The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
Unlike Scotland, the UK parliament is sovereign, and with only minor ingenuity the new leader will find a pretext to call the last referendum a sham and either call a new one, or just announce that we will be leaving, depending on his mandate and support at the time.
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
Perhaps it is all academic. We're only days away from the collapse of the Euro, if some on here are to be believed....
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I've read the text, and my interpretation is the same as that of Open Europe:
While the mechanism is legally binding under EU law as a Decision of the Council of Ministers, the principles themselves are in the broader agreement between the states. But, importantly, the principles and the wider content of the Economic Governance section can, according to the government, be enforced via the courts – including the ECJ and UK domestic courts (more on this below in Section 5). This would give the UK further recourse. Another point to note is that the mechanism itself applies only to “legislative acts relating to the effective management” of the Banking Union or Eurozone – however, this is not always easy to define ... 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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
Unlike Scotland, the UK parliament is sovereign, and with only minor ingenuity the new leader will find a pretext to call the last referendum a sham and either call a new one, or just announce that we will be leaving, depending on his mandate and support at the time.
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
"or just announce we will be leaving".
Typical arrogance of Leavers who would ignore democracy...
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.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
The party with 1 MP won't need to GOTV, 98% of their members will be waiting at the door of the polling stations when they open.
Makes 0 difference if millions more vote the other way. Winning requires 50%+1 of the whole country not the majority of your own party.
I am well aware of that thank you very much.
However 3 million kippers will be a significant chunk on one side in what might well be a Leave Nutters vs Remain Nutters vote while everyone else goes to Sainsbury's or mows the lawn.
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.
David Cameron is fighting for his legacy and will not take heed of his leave mps as he doesn't need to though he will no doubt be courteous apart from to Boris
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
It's a whole-country referendum. The GOTV will be cross-party and involve not just half the Tory party but the vast bulk every single other party that has more than 1 MP.
I can think of a party with one MP that will have more active campaigners than any other party.
I said parties with more than one MP as the evidence would imply they're better at GOTV operations. A party with only one MP may not be the best example of GOTV otherwise by definition they'd have more than one MP.
In that case compare the amount of Votes that party got compared with say, the Libs, who got substantially more.
What price will you give me that Ukip have more campaigners than the Libs?
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
Simple question.
Once those rules are settled, if we are in the EU, do they apply to all transactions, in whatever currency, and with whatever the customer?
If we were sent those same final regulations and were outside the EU, would they apply to a Dollar denominated transaction with a US customer?
the latter question re USD transactions - do not apply. The SEC decides how USD-denominated instruments are traded.
MiFID applies to EU financial instruments.
You didn't quite answer my question, or maybe I misunderstood.
Inside the EU, does MiFID apply to transactions USD transaction with a US customer, or is it only the US rulebook ?
If the answer is no what about the EU adding new regulations to "enhance" the US rulebook on that sort of trade by QMV.
On the Physical goods side of the economy manufacturers have to comply with EU standards even if they are more onerous than those of their non-EU customer, in addition to that customer's standards. Outside the EU we would only have to apply EU standards when shipping goods to EU customers.
Sorry. No, MiFID does not apply to USD transactions with anyone. It applies to EU financial instruments.
Not sure the SEC would take kindly to anyone doing anything to the US rule book!
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I've read the text, and my interpretation is the same as that of Open Europe:
While the mechanism is legally binding under EU law as a Decision of the Council of Ministers, the principles themselves are in the broader agreement between the states. But, importantly, the principles and the wider content of the Economic Governance section can, according to the government, be enforced via the courts – including the ECJ and UK domestic courts (more on this below in Section 5). This would give the UK further recourse. Another point to note is that the mechanism itself applies only to “legislative acts relating to the effective management” of the Banking Union or Eurozone – however, this is not always easy to define ... 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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
But this refers to the section on the single market, surely, rather than specifically the single rule book on banking/fin insts.....which is actually a retrograde step reducing our powers to resist.
Incidentally, are EU docs written in French first and then translated. The opening section has each paragraph begining 'Recalling.....' which jars to anyone who loves the English language.
But this refers to the section on the single market, surely, rather than specifically the single rule book on banking/fin insts.....which is actually a retrograde step reducing our powers to resist.
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
Unlike Scotland, the UK parliament is sovereign, and with only minor ingenuity the new leader will find a pretext to call the last referendum a sham and either call a new one, or just announce that we will be leaving, depending on his mandate and support at the time.
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
"or just announce we will be leaving".
Typical arrogance of Leavers who would ignore democracy...
Typical remainers flouncing without reading properly, which bit of "depending on his mandate" didn't you understand ?
If Leave wins it will be a Tory government negotiating Brexit. Given that all viable Tory leadership contenders believe in the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, neither a Remain or Leave vote is actually going to make much difference to anything. This is all a lot of shouting about not very much at all.
And how exactly is Cameron going to be able to run a ground game if more than half of his MPs are fighting against him. What sort of GOTV operation can he have if he can't rely on local party members?
I don't think there will be a significant Conservative ground game for Remain. Labour and the LibDems may offset that to a small extent, but the ground-game advantage is going to be clearly with Leave, I think.
There is actually not that large a discrepancy between Labour voters and Labour members, both think Labour lost because it was not leftwing enough while voters as a whole thought it was too leftwing
One point I'd like to make: there will never be a "good" time to Leave. We've been locked into an economic union for over 40 years and, inevitably, Leaving is going to involve some uncertainty and temporary disruption as a new relationship is agreed.
The question you've got to ask yourselves is: is it worth it?
I remember Cameron himself making a similar argument prior to the GE2010 when criticised that 'now is no time for a novice'. He was also criticised that his deficit reduction plans would crash the economy and he lacked the necessary expertise. He quite rightly pointed out that if that was all that mattered you've never elect a new Prime Minister or government team, *ever*.
I have no fear of ending an unsatisfying relationship or employment that leads nowhere. 6 years ago I took a risk in leaving a very comfortable junior technical job in a medium sized engineering firm to join a business consultancy as its operations manager. I had no experience and knew it was a risk, because the division wasn't profitable, but it was an opportunity.
I did well for 9 months, and then was then made redundant. Scary experience. But I got £10k redundancy pay, paid off my debts, and then got a much better consultancy job with one of the Big 4 and doubled my salary. I also met my future wife through it and am now very happy.
None of that would have happened if I'd stayed put out of fear of the Unknown. If you are in a poor relationship going nowhere, you have to have the courage to end it.
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I've read the text, and my interpretation is the same as that of Open Europe:
While the mechanism is legally binding under EU law as a Decision of the Council of Ministers, the principles themselves are in the broader agreement between the states. But, importantly, the principles and the wider content of the Economic Governance section can, according to the government, be enforced via the courts – including the ECJ and UK domestic courts (more on this below in Section 5). This would give the UK further recourse. Another point to note is that the mechanism itself applies only to “legislative acts relating to the effective management” of the Banking Union or Eurozone – however, this is not always easy to define ... 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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
It means that there is "an additional hurdle for Eurozone states to overcome and adds to the political cost of trying to ride roughshod over the non-Eurozone state."
That's pretty black and white to me. It's a political protection, not a legal one. The government believes that they can enforce this via the courts, but their track record in legal action in front of the ECJ has been patchy at best
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I've read the text, and my interpretation is the same as that of Open Europe:
While the mechanism is legally binding under EU law as a Decision of the Council of Ministers, the principles themselves are in the broader agreement between the states. But, importantly, the principles and the wider content of the Economic Governance section can, according to the government, be enforced via the courts – including the ECJ and UK domestic courts (more on this below in Section 5). This would give the UK further recourse. Another point to note is that the mechanism itself applies only to “legislative acts relating to the effective management” of the Banking Union or Eurozone – however, this is not always easy to define ... 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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
But this refers to the section on the single market, surely, rather than specifically the single rule book on banking/fin insts.....which is actually a retrograde step reducing our powers to resist.
Incidentally, are EU docs written in French first and then translated. The opening section has each paragraph begining 'Recalling.....' which jars to anyone who loves the English language.
We have a specific opt-out on banking union law. I linked the clause about an hour ago.
Let us imagine you're right. Let's say that Cameron wins the referendum but his successor is a Eurosceptic who campaigned for Leave. Then what?
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
If it is Remain Osborne will likely succeed Cameron if it is Leave Boris will likely succeed Cameron. EU ref will effectively decide the Tory leadership. Though an Osborne leadership may well see a mini UKIP surge
It's not smaller. Previously we could take them to court and win (e.g. the clearing case). Under the agreement we can protest, and that's it.
No, quite the opposite. We've got a stronger framework for taking them to court.
No, it;'s quite explicit. The same rules apply to all countries, and we have the right to protest, during which time the Commission (?) will seek to find a consensus but it won't interfere with the normal voting process.
If the same rules apply, surely it would be harder, not easier, for the ECB to try to force business back to the Eurozone?
Unfortunately I believe England will chicken out big time and REMAIN. Too many cowardy custards worried they might lose a fiver. The Great has gone from Britain forever , just followers nowadays.
Unfortunately I believe England will chicken out big time and REMAIN. Too many cowardy custards worried they might lose a fiver. The Great has gone from Britain forever , just followers nowadays.
The country will have already voted to Remain, just as Scotland may have an SNP government but isn't independent. What is the next step?
Unlike Scotland, the UK parliament is sovereign, and with only minor ingenuity the new leader will find a pretext to call the last referendum a sham and either call a new one, or just announce that we will be leaving, depending on his mandate and support at the time.
You have a touching faith that the deal won't unravel or be struck down within the next year and make the whole thing academic.
I can't imagine any leave-supporting PM being elected who would take us out after voting to remain without a referendum. We'd surely need an out vote to leave.
So call a new one it is, but the country doesn't like being told they got a vote wrong. So there'd need to be grounds for a new vote, it would be interesting to see what they are.
Ironically the best way for the deal not to unravel might be for a sceptic to become PM. If lets say we object under the new procedure and a review begins the sceptic Prime Minister could say that if the review isn't met to our satisfaction then clearly the system we voted for hasn't worked and he'll call a new vote campaigning for Leave ... so to avoid that the EU would likely meet our concerns on that issue to avoid it being an issue.
Unfortunately I believe England will chicken out big time and REMAIN. Too many cowardy custards worried they might lose a fiver. The Great has gone from Britain forever , just followers nowadays.
If Leave wins it will be a Tory government negotiating Brexit. Given that all viable Tory leadership contenders believe in the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, neither a Remain or Leave vote is actually going to make much difference to anything. This is all a lot of shouting about not very much at all.
The free movement of people is not viable as a policy for any PM if leave wins.
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 th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 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?
snip
Richard,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
Take the current set of rules and regulations for financial instruments making its way through the EU, MiFID.
It has taken a long long time to negotiate, counter-negotiate, compromise and counter-compromise. You yourself said that you used to work with Kay Swinburne's boss. Perhaps you discussed it.
If we were out of the EU what influence do you really think we would have on the contents of MiFID? Do you think we would somehow have more influence if we were not in the EU?
More likely, almost certainly, we would be sent a copy of the final regulations and have to follow them.
And as for the EEA, I found the relevant paragraphs the other day when discussing with @Richard_Tyndall but in short, members of the EEA have no primary input into EU legislation although they can choose to accept it or not. They (EEA members) can sit on committees, on usually research and technology projects, if they have contributed to the project under discussion.
I think you make fair points. If pressed I would put up with the EEA but I am under no illusions that in all meaningful respects for real people in the real world there is very little difference and I do not see why people are rushing to barricades to leave the EU and join the EEA. For all of that I would be sanguine to be out of political Europe - there is no question of us being in the eurozone - but against that we would have no meaningful say - no votes.
If Leave wins it will be a Tory government negotiating Brexit. Given that all viable Tory leadership contenders believe in the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, neither a Remain or Leave vote is actually going to make much difference to anything. This is all a lot of shouting about not very much at all.
The free movement of people is not viable as a policy for any PM if leave wins.
You are totally living in cloud cuckoo land. EU migration is nowhere near the whole story. The 12-month total to June last year comprised 636,000 immigrants and 300,000 emigrants (many previous immigrants). Of the 636,000, 294,000 came to work, 192,000 to study, and 80,000 accompanied or joined other family members. In the 12 months to June 2015, EU net migration to Britain was 180,000, non-EU migration 201,000. Plus 45,000 of net emigration by British citizens (much of it to the rest of the EU) Immigrants from the EU tend to come to Britain to work. They accounted for at least 162,000 Of the 294,000 migrants coming for work reasons. Non-EU migrants, in contrast, are more likely to come to study – 131,000 out of 192,000. (David Smith of the Sunday Times) People come to work and study. Looking at bald figures is stupid. Our job numbers are higher than ever. If we were a horseshit economy there would be no one coming.
If Leave wins it will be a Tory government negotiating Brexit. Given that all viable Tory leadership contenders believe in the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, neither a Remain or Leave vote is actually going to make much difference to anything. This is all a lot of shouting about not very much at all.
This brings in to play one of my main nagging concerns about voting Leave - the logical place we'll find ourselves in will be either EEA or EEA-lite and needing to basically adhere to most of what the EU states are bound by as a result, but not having any ability to shape future regulations.
Whatever the options are, the worst one by far to me is being in the EEA or some "special status" (ha...) one step removed from "full EEA". That would be a disaster. But that's where I think "Leave" would leave us.
This is contrary to everything said here by anyone who works in the city, and, indeed contrary to my own understanding of the (admittedly appallingly written) agreement.
Care to elaborate?
Well, I've read the text, and my interpretation is the same as that of Open Europe:
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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
Continental law does not take the same approach to the interpretation of written documents as common law-trained lawyers do. You are making the classic mistake that a lot of English people do, which is to assume that European directives and treaties and agreements and MoUs and Heads of Agreement are written and interpreted by the EU courts as they would be were they agreements between English parties being considered by Mr Justice Whoever in Court 28 in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
And they aren't. There is a very different approach taken. And you can see this in many ECJ judgments and in what has happened in the past when EU institutions have given very liberal interpretations of pretty loose and ambiguous wording in a way that would never pass muster in an English court.
And that is one reason why I'm sceptical of this "agreement" on which you place so much faith. I have seen how such "agreements" have turned out in the past. I have seen how such "agreements" are specifically drafted in an ambiguous way in order to leave the real arguments about what they really mean until later.
My scepticism has grown from my experience of dealing with some of the consequences of EU regulation and actions.
If Leave wins it will be a Tory government negotiating Brexit. Given that all viable Tory leadership contenders believe in the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, neither a Remain or Leave vote is actually going to make much difference to anything. This is all a lot of shouting about not very much at all.
The free movement of people is not viable as a policy for any PM if leave wins.
You are totally living in cloud cuckoo land. EU migration is nowhere near the whole story. The 12-month total to June last year comprised 636,000 immigrants and 300,000 emigrants (many previous immigrants). Of the 636,000, 294,000 came to work, 192,000 to study, and 80,000 accompanied or joined other family members. In the 12 months to June 2015, EU net migration to Britain was 180,000, non-EU migration 201,000. Plus 45,000 of net emigration by British citizens (much of it to the rest of the EU) Immigrants from the EU tend to come to Britain to work. They accounted for at least 162,000 Of the 294,000 migrants coming for work reasons. Non-EU migrants, in contrast, are more likely to come to study – 131,000 out of 192,000. (David Smith of the Sunday Times) People come to work and study. Looking at bald figures is stupid. Our job numbers are higher than ever. If we were a horseshit economy there would be no one coming.
You really should read things properly before blundering away.
The migration you cite is visa-controlled. It is not 'free movement'.
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 th
I really wish you would explain in what way the curr 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,
With all due respect.
@Cyclefree has a important role in the City in areas that touch directly on regulatory matters
I have a lot of reasons to be very focused on the long-term sustainability of the financial services industry in the UK.
I believe you are a semi-retired IT professional.
Do you think we may have some basis for our views?
Charles
if we were discussing this, I would be hoarse by now.
The issue is simple: for input into financial services regulations, do you think we have greater influence in or out?
It seems to me that zero equals zero.
That's a perfectly legitimate position to take. If you think that we have no influence inside the EU, and expect to have no influence outside, then the point is moot.
I disagree that we have zero influence. In fact I know when it comes to MiFID we funnily enough were among the prime influencers in many of the measures that have come to be enacted.
I think that we will have zero influence after a Remain vote - after all, what are we going to do if the eurozone do something to us we don't like? Leaving will be off the table so there ain't a whole lot left.
MiFID shmifid. If European companies want to raise capital on the world's major stock markets (ie not Frankfurt or Paris, then that will happen regardless of MiFID, UCITS, CRD, BRRD TIT or any of the rest of the nonsence splurged out of Brussels. You do know that London and NY managed perfectly well before any of these?
Comments
While the mechanism is legally binding under EU law as a Decision of the Council of Ministers, the principles themselves are in the broader agreement between the states. But, importantly, the principles and the wider content of the Economic Governance section can, according to the government, be enforced via the courts – including the ECJ and UK domestic courts (more on this below in Section 5). This would give the UK further recourse. Another point to note is that the mechanism itself applies only to “legislative acts relating to the effective management” of the Banking Union or Eurozone – however, this is not always easy to define
...
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.
Other people seem to be saying the text doesn't mean what is written in black and white on the page.
Maybe they are right, but what it says is what it says. I don't have any arguments which will ever convince people who refuse to believe what the text of the agreement says.
Typical arrogance of Leavers who would ignore democracy...
However 3 million kippers will be a significant chunk on one side in what might well be a Leave Nutters vs Remain Nutters vote while everyone else goes to Sainsbury's or mows the lawn.
What price will you give me that Ukip have more campaigners than the Libs?
Not sure the SEC would take kindly to anyone doing anything to the US rule book!
Incidentally, are EU docs written in French first and then translated. The opening section has each paragraph begining 'Recalling.....' which jars to anyone who loves the English language.
The question you've got to ask yourselves is: is it worth it?
I remember Cameron himself making a similar argument prior to the GE2010 when criticised that 'now is no time for a novice'. He was also criticised that his deficit reduction plans would crash the economy and he lacked the necessary expertise. He quite rightly pointed out that if that was all that mattered you've never elect a new Prime Minister or government team, *ever*.
I have no fear of ending an unsatisfying relationship or employment that leads nowhere. 6 years ago I took a risk in leaving a very comfortable junior technical job in a medium sized engineering firm to join a business consultancy as its operations manager. I had no experience and knew it was a risk, because the division wasn't profitable, but it was an opportunity.
I did well for 9 months, and then was then made redundant. Scary experience. But I got £10k redundancy pay, paid off my debts, and then got a much better consultancy job with one of the Big 4 and doubled my salary. I also met my future wife through it and am now very happy.
None of that would have happened if I'd stayed put out of fear of the Unknown. If you are in a poor relationship going nowhere, you have to have the courage to end it.
That's pretty black and white to me. It's a political protection, not a legal one. The government believes that they can enforce this via the courts, but their track record in legal action in front of the ECJ has been patchy at best
New Thread New Thread
So call a new one it is, but the country doesn't like being told they got a vote wrong. So there'd need to be grounds for a new vote, it would be interesting to see what they are.
Ironically the best way for the deal not to unravel might be for a sceptic to become PM. If lets say we object under the new procedure and a review begins the sceptic Prime Minister could say that if the review isn't met to our satisfaction then clearly the system we voted for hasn't worked and he'll call a new vote campaigning for Leave ... so to avoid that the EU would likely meet our concerns on that issue to avoid it being an issue.
If pressed I would put up with the EEA but I am under no illusions that in all meaningful respects for real people in the real world there is very little difference and I do not see why people are rushing to barricades to leave the EU and join the EEA.
For all of that I would be sanguine to be out of political Europe - there is no question of us being in the eurozone - but against that we would have no meaningful say - no votes.
The 12-month total to June last year comprised 636,000 immigrants and 300,000 emigrants (many previous immigrants). Of the 636,000, 294,000 came to work, 192,000 to study, and 80,000 accompanied or joined other family members.
In the 12 months to June 2015, EU net migration to Britain was 180,000, non-EU migration 201,000.
Plus 45,000 of net emigration by British citizens (much of it to the rest of the EU)
Immigrants from the EU tend to come to Britain to work. They accounted for at least 162,000 Of the 294,000 migrants coming for work reasons. Non-EU migrants, in contrast, are more likely to come to study – 131,000 out of 192,000.
(David Smith of the Sunday Times)
People come to work and study. Looking at bald figures is stupid.
Our job numbers are higher than ever. If we were a horseshit economy there would be no one coming.
Whatever the options are, the worst one by far to me is being in the EEA or some "special status" (ha...) one step removed from "full EEA". That would be a disaster. But that's where I think "Leave" would leave us.
And they aren't. There is a very different approach taken. And you can see this in many ECJ judgments and in what has happened in the past when EU institutions have given very liberal interpretations of pretty loose and ambiguous wording in a way that would never pass muster in an English court.
And that is one reason why I'm sceptical of this "agreement" on which you place so much faith. I have seen how such "agreements" have turned out in the past. I have seen how such "agreements" are specifically drafted in an ambiguous way in order to leave the real arguments about what they really mean until later.
My scepticism has grown from my experience of dealing with some of the consequences of EU regulation and actions.
The migration you cite is visa-controlled. It is not 'free movement'.