changed the dynamic, particularly in England, as UKIP become irrelevant. It must also have an effect on the English local elections in May and would non doubt give a big boost to the Conservative councillors
It's possible, but the converse might also happen. If the media concentration on all things EURef gives the kippers a boost in the local election Conservative MPs might be looking over their shoulder more.
The bigger problem from many MPs is potentially they have sold their association a line about being a eurosceptic and now come out for Remain, and shorty there is going to be a lot of re-selections going on for the reduction to 600 MPs.
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
So Boris will be on the losing side, hated by the conservative leadership.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Well lots of the big businesses and multinats avoid tax and leave the bill for us to pick up. And that huge slew of small businesses in the country might look at the Conservatives and say what do they do for us these days ?
As a member of the metropolitan elite you have to be pro big multi nat business, so I have to look at it from a slightly different view. I'm someone who has benefitted from mass movement/immigration both personally and professionally.
All these multi nats have high paid employees who contribute lots to the exchequer and the economy as whole.
You need to take a patrician view of things and not as a pleb.
Well it's a view. Of course there was a time when the Conservatives were a broader church and able to manage a fairly wide range of business interests. As for your faith in multinats I'm afraid I don;t share it, mulitinats are in it for multinats, not the well being of any one country and while they contribute to the economy they are not the only strand. The economy needs to be more broadly balanced.
We're the party of all businesses, small or large.
I think Multi Nats get more grief than they deserve.
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
So Boris will be on the losing side, hated by the conservative leadership.
And that helps his career, how?
Well to take an obvious example, giving him a senior cabinet position after the referendum decides remain would be a simple way of bringing the tory party back together again and persuading those Tories who voted Leave that they were still wanted.
What is it about this issue, several well respected posters on this forum appear to be prepared to completely shred their credibility and argue semantics and that black equals white just to try and provide some vaguely credible support for the remain camp. I have the luxury of not having any credibility to start with, but several others are going to have a long fight to be taken seriously again.
I have no liking for Russia at all but I would suggest that much of the current crisis is because Turkey is trying to play both sides against the middle in Syria. It is clear they are supporting Isis whilst using the crisis as an excuse to try to attack the Kurds. Just in the same way as the Russians are using Isis as an excuse to bomb any opponent of Assad. Both Turkey and Russia are equally responsible for the current problems between the two countries.
a good summation. seems like religious wars are rarely actually religious wars. just like historical european ones. the nutters don't get far without support
It seems that Vote Leave now have both high-profile support from serious politicians, and cross-party support (from Conservative and Labour MPs, and the sole UKIP MP). I'd be surprised if they don't get the official designation.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Well lots of the big businesses and multinats avoid tax and leave the bill for us to pick up. And that huge slew of small businesses in the country might look at the Conservatives and say what do they do for us these days ?
As a member of the metropolitan elite you have to be pro big multi nat business, so I have to look at it from a slightly different view. I'm someone who has benefitted from mass movement/immigration both personally and professionally.
All these multi nats have high paid employees who contribute lots to the exchequer and the economy as whole.
You need to take a patrician view of things and not as a pleb.
Well it's a view. Of course there was a time when the Conservatives were a broader church and able to manage a fairly wide range of business interests. As for your faith in multinats I'm afraid I don;t share it, mulitinats are in it for multinats, not the well being of any one country and while they contribute to the economy they are not the only strand. The economy needs to be more broadly balanced.
No you no longer are.
having worked in both a large multinat and an SME there's very little in it for SMEs to keep voting Tory.
SMEs would be safer voting for a party more aligned to their interests fortunately for the Tories there isn't one at present.
We're the party of all businesses, small or large.
I think Multi Nats get more grief than they deserve.
Well to take an obvious example, giving him a senior cabinet position after the referendum decides remain would be a simple way of bringing the tory party back together again and persuading those Tories who voted Leave that they were still wanted.
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
Richard, you're embarrassing yourself. Sure you've decided to vote remain. Bully for you. But don't partially quote others to give a misleading impression
Oh, for God's sake, not you too!
No, I'm not embarassing myself. I am writing in the (perhaps over-optimistic) assumption that people reading my comments are not half-wits. My point, which surely is hardly controversial, is that there are lots of quotes out there from Boris which make it very awkward for him to be convincing as the leader of the Leave campaign. He'll be repeatedly challenged by journalists about his inconsistencies, and his comments - just like the two I quoted - will be on Remain leaflets. What's more, he's opened himself to the perception that he's motivated primarily by career aspirations rather than what's good for the country.
Now, both of these problems might be unfair. But we're grown-ups here, right? At least I am. What we are talking about is the degree to which Boris is an asset for Leave in a political sense. Of course he's a big asset inasmuch as he's a charismatic big beast and obviously not bonkers. But there are awkward issues which will make it hard for him to lead Leave with credibility and conviction.
I agree with Sean Fear: de facto, whether he intended it or not, Boris is now the leader of Leave, the person journalists will most want to get quotes and interviews from. A reluctant, conflicted leader, albeit a charismatic one.
They you should have written that.
As it was it looked like you are playing 'gotcha'.
Which is just embarrassing. You're capable of so much more.
So as not to discourage you, I'd probably mark it as a B-, although it really deserves a C+
Well to take an obvious example, giving him a senior cabinet position after the referendum decides remain would be a simple way of bringing the tory party back together again and persuading those Tories who voted Leave that they were still wanted.
If Remain wins, he will be lucky to get DoSAC
Rubbish. The priority will be keeping the Tory party together and that is what they will do.
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
So Boris will be on the losing side, hated by the conservative leadership.
And that helps his career, how?
Well to take an obvious example, giving him a senior cabinet position after the referendum decides remain would be a simple way of bringing the tory party back together again and persuading those Tories who voted Leave that they were still wanted.
Especially since it is likely he is there in the first place to be the Cameroon leader if by some miracle Leave win. This is an Osborne-type wheeze to cover their bases and bring the party back together who ever wins. If they didn't get a team like Boris and Gove in place and it was left to Farage, and by some happen-stance, a terrorist incident or migration crisis for example, Leave won, they would face having to do business with the kippers.
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
I agree. It is not clear at all which one would be chosen. Personally obviously I hope it will be Vote Leave. To my mind both their message and their advocates are more likely to win over moderates. But how on earth you decide who represents the 'to the greatest extent those campaigning to leave' is not at all obvious.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
I agree. It is not clear at all which one would be chosen. Personally obviously I hope it will be Vote Leave. To my mind both their message and their advocates are more likely to win over moderates. But how on earth you decide who represents the 'to the greatest extent those campaigning to leave' is not at all obvious.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
I suspect the Shinners will be too busy with GE2016 in the Republic to bother much about the EUref
Hearing Cameron and Osborne are going to introduce legislation like this
Mike Smithson: How long before someone proposes a US-style "birther" rule restricting being PM to those born in UK?
We've never needed such a rule.
The Yanks, on the other hand, in 1787 were terrified that we (or some other tyranny) might raise "a creature of their own" to the Presidency, fatally subverting the nascent Republic.
So they insisted on the best safeguard they had, that the President must have undivided loyalty at birth, and only natural born citizens satisfy that test.
But they were wise enough to include a clause that permitted the Constitution to be amended, if circumstances and the will of the People desired it.
Several attempts have been made to do just that. All have so far failed.
Therefore no-one can have any complaints. Cruz should have run for PM of Canada, or indeed the UK!
Judging by how irritated the Remainians are by Boris, I think the Leavites are getting a huge boost from him.
After the George Galloway blunder, the Leavers needed cheering up.
Lol, that was a real bubble issue. My mum is a Tory party member and didn't have any idea who Galloway was, the man on the Clapham Omnibus will have no idea, the West Bradford Omnibus maybe.
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
I agree. It is not clear at all which one would be chosen. Personally obviously I hope it will be Vote Leave. To my mind both their message and their advocates are more likely to win over moderates. But how on earth you decide who represents the 'to the greatest extent those campaigning to leave' is not at all obvious.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
We'll know there's something rotten if Respect gets the nod
X I have no liking for Russia at all but I would suggest that much of the current crisis is because Turkey is trying to play both sides against the middle in Syria. It is clear they are supporting Isis whilst using the crisis as an excuse to try to attack the Kurds. Just in the same way as the Russians are using Isis as an excuse to bomb any opponent of Assad. Both Turkey and Russia are equally responsible for the current problems between the two countries.
This made me think of the old song about Abdul and Ivan Skavinski Skavar. Checked it on Wikipedia, and found such a bawdy version in the middle of that Wiki article that I've never seen the like before in that source.
It seems that Vote Leave now have both high-profile support from serious politicians, and cross-party support (from Conservative and Labour MPs, and the sole UKIP MP). I'd be surprised if they don't get the official designation.
Which is why 'Grassroots' have picked their name cleverly - 'the people' (of course they're not, they're careerist politicians like the rest of them) versus 'the establishment' (Cabinet Ministers) - so if it is 'Vote Leave', and 'Leave' lose, it will be 'an establishment stitch up'.....and the whining will never end....
In terms of generating 'light' 'Vote Leave' should get it - for adding to the Gaiety of the Nation 'Grassroots'......
Either way, I don't envy the Electoral Commission their job.....
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
Judging by how irritated the Remainians are by Boris, I think the Leavites are getting a huge boost from him.
Boris seems to be saying that if Leave wins (he “leads” Leave to a win) he’ll renegotiate for a better deal.
No he said in an "ideal world" that is what he would like to do. Last time I looked there was a way to go to get to "ideal". He then talks about spending two years negotiating Free Trade Agreements, not something you would except to do if you were rejoining, especially since two years is the expected time to carry out the Article 50 negotiations.
It seems that Vote Leave now have both high-profile support from serious politicians, and cross-party support (from Conservative and Labour MPs, and the sole UKIP MP). I'd be surprised if they don't get the official designation.
Which is why 'Grassroots' have picked their name cleverly - 'the people' (of course they're not, they're careerist politicians like the rest of them) versus 'the establishment' (Cabinet Ministers) - so if it is 'Vote Leave', and 'Leave' lose, it will be 'an establishment stitch up'.....and the whining will never end....
In terms of generating 'light' 'Vote Leave' should get it - for adding to the Gaiety of the Nation 'Grassroots'......
Either way, I don't envy the Electoral Commission their job.....
If Cabinet Ministers and FTSE 100 CEOs aren't Establishment then who is ?
Judging by how irritated the Remainians are by Boris, I think the Leavites are getting a huge boost from him.
It's hardly a huge boost for Leave though that he doesn't actually believe in and want to Leave, he just wants to use a Leave vote as a means to negotiate something better than Cameron managed.
Knowing Boris he'll probably change his mind anyway....
Judging by how irritated the Remainians are by Boris, I think the Leavites are getting a huge boost from him.
It's hardly a huge boost for Leave though that he doesn't actually believe in and want to Leave, he just wants to use a Leave vote as a means to negotiate something better than Cameron managed.
Knowing Boris he'll probably change his mind anyway....
He doesn't. That is just a Europhile Straw man. As I said, point to anywhere in the article he wrote where he says he wants to stay inside the EU.
Hearing Cameron and Osborne are going to introduce legislation like this
Mike Smithson: How long before someone proposes a US-style "birther" rule restricting being PM to those born in UK?
We've never needed such a rule.
The Yanks, on the other hand, in 1787 were terrified that we (or some other tyranny) might raise "a creature of their own" to the Presidency, fatally subverting the nascent Republic.
So they insisted on the best safeguard they had, that the President must have undivided loyalty at birth, and only natural born citizens satisfy that test.
But they were wise enough to include a clause that permitted the Constitution to be amended, if circumstances and the will of the People desired it.
Several attempts have been made to do just that. All have so far failed.
Therefore no-one can have any complaints. Cruz should have run for PM of Canada, or indeed the UK!
The US didn't recognise dual citizenship until quite recently. It's clear that the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" needs to be clarified as existing case law is unsatisfactory (for instance, all citizenship is artificial).
It seems that Vote Leave now have both high-profile support from serious politicians, and cross-party support (from Conservative and Labour MPs, and the sole UKIP MP). I'd be surprised if they don't get the official designation.
Which is why 'Grassroots' have picked their name cleverly - 'the people' (of course they're not, they're careerist politicians like the rest of them) versus 'the establishment' (Cabinet Ministers) - so if it is 'Vote Leave', and 'Leave' lose, it will be 'an establishment stitch up'.....and the whining will never end....
In terms of generating 'light' 'Vote Leave' should get it - for adding to the Gaiety of the Nation 'Grassroots'......
Either way, I don't envy the Electoral Commission their job.....
If Cabinet Ministers and FTSE 100 CEOs aren't Establishment then who is ?
That's the point - if its 'Vote Leave' its going to be 'The Establishment' vs 'The Establishment' and 'Nigel's insurrection, which could have won it was nobbled....'
It would be interesting to see who committed 'Leavers' would prefer.
Margot Parker, UKIP MEP for the East Midlands, with Peter Bone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, Kate Hoey, Labour Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, Tom Pursglove, Conservative Member of Parliament for Corby & East Northamptonshire, Philip Hollobone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Kettering, Sammy Wilson, DUP Member of Parliament for East Antrim, and UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage MEP, with special guest, the Rt. Hon Dr Liam Fox MP, all taking part.
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
I agree. It is not clear at all which one would be chosen. Personally obviously I hope it will be Vote Leave. To my mind both their message and their advocates are more likely to win over moderates. But how on earth you decide who represents the 'to the greatest extent those campaigning to leave' is not at all obvious.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
Whether Vote Leave or Grassroots Out get the official designation, I do hope the other group can see that they are both supposed to be on the same side and get behind them. There are only four months to go until the referendum - there is no time to be wasted on petty squabbles and in-fighting.
Yes it is. I already quoted him this morning saying that as a result of a Leave vote we would have to negotiate new trade agreements. That specifically precludes us being inside the EU.
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
The big businesses bit got me - using the regulations to crush small businesses and make lives worse for employees (I see the grinding results of it every day). That makes me fear for the future of our children more than anything else - I see people in our factory who are akin to zero-hour contract slaves.
I'm a natural risk taker, so screw it, I'm gonna vote for leave.
Thank you!
Sentimentally, I feel like a spiteful bastard voting to leave. The peace we've had in Europe for 60 years and the close bonds between once warring countries. I mean, it is impressive, and really it should trump all else.
But the creeping powers, the tentacles stealing away, smidge by smidge, bits of our sovereignty. It has always bothered me and should bother everyone who cares about politics. I regard Gove (the Tories version of Ed Balls) as a decent, intellectually challenging, free-thinking, political hard-nut. He might be crushingly unpopular (again, like Balls) due to his stridency, but there's something noble in that.
I trust him.
Yugoslavia? Ukraine? Where is this peace you talk of? I think the EU has done a poor job of securing peace on our continent since the cold war meant it wasn't just a case of Europe on both sides of the curtain doing what they were told.
Gove's piece was excellent but we still need to be clear what the alternative is: in the EEA or out of it? In the single market or out of it (presumably with some sort of trade deal)? Gove is capable of giving intellectual coherence to Leave but whether the others on that platform will agree with him (including Boris) remains to be seen.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
On the one hand, pupils are told, we have western liberal democracies and on the other hand we have societies built around different values, for example, religious law. These are very different societies but each has an equally valid point of view. In line with so-called ‘British values’ our schools are promoting the ‘middle ground’ between different beliefs and different ideologies. All of this is exceptionally well intentioned. The ‘middle ground’ is not supposed to provide a launching pad for radicalism but, unfortunately, that can be the consequence.
Unwittingly, the endemic ‘value relativism’ within our education system is encouraging youngsters to see fundamentalism as one equally valid choice amongst several. It is time our political and educational leaders woke up to this awful truth. The path to hell always was paved with good intentions.
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
Or his acceptance of the move underlines his integrity.
He is one of the few politicians to speak with authenticity. He may repel many, but he believes what he says.
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
That's really for the EU to say; No. 10 does not figure in the decision, unless they are proposing to block any delay in our secession and insist on full withdrawal immediately after a Leave vote, which I strongly doubt.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
On the one hand, pupils are told, we have western liberal democracies and on the other hand we have societies built around different values, for example, religious law. These are very different societies but each has an equally valid point of view. In line with so-called ‘British values’ our schools are promoting the ‘middle ground’ between different beliefs and different ideologies. All of this is exceptionally well intentioned. The ‘middle ground’ is not supposed to provide a launching pad for radicalism but, unfortunately, that can be the consequence.
Unwittingly, the endemic ‘value relativism’ within our education system is encouraging youngsters to see fundamentalism as one equally valid choice amongst several. It is time our political and educational leaders woke up to this awful truth. The path to hell always was paved with good intentions.
Thank you. Morgan is a rank socialist, masquerading as a conservative.
Margot Parker, UKIP MEP for the East Midlands, with Peter Bone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, Kate Hoey, Labour Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, Tom Pursglove, Conservative Member of Parliament for Corby & East Northamptonshire, Philip Hollobone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Kettering, Sammy Wilson, DUP Member of Parliament for East Antrim, and UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage MEP, with special guest, the Rt. Hon Dr Liam Fox MP, all taking part.
Is Fox a GRO man then? (Or just a media tart)
When is this from? The event last Friday or a new event? The reason I ask is that when they claimed Sammy Wilson was attending a GRO event last week they got absolute hammered by the DUP who denied it completely saying they had not allied with GRO.
accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
I have no side, but I am extremely amused by the Outers claiming Boris as the new messiah, when every journalist reading his text has reached the conclusion he is a very naughty boy
You want to bet on whether Boris says "outside the EU" in his article?
Who gives a crap. Seriously. This approach to forensically dismantle one speech is beyond tedious and sways even less people than rabidly posting tweets from non-entities. Hardly anyone will have read his speech, even less will care what he says, the only fact that will register with 99% of the voters is that Boris, a popular politician with a huge media following, supports Leave, that's it.
Yes it is. I already quoted him this morning saying that as a result of a Leave vote we would have to negotiate new trade agreements. That specifically precludes us being inside the EU.
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
I think it would be fair to say that Boris (in my view, uncharacteristically poorly written) article lacks the clarity of Gove's - nowhere does he write 'outside the EU' (unlike Gove who does thrice) - so we are left with implications and inferences.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
The largest destination for Eurozone exports is the UK, at around 2.5% of Eurozone GDP. (Marginally ahead of China at 2.4%)
Clearly, access to the UK market is very important to the EU, and therefore sense will prevail.
Yes it is. I already quoted him this morning saying that as a result of a Leave vote we would have to negotiate new trade agreements. That specifically precludes us being inside the EU.
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
I think it would be fair to say that Boris (in my view, uncharacteristically poorly written) article lacks the clarity of Gove's - nowhere does he write 'outside the EU' (unlike Gove who does thrice) - so we are left with implications and inferences.
Lets hope Boris swiftly clears it up.
For all my arguing about this, this is one thing I agree on. He has not seemed in any way on top form either speaking or writing these last few weeks and I agree with those who say he seriously misjudged things by waiting so long to declare.
Hearing Cameron and Osborne are going to introduce legislation like this
Mike Smithson: How long before someone proposes a US-style "birther" rule restricting being PM to those born in UK?
We've never needed such a rule.
The Yanks, on the other hand, in 1787 were terrified that we (or some other tyranny) might raise "a creature of their own" to the Presidency, fatally subverting the nascent Republic.
So they insisted on the best safeguard they had, that the President must have undivided loyalty at birth, and only natural born citizens satisfy that test.
But they were wise enough to include a clause that permitted the Constitution to be amended, if circumstances and the will of the People desired it.
Several attempts have been made to do just that. All have so far failed.
Therefore no-one can have any complaints. Cruz should have run for PM of Canada, or indeed the UK!
The US didn't recognise dual citizenship until quite recently. It's clear that the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" needs to be clarified as existing case law is unsatisfactory (for instance, all citizenship is artificial).
They may recognize it. But they still deprecate it. Cruz would not have been eligible to be an intern at the White House, before relinquishing his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Obama probably still wouldn't qualify for that, despite occupying the Oval Office for 8 years...
The phrase doesn't need to be 'clarified'. It has always been clear, however inconvenient to some.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners... Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
Comments
Leave me off the trolling list.
Mike Smithson: How long before someone proposes a US-style "birther" rule restricting being PM to those born in UK?
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
All these multi nats have high paid employees who contribute lots to the exchequer and the economy as whole.
You need to take a patrician view of things and not as a pleb.
Shame that you miss most of the voters in between
"The Prime Minister has done his best but Brussels was not prepared to give up sufficient control over our sovereignty to make our membership of the EU legitimate. And its dysfunction and disorder make staying as we are the truly risky option.
"We need a radically different relationship with our European neighbours to reclaim our sovereignty and with it the legitimacy of our law making."
http://www.courier.co.uk/EU-referendum-need-know/story-28783360-detail/story.html#ixzz40tSeL600
As the moment of decision approaches, enough voters will conclude that complexity counts, not clownishness: that Europe is about jobs, not jokes. So Boris will get the outcome he secretly wants: a Brexit defeat. It may even be that he will do his Brexit cause harm, by draining the oxygen away from serious figures and principally from Michael Gove. No-one could ever accuse him of lacking moral depth. Sincere, heart-felt, even agonised, his apologia had Martin Luther qualities; here I stand: I can do no other. That is a man who is in public life to promote his country’s best interests, and it shows. Boris is a man who is in public life to promote his own best interests. That also shows.
I agree with your second point. This is indeed a very difficult decision. I am not sure that I do admire those who are so certain one way or another because it seems to me that they must have a very partial view of the conflicting evidence selecting what suits their prejudice.
In my opinion the balance favours coming out of the EU but remaining within the EEA. But I fully accept that anyone could rationally and reasonably come to different views.
And that helps his career, how?
I notice that no matter how morally vicious Peebies and Speccies consider Guardianistas to be, they are always wholly opposed to any suggestion of criminal sanctions against them.
I will digest the full 100 page+ report at some point, but reading the fairly well-balanced exec summary, it's hard to come out of it feeling more inclined to vote Leave. It confirms my gut feeling that leaving the EU may simply not be worth the hassle and grief it would entail (including hastening the exit of Scotland and the reunification of Ireland), not least because on so many areas we would probably keep UK law in line with EU law not least for the entirely logical reason that we remain geographically part of Europe, they are our next door neighbours, we buy and sell goods from and to them (so would need to keep on meeting their standards), and we all like to travel to and work in Europe. And if we want to stay in the EEA and/or maintain a common trade area, then we will forcibly have to comply, not choose to.
It confirms my instinctive view that we're better off staying in and having piffling influence but still some ability to shape what affects us (perhaps by retaining the ability to throw a proper Brexit bomb in there a few years hence when it is really needed!), than leaving and tinkering around the edges by reducing some regulatory burdens we don't like but having to swallow all the stuff we do still want lock stock and barrel with no ability to change it.
What it does also demonstrate to me is how a slightly more ambitious, properly focused and concentrated effort by Cameron on the handful of areas that really are the concern might well have delivered him an absolute slam-dunk Remain landslide, and his place in history.
Instead, it's all a bit of a mess. Though I expect Remain will win.
http://capx.co/9aKBq
The bigger problem from many MPs is potentially they have sold their association a line about being a eurosceptic and now come out for Remain, and shorty there is going to be a lot of re-selections going on for the reduction to 600 MPs.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/22/andrea-jenkyns-sings-mamma-mia/
I think Multi Nats get more grief than they deserve.
(in my word "topical" means applied directly to the skin)
It's a parsing non-story for 99% of voters.
Seriously. And the Not Intelligent To Understand schtick. What?
http://www.kevinjfoster.com/news/kevs-column-its-time-decide
Disappointing, but not a surprise.
Shout Fore the next time :-)
As it was it looked like you are playing 'gotcha'.
Which is just embarrassing. You're capable of so much more.
So as not to discourage you, I'd probably mark it as a B-, although it really deserves a C+
Judging by how irritated the Remainians are by Boris, I think the Leavites are getting a huge boost from him.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
The Yanks, on the other hand, in 1787 were terrified that we (or some other tyranny) might raise "a creature of their own" to the Presidency, fatally subverting the nascent Republic.
So they insisted on the best safeguard they had, that the President must have undivided loyalty at birth, and only natural born citizens satisfy that test.
But they were wise enough to include a clause that permitted the Constitution to be amended, if circumstances and the will of the People desired it.
Several attempts have been made to do just that. All have so far failed.
Therefore no-one can have any complaints. Cruz should have run for PM of Canada, or indeed the UK!
Checked it on Wikipedia, and found such a bawdy version in the middle of that Wiki article that I've never seen the like before in that source.
In terms of generating 'light' 'Vote Leave' should get it - for adding to the Gaiety of the Nation 'Grassroots'......
Either way, I don't envy the Electoral Commission their job.....
And we've got Gove. He's marmite, but knows the press too.
We've lost May, so it's fair square to my mind
:-)
Knowing Boris he'll probably change his mind anyway....
It would be interesting to see who committed 'Leavers' would prefer.
And there's little tension, because Gove doesn;t want the leadership, in my view.
'Farage will not be in the debates'
Is Fox a GRO man then? (Or just a media tart)
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
He is one of the few politicians to speak with authenticity. He may repel many, but he believes what he says.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
Hint: it's not one of the obvious ones, like Germany or the Netherlands.
Lets hope Boris swiftly clears it up.
Clearly, access to the UK market is very important to the EU, and therefore sense will prevail.
The phrase doesn't need to be 'clarified'. It has always been clear, however inconvenient to some.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)