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
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
Different kind of alliance though. NATO has protected us (pace Jezza) against an external threat. The argument about the EU is that institutionalised cooperation has made it less likely that European states would war with each other.
The point that Charles makes, that in general liberal democracies have not fought each other regardless, is a good one. Then again, the largest gaggle of liberal democratic states in the world is in Europe and most of them have been part of the EU or EEA.
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
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
So you didn't think that the EU deserved a Nobel Peace prize then
and you don't think it's possible - if a second referendum were offered - for the UK and all member states to agree to suspect Article 50 until after the result is known?
No
if they are busy negotiating out (article 50), they can't also negotiate a new in, and put it to the vote
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Almost everything Remain has to say is downbeat. They really don't seem to have much faith in Britain.
If we leave the EU all the big firms will move out of GB. If we leave the EU Russia will be a greater threat. If we leave the EU we still won't be able to control immigration. If we leave the EU we will still have to comply with EU directives, but with no influence. If we leave the EU we won't be able to fight terrorism effectively.
This is quite simply a load of bollocks. Britain has come through much worse times than anything that will emerge as a consequence of leaving or remaining in the EU. I have no doubt that whatever we choose Britain will be doing just fine in the future, and a damn sight better than all the Emma Thompson like hand wringers seem to think.
Given the political dynamic within this country, what we are actually facing in practice is nothing much changing whichever way we vote. The Tory part of this debate - the one bit that counts - basically agrees on all the points that matter on a day to day basis. Whether we are in or out will make very little difference to people's lives. If we vote Leave, the one practical change might be the break-up of the UK - though economically the Scots would be mad to do it so probably wouldn't - and even that does not seem as appalling as it did the last time round.
@Plato - if all these scare stories are true then, barring a catastrophe of biblical proportions, we are not sovereign because we can never realistically Leave, as the consequences are too severe.
To me the fact such arguments are made just reinforces the fact that integration of the U.K. into the EU has already gone far as it is.
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
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
I think it's a fair argument that the EU has *contributed* towards peace in Europe.
It goes far too far to say that but for the EU, there would have been war.
I agree with that formulation. We can include it in the communiqué.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Almost everything Remain has to say is downbeat. They really don't seem to have much faith in Britain.
If we leave the EU all the big firms will move out of GB. If we leave the EU Russia will be a greater threat. If we leave the EU we still won't be able to control immigration. If we leave the EU we will still have to comply with EU directives, but with no influence. If we leave the EU we won't be able to fight terrorism effectively.
This is quite simply a load of bollocks. Britain has come through much worse times than anything that will emerge as a consequence of leaving or remaining in the EU. I have no doubt that whatever we choose Britain will be doing just fine in the future, and a damn sight better than all the Emma Thompson like hand wringers seem to think.
How about this for a positive case for the EU:
If we remain in the EU more big firms will move to the UK. If we remain in the EU we'll be able to deal with Russia more effectively. If we remain in the EU we might be able to force Greece to tighten up its borders If we remain in the EU we'll be able to partner with other countries and create a less protectionist, more open Continent. If we remain in the EU, we'll be able to fight terrorism before it reaches our country.
Its easy to dismiss the loss of a few % of economic growth but that equates to about a million people out of work if the wrong decision is taken.
@odysseanproject: @tnewtondunn Triggering A50 immediately wd be mad & won't happen. Informal talks before any legal process triggered is only rational policy
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I think the reality will probably be that after a number of years bogged down in trade talks the UK will with on some fronts & lose on others. Where I think leave would be best focusing their efforts is that ever closer union will happen if we stay, that is how the eu is set up. The one important point Boris made in his article is the racthet effect of the way the eu law making operates.
Whats interesting is that MPs don't actually earn that much at all. £67k is not a huge amount for a professional, especially if you have to live/work in london.
I certainly wouldn't do the job for that much, it'll only be a small increase in what I currently earn, and who would want the public profile/stress of it.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Only one: between the UK and Finland, according to Mervyn King.
Indeed, and that was largely technical (because Finland invaded the Soviet Union). Although I think we did bomb some of their ships, but only before the declaration of war.
Actually the Finns never invaded the Soviet Union. They stopped at the pre war borders and only took back the land that had been seized from them by the Russians earlier in the war.
The canny self-restraint of the Finns was remarkable.
and you don't think it's possible - if a second referendum were offered - for the UK and all member states to agree to suspect Article 50 until after the result is known?
No
if they are busy negotiating out (article 50), they can't also negotiate a new in, and put it to the vote
The "new in" offer will happen first. Article 50 will be invoked, then the EU will come up with a proposal, then - if it is worth the effort - there will be another vote.
But I think it would need to be pretty meaningful to justify another vote.
If the decision is taken by the UK Parliament that the second offer is worth putting to a vote then the Article 50 process will be suspended for a couple of months until a new referendum is held.
it says that "In 2014, the UK exported £230 billion of goods and services to other EU member states. This is equivalent to 44.8% of total UK exports. Goods and services imports from the EU were worth £289 billion (52.8% of the total) in 2014"
I think 230bn is about 13% of GDP whereas 289bn is a much smaller % of the much larger total EU economy.
So isn't it fair to say that economically, the Eurozone is more important to us, than we are to them?
So that post BREXIT the risks of failing to secure a freetrade agreement amenable to us, is assymetric?
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
I'll probably vote Remain (although I could be tempted by Leave - the breakup of the UK would be my big concern) as I think we can better reach a good EFTA/ EEA type membership of the EU by working towards it from the 'inside out', rather than the 'outside in' so to speak.
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
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
So you didn't think that the EU deserved a Nobel Peace prize then
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
Really? I think the idea of a second vote is plain silly. As someone who is very heavily tending Remain, a Leave vote is just that - I just don't think Remain will possess the evangelical fervour for a re-run, especially given the internal party politics (of the Tories especially) post a Leave Vote. Article 50 is THE route to honour the referendum result, not some ploy.
More likely a Remain will be challenged down the line every time implementation of any part of Cameron's negotiation looks in the slightest doubt.
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
LOL! The EU (and their subservient governments) have a long history of "form" on this. They will always do whatever it takes to keep the show on the road.
In the event of LEAVE winning they'll keep going with negotiations and neverendums until they get the "right" result, as always...
The "new in" offer will happen first. Article 50 will be invoked, then the EU will come up with a proposal, then - if it is worth the effort - there will be another vote.
No
No. 10 will respect the will of the British People. Out means Out
Given the political dynamic within this country, what we are actually facing in practice is nothing much changing whichever way we vote.
The choice is being presented as either feast or famine, but it is more like a choice from a menu in a restaurant, any dinner will be more than adequately nourishing, but we might prefer to choose something different from our fellow diners rather than all order the same meal.
Things completely outside the remit or influence of the EU will have a much larger influence on our future.
Whats interesting is that MPs don't actually earn that much at all. £67k is not a huge amount for a professional, especially if you have to live/work in london.
I certainly wouldn't do the job for that much, it'll only be a small increase in what I currently earn, and who would want the public profile/stress of it.
I could live with the pay cut to £67K, if my claim for expenses matched their £200K per year.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
They must be losing their touch if they have been obvious enough about it that people noticed.
I don't want our victory to be in any way funded by Vladimir Putin. Despite Nigel Farage's admiration for him, I think he's been a disaster for Russia, and one that will become increasingly obvious as the commodities downcycle continues.
I am sure Putin is a disaster from your perspective, from the Russian the opposite is the case. Russian GDP per capita figures are remarkable, especially when taking debt, or rather the lack of it, in to account.
I doubt the Russians care about whether we are in the EU, as for others I do note the big American investment banks are propping up Remain. The bizarre argument we should remain because Putin wants us to leave is satiricism of the loons not even I could come up with. No doubt the Baltic states wish us to continue to pay their child benefits, I don't.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
we can never realistically Leave, as the consequences are too severe.
.
It's starting to sound like Hotel California.
"Last thing I remember, I was Running for the door I had to find the passage back To the place I was before "Relax, " said the night man, "We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave! ""
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Only one: between the UK and Finland, according to Mervyn King.
Indeed, and that was largely technical (because Finland invaded the Soviet Union). Although I think we did bomb some of their ships, but only before the declaration of war.
Actually the Finns never invaded the Soviet Union. They stopped at the pre war borders and only took back the land that had been seized from them by the Russians earlier in the war.
The most unusual case was Bulgaria, an Axis power that remained an ally of the Soviet Union.
Whats interesting is that MPs don't actually earn that much at all. £67k is not a huge amount for a professional, especially if you have to live/work in london.
I certainly wouldn't do the job for that much, it'll only be a small increase in what I currently earn, and who would want the public profile/stress of it.
I could live with the pay cut to £67K, if my claim for expenses matched their £200K per year.
Yeah, but in theory they shouldn't make any money for it. If you pay a member of staff £30k and then claim that money as an expense you're not profiting yourself.
Everything should be matched with expenditure, at least thats how it 'should' work.
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
Guff
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
The Commission can't pass a second referendum bill, can't stop the 22 removing a Tory leader who refused to implement Leave, and would find it very hard to shift British public opinion in a pro-EU direction (it could easily shift it the other way though).
In your dreams.
The electorates get told there is no second vote until the second vote turns up.
What do you expect the EU to say ?
What do *you* expect would happen?
If we vote Leave, I think Cameron must trigger Article 50 or he'll be out within days. You think he could sweet talk his backbenchers (the majority of whom will be celebrating like it's VE Day) into letting him ignore the result of the referendum?
Fwiw I think most Remainers, myself included, would not accept that.
I think Cameron will hang on, the EU will crap itself about losing a major member and will wish to give second round concessions to a friendly face rather than a hostile one, It's what happened in all then other second rounders.
I can;t really see Dave wanting to leave on a low nor his party wishing to knife him when he's already announced he is going. He may get Gove or IDS as a minder in negotiations.
The other second rounders were mere treaty ratifications, not in/out.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I ignore Survation polls on the principle that they shouldn't even be in business after the 2015 Eve Of Election polling fiasco....
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I think the reality will probably be that after a number of years bogged down in trade talks the UK will with on some fronts & lose on others. Where I think leave would be best focusing their efforts is that ever closer union will happen if we stay, that is how the eu is set up. The one important point Boris made in his article is the racthet effect of the way the eu law making operates.
I agree. I don't have much of an issue with being In on our current terms or Out on Boris's. They seem to be pretty similar prospectuses. I guess my one caveat is that with the Tories in power for the foreseeable future, a Leave vote is likely to end with a party that gets considerably less than 50% of the vote taking away many of the employment protections we get as a result of EU membership.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I think the reality will probably be that after a number of years bogged down in trade talks the UK will with on some fronts & lose on others. Where I think leave would be best focusing their efforts is that ever closer union will happen if we stay, that is how the eu is set up. The one important point Boris made in his article is the racthet effect of the way the eu law making operates.
I agree. I don't have much of an issue with being In on our current terms or Out on Boris's. They seem to be pretty similar prospectuses. I guess my one caveat is that with the Tories in power for the foreseeable future, a Leave vote is likely to end with a party that gets considerably less than 50% of the vote taking away many of the employment protections we get as a result of EU membership.
And you don't trust the British electorate to resist that?
it says that "In 2014, the UK exported £230 billion of goods and services to other EU member states. This is equivalent to 44.8% of total UK exports. Goods and services imports from the EU were worth £289 billion (52.8% of the total) in 2014"
I think 230bn is about 13% of GDP whereas 289bn is a much smaller % of the much larger total EU economy.
So isn't it fair to say that economically, the Eurozone is more important to us, than we are to them?
So that post BREXIT the risks of failing to secure a freetrade agreement amenable to us, is assymetric?
On the Pedley popularity ratings it is interesting is it not that Sturgeon has three times the popularity of Johnston and that in eight years as First Minster Salmond was never as low as only + 10. Does this mean that the English dislike their politicians more than the Scots?
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
The only alternative to an early election to set the negotiating strategy would be a second referendum to endorse the terms negotiated - which might be unpalatable.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
Really? I think the idea of a second vote is plain silly. As someone who is very heavily tending Remain, a Leave vote is just that - I just don't think Remain will possess the evangelical fervour for a re-run, especially given the internal party politics (of the Tories especially) post a Leave Vote. Article 50 is THE route to honour the referendum result, not some ploy.
More likely a Remain will be challenged down the line every time implementation of any part of Cameron's negotiation looks in the slightest doubt.
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
LOL! The EU (and their subservient governments) have a long history of "form" on this. They will always do whatever it takes to keep the show on the road.
In the event of LEAVE winning they'll keep going with negotiations and neverendums until they get the "right" result, as always...
Brexit may greatly upset those in the EU, but it will not bring their last 5 years work to a shuddering halt as the Treaty non-ratifications did. Nor will whatever the Swiss eventually go with.
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I agree. I don't have much of an issue with being In on our current terms or Out on Boris's. They seem to be pretty similar prospectuses. I guess my one caveat is that with the Tories in power for the foreseeable future, a Leave vote is likely to end with a party that gets considerably less than 50% of the vote taking away many of the employment protections we get as a result of EU membership.
And you don't trust the British electorate to resist that?
I don't trust the electoral system. With the EU we get no Corbyn Labour plus a level of employment and social protection. What's not to like?
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
well you would say that wouldn't you.
Personally I'm still undecided and your post hasn't helped.
Really? I think the idea of a second vote is plain silly. As someone who is very heavily tending Remain, a Leave vote is just that - I just don't think Remain will possess the evangelical fervour for a re-run, especially given the internal party politics (of the Tories especially) post a Leave Vote. Article 50 is THE route to honour the referendum result, not some ploy.
More likely a Remain will be challenged down the line every time implementation of any part of Cameron's negotiation looks in the slightest doubt.
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
I feel that Leave should mean leave, especially if the result is clear cut.
If there were a second referendum I would only vote for the In option if it included such drastic changes as to be effectively the same as Leave+EEA (or similar) and if it were widely supported by at least more cautious part of the Leave side. We can't have a stitch up.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
I don't think a general election would be necessary.
I do think the public will be very sore if, having voted to Leave, additional border controls aren't put in place to cut migration.
To that end, any EEA/EFTA negotiation will have to factor that in.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
I'll probably vote Remain (although I could be tempted by Leave - the breakup of the UK would be my big concern) as I think we can better reach a good EFTA/ EEA type membership of the EU by working towards it from the 'inside out', rather than the 'outside in' so to speak.
We have assume that a soon as the fundamentals support it (which they currently don't) there will be some trumped up excuse to demand another referendum regardless of what happens in the EU referendum, so it would be foolish to use it as a driver to decide the future of the rest of the UK. Despite the posturing the SNP are not going to launch IndyRef2 while there is any real chance they will lose it, because it will bury the idea for decades. The EURef is no more than a pretext.
The "new in" offer will happen first. Article 50 will be invoked, then the EU will come up with a proposal, then - if it is worth the effort - there will be another vote.
No
No. 10 will respect the will of the British People. Out means Out
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
A Lab/LD government could easily leave us more In than we are now, even if officially Out, by signing up to everything on a voluntary basis including the euro and Schengen.
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I agree. I don't have much of an issue with being In on our current terms or Out on Boris's. They seem to be pretty similar prospectuses. I guess my one caveat is that with the Tories in power for the foreseeable future, a Leave vote is likely to end with a party that gets considerably less than 50% of the vote taking away many of the employment protections we get as a result of EU membership.
And you don't trust the British electorate to resist that?
I don't trust the electoral system. With the EU we get no Corbyn Labour plus a level of employment and social protection. What's not to like?
I watched a snipped of Jo Coburn's interview with Galloway. Why was he surprised? The BBC has followed other media channels in emphasising emotion over facts. I switched over to Loose Women and it was difficult to see the join.
I like Coburn as an interviewer but she was obviously following a script, and to be fair, the minutiae of the EU can be boring. This emphasis on emotion has a place, but if I want to see talk about touchy feely tosh, I can watch one of the soaps. I don't agree with Galloway's opinions, but he can be forensic in his analysis.
and you don't think it's possible - if a second referendum were offered - for the UK and all member states to agree to suspect Article 50 until after the result is known?
No
if they are busy negotiating out (article 50), they can't also negotiate a new in, and put it to the vote
The "new in" offer will happen first. Article 50 will be invoked, then the EU will come up with a proposal, then - if it is worth the effort - there will be another vote.
But I think it would need to be pretty meaningful to justify another vote.
If the decision is taken by the UK Parliament that the second offer is worth putting to a vote then the Article 50 process will be suspended for a couple of months until a new referendum is held.
The EU would need to offer a form of Associate Membership I think to make it worth our while.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
Difficult to formulate in advance, though, because we can't know what deal is attainable.
You are right about the 'stab in the back' bit, of course. The one 100% predictable thing about the negotiation would be that the response would be identical to the response to Cameron's renegotiation.
'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 ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
I agree. I don't have much of an issue with being In on our current terms or Out on Boris's. They seem to be pretty similar prospectuses. I guess my one caveat is that with the Tories in power for the foreseeable future, a Leave vote is likely to end with a party that gets considerably less than 50% of the vote taking away many of the employment protections we get as a result of EU membership.
And you don't trust the British electorate to resist that?
I don't trust the electoral system. With the EU we get no Corbyn Labour plus a level of employment and social protection. What's not to like?
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
A Lab/LD government could easily leave us more In than we are now, even if officially Out, by signing up to everything on a voluntary basis including the euro and Schengen.
It could. But it won't, because there won't be one.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
Difficult to formulate in advance, though, because we can't know what deal is attainable.
You are right about the 'stab in the back' bit, of course. The one 100% predictable thing about the negotiation would be that the response would be identical to the response to Cameron's renegotiation.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
and you don't think it's possible - if a second referendum were offered - for the UK and all member states to agree to suspect Article 50 until after the result is known?
No
if they are busy negotiating out (article 50), they can't also negotiate a new in, and put it to the vote
The "new in" offer will happen first. Article 50 will be invoked, then the EU will come up with a proposal, then - if it is worth the effort - there will be another vote.
But I think it would need to be pretty meaningful to justify another vote.
If the decision is taken by the UK Parliament that the second offer is worth putting to a vote then the Article 50 process will be suspended for a couple of months until a new referendum is held.
The EU would need to offer a form of Associate Membership I think to make it worth our while.
Would associate membership be any different from EFTA+EEA?
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
Wasn't it a phone poll whereas as the previous ones were online?
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
A Lab/LD government could easily leave us more In than we are now, even if officially Out, by signing up to everything on a voluntary basis including the euro and Schengen.
If there were a vote for Brexit there would be an even larger vote against the Euro and Schengen so no
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
A Lab/LD government could easily leave us more In than we are now, even if officially Out, by signing up to everything on a voluntary basis including the euro and Schengen.
It could. But it won't, because there won't be one.
I wouldn't rule anything out if an Autumn 2016 election ended up being single-issue on how to handle the Article 50 negotiations...
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
Tbf we did discuss this on here and there was a methodology change - a switch from an online poll to a phone poll, and not massively out of line with other such polls using the matter.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
Survation said it couldn't be directly compared to their online polls.
We know that telephone and online polls are currently producing different results.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
On the Pedley popularity ratings it is interesting is it not that Sturgeon has three times the popularity of Johnston and that in eight years as First Minster Salmond was never as low as only + 10. Does this mean that the English dislike their politicians more than the Scots?
It means a Scottish politician can score a ton of popularity by the simple expedient of wrapping themselves in a Saltire, irrespective of how idiotic or disingenuous their actual policies are. UK politicians have relatively little room for flag waving to hide their incompetence, especially when trying to appeal to the England-hating Guardian-reading classes.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
I don't think a general election would be necessary.
I do think the public will be very sore if, having voted to Leave, additional border controls aren't put in place to cut migration.
To that end, any EEA/EFTA negotiation will have to factor that in.
Good afternoon all.
While immigration isn't my primary concern, it's worth reminding ourselves about the actual numbers. Note the following are gross numbers (net migration is fine and dandy from an economic planning point of view, not so useful for those feeling their culture is under threat).
For the year Jun 2014 - Jun 2015 636,000 people immigrated to the UK (official figures). Of those, 286,000 were from the EU. 13,000 were Brits returning. 267,000 were EU citizens.
Of those immigrating, around 300,000 came here to work. Around 100,000 were accompanying or joining an immigrant. Just under 200,000 came to study. There's a residue of around 75,000 where the reason wasn't stated, or wasn't separately categorized.
The UK's immigration issues can't, in fairness, be laid at the EU's door. More than half comes from outside, and Cameron's only made glacially slow progress reducing that.
Of course, when Britain votes to leave the EU, this process will reverse, as we're all aware. As far as I can tell we face fire and brimstone raining from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes etc.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
The Mail, for example.
Is the Mail for Out Regardless? I don't know. I would be surprised at your certainty.
If Boris swings a Leave result and (as I think inevitable) the EU wants to play ball with Renegotiation the Redux, I suspect the Mail's position would depend upon the deal he secured. They'd probably give him the breathing space to try (whilst no doubt breathing down his neck...)
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
A Lab/LD government could easily leave us more In than we are now, even if officially Out, by signing up to everything on a voluntary basis including the euro and Schengen.
It could. But it won't, because there won't be one.
I wouldn't rule anything out if an Autumn 2016 election ended up being single-issue on how to handle the Article 50 negotiations...
I would completely rule out any government led by Jeremy Corbyn.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
Tbf we did discuss this on here and there was a methodology change - a switch from an online poll to a phone poll, and not massively out of line with other such polls using the matter.
Doesn't mean there hasn't been a swing, though.
Polls with surprising results are usually wrong, so despite my jab I'm not placing much weight on it. It's one of those occasions where having more polls would be really useful.
This is one of those occasions where new opinion polls would be useful. (I realise the Survation one for the Mail on Sunday has been ignored because it produced the wrong results.) It would be useful to see the direction of travel since all the weekend's news.
I think it was ignored because it was their first. What's interesting with polls is how they change over time.
It's not their first. It showed a 9% swing from Leave to Remain.
Tbf we did discuss this on here and there was a methodology change - a switch from an online poll to a phone poll, and not massively out of line with other such polls using the matter.
Doesn't mean there hasn't been a swing, though.
Polls with surprising results are usually wrong, so despite my jab I'm not placing much weight on it. It's one of those occasions where having more polls would be really useful.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
The Mail, for example.
Is the Mail for Out Regardless? I don't know. I would be surprised at your certainty.
If Boris swings a Leave result and (as I think inevitable) the EU wants to play ball with Renegotiation the Redux, I suspect the Mail's position would depend upon the deal he secured. They'd probably give him the breathing space to try (whilst no doubt breathing down his neck...)
The Mail is primarily in favour of trashing anything any government does.
I don't share your touching faith in Boris or the EU. The negotiation would be with exactly the same 27 countries (and the three EEA countries), over exactly the same issues. Quite why anyone would expect it to produce a better result in terms of Eurozone hegemony or free movement is a mystery to me. In particular, for quite a few of the countries on the other side, free movement will be the principal concern.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
The Mail, for example.
Is the Mail for Out Regardless? I don't know. I would be surprised at your certainty.
If Boris swings a Leave result and (as I think inevitable) the EU wants to play ball with Renegotiation the Redux, I suspect the Mail's position would depend upon the deal he secured. They'd probably give him the breathing space to try (whilst no doubt breathing down his neck...)
The Mail is primarily in favour of trashing anything any government does.
I don't share your touching faith in Boris or the EU. The negotiation would be with exactly the same 27 countries (and the three EEA countries), over exactly the same issues. Quite why anyone would expect it to produce a better result in terms of Eurozone hegemony or free movement is a mystery to me. In particular, for quite a few of the countries on the other side, free movement will be the principal concern.
So you think the EU will (e.g.) insist on us paying child support to other countries in order to conclude a trade deal?
On the Pedley popularity ratings it is interesting is it not that Sturgeon has three times the popularity of Johnston and that in eight years as First Minster Salmond was never as low as only + 10. Does this mean that the English dislike their politicians more than the Scots?
It means a Scottish politician can score a ton of popularity by the simple expedient of wrapping themselves in a Saltire, irrespective of how idiotic or disingenuous their actual policies are.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
There would need to be a general election, surely. The British electorate would need to understand Brexit negotiation red lines. The Tory ones would be very different to the UKIP ones, for example. The SNP could then also get a mandate for a second independence referendum (or not) and Labour and the LDs could offer buyers' remorse.
Dave would be wounded, but election unlikely unless media bay for blood. 4 months is a long time. Boris will change his position if he is losing his campaign to be PM. But he stays the course, and Leave wins then Boris will overpower Dave. Only if Dave replaced by a wimp like George will media bay for election.
The response by whom? Those for whom nothing but a permanent and complete exit form the EU works? Sure. But by everybody who has pointed out the crapness of the Cameron deal? No.
The Mail, for example.
Is the Mail for Out Regardless? I don't know. I would be surprised at your certainty.
If Boris swings a Leave result and (as I think inevitable) the EU wants to play ball with Renegotiation the Redux, I suspect the Mail's position would depend upon the deal he secured. They'd probably give him the breathing space to try (whilst no doubt breathing down his neck...)
The Mail is primarily in favour of trashing anything any government does.
I don't share your touching faith in Boris or the EU. The negotiation would be with exactly the same 27 countries (and the three EEA countries), over exactly the same issues. Quite why anyone would expect it to produce a better result in terms of Eurozone hegemony or free movement is a mystery to me. In particular, for quite a few of the countries on the other side, free movement will be the principal concern.
For remainers, the illusion of sovereignty is just that. Whatever we vote for and whatever we decide in the UK, we are faced with the same outcome.
They may be right, but its time, I think, to test these assertions.
There is no earthly way that David Cameron could stay as Prime Minister after a Leave vote. His credibility would be completely shot on the subject that was then going to dominate British politics for the next few years.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
I don't think a general election would be necessary.
I do think the public will be very sore if, having voted to Leave, additional border controls aren't put in place to cut migration.
To that end, any EEA/EFTA negotiation will have to factor that in.
Give the public some credit - they won't be voting to leave in the first place unless Leave have devised a clear border/immigration strategy between their squabbling factions well ahead of the referendum date and equally as important that strategy is credible.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/701742657429704705
The point that Charles makes, that in general liberal democracies have not fought each other regardless, is a good one. Then again, the largest gaggle of liberal democratic states in the world is in Europe and most of them have been part of the EU or EEA.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/10/eu-receives-nobel-peace-prize
if they are busy negotiating out (article 50), they can't also negotiate a new in, and put it to the vote
I keep noticing that PB Remainers aren't making much of a positive case. It's all plagues of frogs.
This morning's rubbishing of Boris is a case in point. It's bizarre.
Let's see what they come up with that isn't fear mongering.
If we remain in the EU more big firms will move to the UK.
If we remain in the EU we'll be able to deal with Russia more effectively.
If we remain in the EU we might be able to force Greece to tighten up its borders
If we remain in the EU we'll be able to partner with other countries and create a less protectionist, more open Continent.
If we remain in the EU, we'll be able to fight terrorism before it reaches our country.
Its easy to dismiss the loss of a few % of economic growth but that equates to about a million people out of work if the wrong decision is taken.
@paulwaugh: .@odysseanproject @tnewtondunn So this is 'Vote For Informal Talks' not 'Vote Leave'?
@paulwaugh: .@odysseanproject @tnewtondunn so, does 'another path that is in both our interests' include not quitting the EU? Imp q.
I certainly wouldn't do the job for that much, it'll only be a small increase in what I currently earn, and who would want the public profile/stress of it.
But I think it would need to be pretty meaningful to justify another vote.
If the decision is taken by the UK Parliament that the second offer is worth putting to a vote then the Article 50 process will be suspended for a couple of months until a new referendum is held.
it says that
"In 2014, the UK exported £230 billion of goods and services to other EU member states.
This is equivalent to 44.8% of total UK exports. Goods and services imports from the EU
were worth £289 billion (52.8% of the total) in 2014"
I think 230bn is about 13% of GDP
whereas 289bn is a much smaller % of the much larger total EU economy.
So isn't it fair to say that economically, the Eurozone is more important to us, than we are to them?
So that post BREXIT the risks of failing to secure a freetrade agreement amenable to us, is assymetric?
ie they would have us over a barrel?
The US has a massive services surplus with the EU (US$50bn in 2014). How do they manage?
I'll probably vote Remain (although I could be tempted by Leave - the breakup of the UK would be my big concern) as I think we can better reach a good EFTA/ EEA type membership of the EU by working towards it from the 'inside out', rather than the 'outside in' so to speak.
In the event of LEAVE winning they'll keep going with negotiations and neverendums until they get the "right" result, as always...
No. 10 will respect the will of the British People. Out means Out
Unlike Ken.
Probably, Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Intel, etc structuring themselves in such a way that IP profits flow back to the US...
Things completely outside the remit or influence of the EU will have a much larger influence on our future.
Some members of Dave's business advisory group are refusing to sign a letter endorsing the deal from the EU
Might be in the interest of neutrality but considered at least half for other reasons?
I doubt the Russians care about whether we are in the EU, as for others I do note the big American investment banks are propping up Remain. The bizarre argument we should remain because Putin wants us to leave is satiricism of the loons not even I could come up with. No doubt the Baltic states wish us to continue to pay their child benefits, I don't.
"Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! ""
Everything should be matched with expenditure, at least thats how it 'should' work.
Interesting. So a few of them must actually have read it.
For that matter, I can't see how the negotiations to Leave would take place without a general election to get the public to ratify the negotiating approach. The range of different approaches is so substantial that anything agreed without the approval of the broad negotiating strategy would no doubt be treated as a stab in the back by one group of Leavers or another.
Can I sell you something,
you need me more than I need you by the way.
"Every question you have asked has been about me" @georgegalloway tells @Jo_Coburn as they talk #EUref on #bbcdp https://t.co/NtgPrW6Op9
Personally I'm still undecided and your post hasn't helped.
If there were a second referendum I would only vote for the In option if it included such drastic changes as to be effectively the same as Leave+EEA (or similar) and if it were widely supported by at least more cautious part of the Leave side. We can't have a stitch up.
I do think the public will be very sore if, having voted to Leave, additional border controls aren't put in place to cut migration.
To that end, any EEA/EFTA negotiation will have to factor that in.
EU sources confirm that Cameron's EU benefits indexation win will mean higher payouts to small number of children in rich countries.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/10/offshore_shell_games_2015.php
I watched a snipped of Jo Coburn's interview with Galloway. Why was he surprised? The BBC has followed other media channels in emphasising emotion over facts. I switched over to Loose Women and it was difficult to see the join.
I like Coburn as an interviewer but she was obviously following a script, and to be fair, the minutiae of the EU can be boring. This emphasis on emotion has a place, but if I want to see talk about touchy feely tosh, I can watch one of the soaps. I don't agree with Galloway's opinions, but he can be forensic in his analysis.
You are right about the 'stab in the back' bit, of course. The one 100% predictable thing about the negotiation would be that the response would be identical to the response to Cameron's renegotiation.
Doesn't mean there hasn't been a swing, though.
We know that telephone and online polls are currently producing different results.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/701186577561731072
While immigration isn't my primary concern, it's worth reminding ourselves about the actual numbers. Note the following are gross numbers (net migration is fine and dandy from an economic planning point of view, not so useful for those feeling their culture is under threat).
For the year Jun 2014 - Jun 2015 636,000 people immigrated to the UK (official figures). Of those, 286,000 were from the EU. 13,000 were Brits returning. 267,000 were EU citizens.
Of those immigrating, around 300,000 came here to work. Around 100,000 were accompanying or joining an immigrant. Just under 200,000 came to study. There's a residue of around 75,000 where the reason wasn't stated, or wasn't separately categorized.
The UK's immigration issues can't, in fairness, be laid at the EU's door. More than half comes from outside, and Cameron's only made glacially slow progress reducing that.
Of course, when Britain votes to leave the EU, this process will reverse, as we're all aware. As far as I can tell we face fire and brimstone raining from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes etc.
If Boris swings a Leave result and (as I think inevitable) the EU wants to play ball with Renegotiation the Redux, I suspect the Mail's position would depend upon the deal he secured. They'd probably give him the breathing space to try (whilst no doubt breathing down his neck...)
That is already what they plan to call our existing status - so I think you need to adjust your terminology
I don't share your touching faith in Boris or the EU. The negotiation would be with exactly the same 27 countries (and the three EEA countries), over exactly the same issues. Quite why anyone would expect it to produce a better result in terms of Eurozone hegemony or free movement is a mystery to me. In particular, for quite a few of the countries on the other side, free movement will be the principal concern.
So you think the EU will (e.g.) insist on us paying child support to other countries in order to conclude a trade deal?
http://tinyurl.com/38wbrgf
http://order-order.com/2016/02/22/momentum-chief-doesnt-rule-out-violent-revolution/
They may be right, but its time, I think, to test these assertions.