Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
Even more bollox. BMW sell more cars to us than any other country, if the EU (or anybody else) makes it more difficult BMW will take necessary steps.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
They sell more to us now. Who knows if prices go up due to a tariff.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
That doesn't stop them putting tariffs on a wide range of items.
You see I find this extraordinary, the notion that if we leave the EU then companies in member states will be punished by the EU.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
How many of the voters do you think watched today, or indeed will watch snippets on the news?
As far as I can see all he has done is rile the Tory outers even more, despite him explicitly saying there will be no recriminations etc.
As someone pointed out earlier, the first chance he has had to declare civil war he has done it, really poor judgement as he let his temper get the better of him.
I do not agree. He has no option but to fiercely defend his position and as Prime Minister he no doubt realises that he will not win his argument by treading softy softly.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept that we got no protection for the City. As I've said many times, Cameron did slightly better on that than I was expecting. It's not as much protection as I'd like, but better than before the rengotiation, and vastly better than an EEA deal.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Richard: this isn't a debating point. It's a genuine question. I'm asking on the basis of what was revealed on Saturday not on the basis of previous drafts.
And please don't keep going on about the alternative. I have already said that being out is likely to prove very problematic and that this is why this is a difficult decision. The status quo may be better than leaving.
But what I want to understand is why you think this deal is better for Britain than the status quo.
Cameron went in, after all, trying to get a better deal than the status quo. So it's fair to ask - of someone who seems to think that he got this - why you think that.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
No I want the best for the UK.
Clearly you don't as not only are you willing to sell us out to the EU but content to see the Tory party destroyed in the process.
First of all I am not a member of any political party and this is not party political. My heart says leave and my head says remain so I am open to persuasion.
I do not agree. He has no option but to fiercely defend his position and as Prime Minister he no doubt realises that he will not win his argument by treading softy softly.
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
Even more bollox. BMW sell more cars to us than any other country, if the EU (or anybody else) makes it more difficult BMW will take necessary steps.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
They sell more to us now. Who knows if prices go up due to a tariff.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
That doesn't stop them putting tariffs on a wide range of items.
You see I find this extraordinary, the notion that if we leave the EU then companies in member states will be punished by the EU.
Its laughable and shows the naivety of Remain.
My point is it could happen. I never said it will. BMW may not like it, but they do face tariffs in other markets too.
Good news for Remain: Thanet MP Roger Gale just unexpectedly announced he would support Remain while speaking in the Commons. Assumption was he would be a Leaver, (including by Guido).
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States, directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market, as well as economic and social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro
and
The implementation of measures, including the supervision or resolution of financial institutions and markets, and macro-prudential responsibilities, to be taken in view of preserving the financial stability of Member States whose currency is not the euro is, subject to the requirements of group and consolidated supervision and resolution, a matter for their own authorities and own budgetary responsibility, unless such Member States wish to join common mechanisms open to their participation
and
The informal meetings of the ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro, as referred to in Protocol (No 14) on the Euro Group, shall respect the powers of the Council as an institution upon which the Treaties confer legislative functions and within which Member States coordinate their economic policies. In accordance with the Treaties, all members of the Council participate in its deliberations, even where not all members have the right to vote. Informal discussions by a group of Member States shall respect the powers of the Council, as well as the prerogatives of the other EU institutions.
They've caved in on the number one issue, which is that they have explicitly conceded that they can't use the Eurozone as a sub-single-market to shut us out.
Now, you can argue that this is implicit in the treaties already, but they've been trying to chip away at that. This is an acknowledgement, in a legally-binding agreement, that the Single Market has to be just that. No shutting us out at cosy Eurozone meetings.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
No I want the best for the UK.
No you don't you are just enjoying the bloodsport.
For a group of gamblers Cameron Loyalists appear remarkably unable to consider the form. The EU has massive form for making the rules up as it goes along, and ditching bits that become inconvenient. The ECJ has an inglorious record of discarding political agreements and is incapable of being even consistent with its own rulings.
There amount of egg on Cameron loyalist faces when this deal is either ignored or disenbowelled by the EU institutions over the next year or so it going to be something to see, no doubt they will be back pedalling mightily and denying it all over again (shades of halved payment that wasnt).
I am not enjoying bloodsports as you say. This is a serious issue and everyone is entitled to their view
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
Apologies. i should have added a
I think there will be few if any deselections.
REMAIN will win, the world will move on and Mrs JackW will cast her eyes along Bond Street with glee and her long suffering husband will LEAVE for a rest cure on the French Riviera.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
Even more bollox. BMW sell more cars to us than any other country, if the EU (or anybody else) makes it more difficult BMW will take necessary steps.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
They sell more to us now. Who knows if prices go up due to a tariff.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
That doesn't stop them putting tariffs on a wide range of items.
You see I find this extraordinary, the notion that if we leave the EU then companies in member states will be punished by the EU.
Its laughable and shows the naivety of Remain.
My point is it could happen. I never said it will. BMW may not like it, but they do face tariffs in other markets too.
The tariifs they currently face - who imposes them?
Ian Warren is always instructive but note the difference between two left-wing and not left wing is only 3% and so within statistical error anyway.Prof Curtice maintains left wing/not left wing are not the main problems for Labour too. The huge job for Labour is to a hev a mardle-NorfolkTilIdie can translate-with the general public about immigration.This is one of the main learning points.Another is that the public expect their representives to look the part-Jezza needs a Jeeves and wife at work to dress him and he could do with a bit of a makeover.He was good today BTW.
Boris from Daily Telegraph column just two weeks ago, in full: "It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
Burke and Bristol. An MP is NOT a delegate.
Interesting philosophical views... when did it become the law of the land ?
Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States, directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market, as well as economic and social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro
and
The implementation of measures, including the supervision or resolution of financial institutions and markets, and macro-prudential responsibilities, to be taken in view of preserving the financial stability of Member States whose currency is not the euro is, subject to the requirements of group and consolidated supervision and resolution, a matter for their own authorities and own budgetary responsibility, unless such Member States wish to join common mechanisms open to their participation
and
The informal meetings of the ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro, as referred to in Protocol (No 14) on the Euro Group, shall respect the powers of the Council as an institution upon which the Treaties confer legislative functions and within which Member States coordinate their economic policies. In accordance with the Treaties, all members of the Council participate in its deliberations, even where not all members have the right to vote. Informal discussions by a group of Member States shall respect the powers of the Council, as well as the prerogatives of the other EU institutions.
They've caved in on the number one issue, which is that they have explicitly conceded that they can't use the Eurozone as a sub-single-market to shut us out.
Now, you can argue that this is implicit in the treaties already, but they've been trying to chip away at that. This is an acknowledgement, in a legally-binding agreement, that the Single Market has to be just that. No shutting us out at cosy Eurozone meetings.
This is fairly pertinent also:
2. Union law on the banking union conferring upon the European Central Bank, the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, authority over credit institutions is applicable only to credit institutions located in Member States whose currency is the euro or in Member States that have concluded with the European Central Bank a close cooperation agreement on prudential supervision, in accordance with relevant EU rules and subject to the requirements of group and consolidated supervision and resolution.
Given the UK and non-Eurozone states were never going to get a veto on Eurozone proposals the mechanism is probably the best that could have been hoped for. It provides an additional hurdle for Eurozone states to overcome and adds to the political cost of trying to ride roughshod over the non-Eurozone states. The principles are quite wide ranging and if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation. The fact that the UK can unilaterally trigger this delaying mechanism is a useful tool – unilateral recourse exists rarely in an institution defined by compromise, especially when it comes to the single market.
Boris from Daily Telegraph column just two weeks ago, in full: "It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
Yes. Lots of short term costs to Brexits. But better than long term costs of Eurozone vassalage.
Boris from Daily Telegraph column just two weeks ago, in full: "It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
Yes. Lots of short term costs to Brexits. But better than long term costs of Eurozone vassalage.
Boris: “If we get to this campaign, I would be well up for trying to make the positive case for some of the good things that have come from the single market.”
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
Burke and Bristol. An MP is NOT a delegate.
Interesting philosophical views... when did it become the law of the land ?
@DPJHodges: Assumption there is going to be sceptic fury at Cameron barbs at Boris. But lot of sceptics not impressed by how Boris has played this.
@JohnRentoul: Not convinced Boris would ever be across the level of detail that Cameron commands: it would all be "stuff" and "whatever it's called"...
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
Burke and Bristol. An MP is NOT a delegate.
Interesting philosophical views... when did it become the law of the land ?
Are you suggesting an MP IS a delegate?
I am suggesting nothing, I am asking you what relevance Burke has except some interesting views.
Listening to the debate in the HOC it seems very possible that Boris could become a problem for leave. He was traduced by David Cameron and then a series of opposition MP's took the opportunity to attack him as well. This will become remain's theme and he may well struggle to deal with it
If we have signed up to the single market we do not need to abide by every regulation. In order to sell products to the EU market we will need to abide by their regulations for those products, for those sells.
For everything else we can do what we like. And that includes clearing trades offshore if we want. I will freely admit that clearing is not my area of specific expertise (it's the only thing worse than being an actuary) but I have confidence that there are bright people in London who can solve a customer need in an effective way.
But be clear: the Eurozone wants our clearing. And if they take our clearing, they gut the euro-demoninated cash equity market. Which kills our primary market business in euro-denominated equities, and makes research even less economic than it is at the moment.
Agreed. If this deal goes through and Britain votes Remain, then I think there is a very strong possibility that the City will be destroyed or very significantly harmed by the Eurozone. If that happens, the UK will remain a significant financial centre only by adopting the euro and I think the proposal is designed, effectively, to force us into eventually adopting the euro or face very significant harm to one of our major sectors.
The same (ie harm to our financial sector) may of course happen if we leave. The uncertain question is whether being outside allows us to develop and expand other areas of expertise and services with non-European countries sufficiently to make up what we may well lose.
The third possibility is that the Eurozone does not seek to harm the UK's financial sector. That requires a deal of belief in their good faith. Even if one has that I don't have a great deal of faith in their wish to look out for Britain's interests. Only Britain can do that and Britain seems lumbered with politicians who are utterly feeble at this (at least by comparison with the French, who are admirably ruthless and focused in this regard).
Given the UK and non-Eurozone states were never going to get a veto on Eurozone proposals the mechanism is probably the best that could have been hoped for. It provides an additional hurdle for Eurozone states to overcome and adds to the political cost of trying to ride roughshod over the non-Eurozone states. The principles are quite wide ranging and if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation. The fact that the UK can unilaterally trigger this delaying mechanism is a useful tool – unilateral recourse exists rarely in an institution defined by compromise, especially when it comes to the single market.
"Open Europe is an advocate of an economically liberal EU Single Market as well as supportive of the EU's freedom of movement, but has called for less EU involvement in several other policy areas."
Mark Wallace Jaw-dropping decision by Cameron to fire shots in anger against Boris. Endangers previous Tory 'rugby terms' - fight hard, shake hands after
@DPJHodges: Assumption there is going to be sceptic fury at Cameron barbs at Boris. But lot of sceptics not impressed by how Boris has played this.
@JohnRentoul: Not convinced Boris would ever be across the level of detail that Cameron commands: it would all be "stuff" and "whatever it's called"...
There is a reason why Boris avoids debates, press conferences and detailed interviews as much as he can. He's not very good at them. He is not interested in detail. He cannot argue a case. He is good at being Boris. That wins you the London mayoral contest against a triangulating, unpopular, hypocritical leftie and it gets you a safe seat in the Commons, but whether it gets you any further is another thing altogether.
@DPJHodges: Assumption there is going to be sceptic fury at Cameron barbs at Boris. But lot of sceptics not impressed by how Boris has played this.
@JohnRentoul: Not convinced Boris would ever be across the level of detail that Cameron commands: it would all be "stuff" and "whatever it's called"...
Has anyone ever actually watched London assembly mayoral questions? I have great difficulty envisioning how on earth that would translate at PMQs.
As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
It's an example of the sort of problem that cannot be solved by individual countries acting in isolation, or by multinational groupings where the most exploitative country can veto the others. It's this sort of thing that makes moving towards political unity is desirable - we won't be able to solve the issues of a globalised world on our own, any more than, say, the Mayor of London can solve the issues of national taxation. No taxation without EFFECTIVE representation is the slogan that we need here.
Listening to the debate in the HOC it seems very possible that Boris could become a problem for leave. He was traduced by David Cameron and then a series of opposition MP's took the opportunity to attack him as well. This will become remain's theme and he may well struggle to deal with it
As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
It's an example of the sort of problem that cannot be solved by individual countries acting in isolation, or by multinational groupings where the most exploitative country can veto the others. It's this sort of thing that makes moving towards political unity is desirable - we won't be able to solve the issues of a globalised world on our own, any more than, say, the Mayor of London can solve the issues of national taxation. No taxation without EFFECTIVE representation is the slogan that we need here.
I'd rather cope with that than give up our right to set tax rates
Listening to the debate in the HOC it seems very possible that Boris could become a problem for leave. He was traduced by David Cameron and then a series of opposition MP's took the opportunity to attack him as well. This will become remain's theme and he may well struggle to deal with it
If I may be so bold as to compare his journey to my own...
Initially I assessed that it is all about sovereignty and Leave should focus on that. It is part the anti-EU directive argument, part Braveheart. But then I was curious as to what being in or out of the EU actually would mean.
I first looked at financial services and the current regulatory juggernaut making its way through the EU. It would be ludicrous to think that we would have any more influence over its formulation out than in. EEA membership also does not play a direct part in formulation of such rules. Out, we would be handed the rules and be told to get on with it.
Then a friend and I were discussing his farm. Rightly or wrongly he fears the subsidies are in better hands in the EU than with the UK Govt.
I am therefore interested in which industries would actually benefit from being outside the EU.
So much as the concept of "sovereignty" is rightly at the heart of the Leave argument, I am waiting to hear concrete examples of how we would reclaim it if we were out.
Boris needs to find some examples pronto and flesh out with detail what Out would mean.
Listening to the debate in the HOC it seems very possible that Boris could become a problem for leave. He was traduced by David Cameron and then a series of opposition MP's took the opportunity to attack him as well. This will become remain's theme and he may well struggle to deal with it
If I may be so bold as to compare his journey to my own...
Initially I assessed that it is all about sovereignty and Leave should focus on that. It is part the anti-EU directive argument, part Braveheart. But then I was curious as to what being in or out of the EU actually would mean.
I first looked at financial services and the current regulatory juggernaut making its way through the EU. It would be ludicrous to think that we would have any more influence over its formulation out than in. EEA membership also does not play a direct part in formulation of such rules. Out, we would be handed the rules and be told to get on with it.
Then a friend and I were discussing his farm. Rightly or wrongly he fears the subsidies are in better hands in the EU than with the UK Govt.
I am therefore interested in which industries would actually benefit from being outside the EU.
So much as the concept of "sovereignty" is rightly at the heart of the Leave argument, I am waiting to hear concrete examples of how we would reclaim it if we were out.
Boris needs to find some examples pronto and flesh out with detail what Out would mean.
Speaking personally, I'd rather see fewer subsidies for farmers. To my mind, that would be one of the advantages of leaving the CAP.
@bbcnickrobinson: Tonight 8.30 @BBCOne Farage v Soubry on Immigration. Maier of Siemens v Morrisey of Newton on jobs. Johnson (A) v Grayling on Sovereignty
Listening to the debate in the HOC it seems very possible that Boris could become a problem for leave. He was traduced by David Cameron and then a series of opposition MP's took the opportunity to attack him as well. This will become remain's theme and he may well struggle to deal with it
If I may be so bold as to compare his journey to my own...
Initially I assessed that it is all about sovereignty and Leave should focus on that. It is part the anti-EU directive argument, part Braveheart. But then I was curious as to what being in or out of the EU actually would mean.
I first looked at financial services and the current regulatory juggernaut making its way through the EU. It would be ludicrous to think that we would have any more influence over its formulation out than in. EEA membership also does not play a direct part in formulation of such rules. Out, we would be handed the rules and be told to get on with it.
Then a friend and I were discussing his farm. Rightly or wrongly he fears the subsidies are in better hands in the EU than with the UK Govt.
I am therefore interested in which industries would actually benefit from being outside the EU.
So much as the concept of "sovereignty" is rightly at the heart of the Leave argument, I am waiting to hear concrete examples of how we would reclaim it if we were out.
Boris needs to find some examples pronto and flesh out with detail what Out would mean.
Speaking personally, I'd rather see fewer subsidies for farmers. To my mind, that would be one of the advantages of leaving the CAP.
@JGForsyth: Cameron now starting to enjoy this, relishes Ann Clwyd saying that Stanley Johnson speaks more sense than Boris
Cameron's demob happy. He's finished after his sell-out deal.
He wont he happy if leave wins
Let's make him unhappy, then.
After listening to the debate today the media seem to have concluded that David Cameron was at the height of his powers and the support from around the chamber from all parties makes the leave case harder to win
Given the UK and non-Eurozone states were never going to get a veto on Eurozone proposals the mechanism is probably the best that could have been hoped for. It provides an additional hurdle for Eurozone states to overcome and adds to the political cost of trying to ride roughshod over the non-Eurozone states. The principles are quite wide ranging and if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation. The fact that the UK can unilaterally trigger this delaying mechanism is a useful tool – unilateral recourse exists rarely in an institution defined by compromise, especially when it comes to the single market.
@DPJHodges: Assumption there is going to be sceptic fury at Cameron barbs at Boris. But lot of sceptics not impressed by how Boris has played this.
@JohnRentoul: Not convinced Boris would ever be across the level of detail that Cameron commands: it would all be "stuff" and "whatever it's called"...
There is a reason why Boris avoids debates, press conferences and detailed interviews as much as he can. He's not very good at them. He is not interested in detail. He cannot argue a case. He is good at being Boris. That wins you the London mayoral contest against a triangulating, unpopular, hypocritical leftie and it gets you a safe seat in the Commons, but whether it gets you any further is another thing altogether.
I completely agree. Boris is being found out. He cannot argue or defend a case. He would be hopeless as PM. The contrast with Cameron couldn't be more stark. That will become obvious to more and more Tory MPs and members who will be voting on a new leader.
My money is going back on May. Osborne is such an unappealing character. He reminds me of Arthur Havisham. Boris is Mr Bumble.
At some point, Cameron and his deal will be completely trashed by a prominent Tory for Leave.
Who might that be? As we discovered today, the prominent Tories for leave don't agree what they mean by leave, let alone articulate a coherent case for it...
As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
It's an example of the sort of problem that cannot be solved by individual countries acting in isolation, or by multinational groupings where the most exploitative country can veto the others. It's this sort of thing that makes moving towards political unity is desirable - we won't be able to solve the issues of a globalised world on our own, any more than, say, the Mayor of London can solve the issues of national taxation. No taxation without EFFECTIVE representation is the slogan that we need here.
A converse argument is also being made for the EEA and sovereignty over how to structure VAT in particular, which is a fair point in the abstract.
But, in the specific, are we saying that GO should be able to restructure VAT with a similar mindset as he is currently thinking of restructuring pensions? Isn't quite so attractive if I put things that way, is it?
Do we trust our own (left and right) better than we trust the EU across a raft of things? The latter is at least monolithic and fairly predictable in how it will goes about things!
As an instant reaction I will only note the following from what you have posted:
" if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation."
Our good friends: "IF" and "MAY".
Oh, I agree. I'm not saying that I'm 100% happy with the situation, just that it's an improvement on what we had before. As I've said many times, the UK should have got this right before signing Lisbon; Cameron is trying to claw something back from a weak opening position.
Overall, that Open Europe piece sums up almost exactly my reaction to the renegotiation deal.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Or they will rout him.
They won't like it if Cameron flashman's his own side.
Mark Wallace Jaw-dropping decision by Cameron to fire shots in anger against Boris. Endangers previous Tory 'rugby terms' - fight hard, shake hands after
Mark Wallace Jaw-dropping decision by Cameron to fire shots in anger against Boris. Endangers previous Tory 'rugby terms' - fight hard, shake hands after
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
That would be interesting. The Tory Party splits, whilst a Corbyn led Labour remains intact.
Cameron watched the Euro-fanatics destroy John Major's government and enable a decade of domination by Blair. It seems to me that he wants his final political act to be to rout them completely and in perpetuity.
Or they will rout him.
They won't like it if Cameron flashman's his own side.
If he wants to win, I think that he has to. I doubt if he ever expected half his party to be opposing him on this.
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
Mark Wallace Jaw-dropping decision by Cameron to fire shots in anger against Boris. Endangers previous Tory 'rugby terms' - fight hard, shake hands after
@jonwalker121: Leaver Peter Bone asks Cameron if it's right to share a platform with Galloway - drawing attention to what many see as PR own goal by Leave
Cameron was never really poor but he had a few poor shows when he first started 11 years ago, including a bad temper.
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.
He seemed to have bit of temper today at one point. But kept it under control for overall good performance.
Cameron is in danger of moving from merely putting forward reasons to remain, to being an outright shill for the EU.
Surely, action against terrorist movements and activities within the EU boundaries are the responsibility of the EU states in cooperation with each other. Action against terrorists outside EU borders can be made by NATO. So both are important.
Cameron's attacks on Boris should be seen in the context of his wish for George Osborne to succeed him. A big part of the anti-Boris leadership campaign will be to show that he is not up to the job. Today was the start of that.
Cameron's authority over the Tory Party has evaporated over the past 24 hours. Johnson is already effectively their leader.
Comments
Its laughable and shows the naivety of Remain.
And please don't keep going on about the alternative. I have already said that being out is likely to prove very problematic and that this is why this is a difficult decision. The status quo may be better than leaving.
But what I want to understand is why you think this deal is better for Britain than the status quo.
Cameron went in, after all, trying to get a better deal than the status quo. So it's fair to ask - of someone who seems to think that he got this - why you think that.
Up to you if you want to answer, of course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458382/The-moment-migrant-woman-SPITS-angry-crowd-locals-Frightening-video-baying-mob-vs-refugees-German-police-manhandle-bus-camp.html
David Cameron = Aspimitres
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dranqFntNgo
[I still Remain will win, and comfortably, but complacency is no-one's friend].
For example:
Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States, directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market, as well as economic and social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro
and
The implementation of measures, including the supervision or resolution of financial institutions and markets, and macro-prudential responsibilities, to be taken in view of preserving the financial stability of Member States whose currency is not the euro is, subject to the requirements of group and consolidated supervision and resolution, a matter for their own authorities and own budgetary responsibility, unless such Member States wish to join common mechanisms open to their participation
and
The informal meetings of the ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro, as referred to in Protocol (No 14) on the Euro Group, shall respect the powers of the Council as an institution upon which the Treaties confer legislative functions and within which Member States coordinate their economic policies.
In accordance with the Treaties, all members of the Council participate in its deliberations, even where not all members have the right to vote. Informal discussions by a group of Member States shall respect the powers of the Council, as well as the prerogatives of the other EU institutions.
They've caved in on the number one issue, which is that they have explicitly conceded that they can't use the Eurozone as a sub-single-market to shut us out.
Now, you can argue that this is implicit in the treaties already, but they've been trying to chip away at that. This is an acknowledgement, in a legally-binding agreement, that the Single Market has to be just that. No shutting us out at cosy Eurozone meetings.
I think there will be few if any deselections.
REMAIN will win, the world will move on and Mrs JackW will cast her eyes along Bond Street with glee and her long suffering husband will LEAVE for a rest cure on the French Riviera.
The huge job for Labour is to a hev a mardle-NorfolkTilIdie can translate-with the general public about immigration.This is one of the main learning points.Another is that the public expect their representives to look the part-Jezza needs a Jeeves and wife at work to dress him and he could do with a bit of a makeover.He was good today BTW.
"It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/david-cameron-shows-his-contempt-boris-johnson-he-savages-him-commons
Only 4 months to go......
2. Union law on the banking union conferring upon the European Central Bank, the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, authority over credit institutions is applicable only to credit institutions located in Member States whose currency is the euro or in Member States that have concluded with the European Central Bank a close cooperation agreement on prudential supervision, in accordance with relevant EU rules and subject to the requirements of group and consolidated supervision and resolution.
Given the UK and non-Eurozone states were never going to get a veto on Eurozone proposals the mechanism is probably the best that could have been hoped for. It provides an additional hurdle for Eurozone states to overcome and adds to the political cost of trying to ride roughshod over the non-Eurozone states. The principles are quite wide ranging and if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation. The fact that the UK can unilaterally trigger this delaying mechanism is a useful tool – unilateral recourse exists rarely in an institution defined by compromise, especially when it comes to the single market.
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-did-the-uk-achieve-in-its-eu-renegotiation/
Simples, as the youth said long ago.
“If we get to this campaign, I would be well up for trying to make the positive case for some of the good things that have come from the single market.”
@JohnRentoul: Not convinced Boris would ever be across the level of detail that Cameron commands: it would all be "stuff" and "whatever it's called"...
Darkie Day: Michael and the Mummers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06yr6vh
Of course the BBC's favourite racist, Diane Abbott is appalled by it.
The same (ie harm to our financial sector) may of course happen if we leave. The uncertain question is whether being outside allows us to develop and expand other areas of expertise and services with non-European countries sufficiently to make up what we may well lose.
The third possibility is that the Eurozone does not seek to harm the UK's financial sector. That requires a deal of belief in their good faith. Even if one has that I don't have a great deal of faith in their wish to look out for Britain's interests. Only Britain can do that and Britain seems lumbered with politicians who are utterly feeble at this (at least by comparison with the French, who are admirably ruthless and focused in this regard).
Jaw-dropping decision by Cameron to fire shots in anger against Boris. Endangers previous Tory 'rugby terms' - fight hard, shake hands after
Leave know they lost the day, trying to regain some ground
I've lifted a few of the quotes earlier in this thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
Initially I assessed that it is all about sovereignty and Leave should focus on that. It is part the anti-EU directive argument, part Braveheart. But then I was curious as to what being in or out of the EU actually would mean.
I first looked at financial services and the current regulatory juggernaut making its way through the EU. It would be ludicrous to think that we would have any more influence over its formulation out than in. EEA membership also does not play a direct part in formulation of such rules. Out, we would be handed the rules and be told to get on with it.
Then a friend and I were discussing his farm. Rightly or wrongly he fears the subsidies are in better hands in the EU than with the UK Govt.
I am therefore interested in which industries would actually benefit from being outside the EU.
So much as the concept of "sovereignty" is rightly at the heart of the Leave argument, I am waiting to hear concrete examples of how we would reclaim it if we were out.
Boris needs to find some examples pronto and flesh out with detail what Out would mean.
??
Cameron's tone today makes me wonder why he didn't want to turn up when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Leave comfortably ahead unless the under 25s turn out and vote.
As an instant reaction I will only note the following from what you have posted:
" if the UK can actively enforce them via the courts, then further account may well be taken of them when drawing up and implementing legislation."
Our good friends: "IF" and "MAY".
Alistair Stewart
@David_Cameron asserts @EU_Commission now as important as @NATO, if not more so, in the fight against terrorism.
Latest ICM has 50-35 Tory score for leave.
P45 for Cameron in 2016 has come in from 13/2 to 11/4 with Skybet in the last 24 hours.
My money is going back on May. Osborne is such an unappealing character. He reminds me of Arthur Havisham. Boris is Mr Bumble.
But, in the specific, are we saying that GO should be able to restructure VAT with a similar mindset as he is currently thinking of restructuring pensions? Isn't quite so attractive if I put things that way, is it?
Do we trust our own (left and right) better than we trust the EU across a raft of things? The latter is at least monolithic and fairly predictable in how it will goes about things!
Overall, that Open Europe piece sums up almost exactly my reaction to the renegotiation deal.
How many blancmanges did the ECJ cook?
The #EU #referendum's set for June. But how did the South East vote in the first nationwide poll on Europe in 1975? https://t.co/O1wuM2daF5
Boris needs to understand that a leader-in-waiting (yet alone PM-in-waiting) is a massive massive step up, and a hell of a different level of performance required.
He needs to seriously up his game, because he's gone straight into the spotlight, cold, on day one and, obviously, isn't prepared for it.