One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
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.
Disasterous, just being in a free trade area and not have to apply well over two thirds of the crap laws that comes out of Brussels, and not being subject to the whims of the ECJ, can't think of anything worse.
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
Boris asks what powers come back. Cameron says vaguely some welfare, some bailout, some immigration (nonsense) and then goes on to say the deal means we won't cede any more.
I don't think he answered Boris's question, and instead answered a different one. Yes, he did so lucidly, but it wasn't a knock out.
Indeed. Boris asks a perfectly reasonable question and Cameron (clearly tired, emotional and very rattled) waffles about his nothing "reforms".
I watched the debate. Cameron not at all rattled. It's the Leavers on here who are rattled.
I was right, wasn't I? About the emotional backlash against Cameron. EVEN IF HE WINS HE WILL BE HATED.
100 per cent right. There was a bit of wishful thinking on here about a nice referendum campaign, which I think has never happened anywhere outside Switzerland, which is preternaturally nice A lot of people here just forgot what losing politics feels like
Charles mentioned that under Cameron's deal, we would no longer be able to sue before the ECJ against ECB power grabs (eg over clearing). If we are all subject to the same rules, wouldn't it make such power grabs more difficult as it would amount to discrimination?
Sorry to repeat myself, just trying to get my head around the regulatory side.
It won't be discrimination because the same rule book applies to everyone.
Previously on clearing - sorry to come back to this - it was discrimination because there were different rules for Euro and non-Euro countries, and the Eurozone came up with a rule saying "all Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". So we sued and won.
Now they can come up with a single rule, applicable to everyone, saying that "All Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". We protest about it, there is a period of time during which the Commission tries to reach a consensus, then there is a vote and the rule is implemented
Boris asks what powers come back. Cameron says vaguely some welfare, some bailout, some immigration (nonsense) and then goes on to say the deal means we won't cede any more.
I don't think he answered Boris's question, and instead answered a different one. Yes, he did so lucidly, but it wasn't a knock out.
Indeed. Boris asks a perfectly reasonable question and Cameron (clearly tired, emotional and very rattled) waffles about his nothing "reforms".
I watched the debate. Cameron not at all rattled. It's the Leavers on here who are rattled.
See what I mean... you have never criticised Cameron in your life. Nothing wrong with being a loyalist, just don't try and pretend otherwise.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Charles mentioned that under Cameron's deal, we would no longer be able to sue before the ECJ against ECB power grabs (eg over clearing). If we are all subject to the same rules, wouldn't it make such power grabs more difficult as it would amount to discrimination?
Sorry to repeat myself, just trying to get my head around the regulatory side.
It won't be discrimination because the same rule book applies to everyone.
Previously on clearing - sorry to come back to this - it was discrimination because there were different rules for Euro and non-Euro countries, and the Eurozone came up with a rule saying "all Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". So we sued and won.
Now they can come up with a single rule, applicable to everyone, saying that "All Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". We protest about it, there is a period of time during which the Commission tries to reach a consensus, then there is a vote and the rule is implemented
What's the rule on clearing US Dollars?
Don't know. I use BBH or Wells personally
Of course, it was because BNP's US dollar payments got cleared through NY that their completely legal in France where it happened transactions with Iran ended up costing them $9bn.
(Unlike @Cyclefree, I have a lot of sympathy with BNP's management. I hate countries - and organisations like the EU - that seek extra-territorial jurisdiction.)
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
You'd like that would you?
The reality is they will discuss matters (where daily more and more are deciding that the leadership has sold out the membership and possibly a majority of voters on the EU) and then continue to govern for 4 years.
When they'll probably win again.
This is the BEST time to have a debate about sovereignty - early on in a parliament, when you're in power and your leader is going anyway.
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
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.
Why is it a retrograde step?
Because previously we didn't have to follow the single rule book - this agreement states that we do have to.
No it absolutely doesn't.
Hilariously, we now have two posters - one saying that we have always had to follow the single rule book, another that we absolutely do not have to follow it after the agreement.
Which is it chaps (and chapesses)?
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
(Edit: from the final text)
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV, as the implementation mechanism of the Basel protocols, there is less of an issue.
That only protects the role of the BoE. It doesn't protect the City from any other regulations.
Basel is a BIS agreement, not an EU agreement, so we'd need to follow anyway - it's a red herring.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
You'd like that would you?
(where daily more and more are deciding that the leadership has sold out the membership and possibly a majority of voters on the EU)
This is the bit that gives me the clue that the discussion isn't going to end neatly in June and probably won't end in 2016.
Because previously we didn't have to follow the single rule book - this agreement states that we do have to.
No it absolutely doesn't.
Hilariously, we now have two posters - one saying that we have always had to follow the single rule book, another that we absolutely do not have to follow it after the agreement.
Which is it chaps (and chapesses)?
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV it is less clear, although as a natural extension of the Basel protocols there is less of an issue.
By setting risk weightings, the unelected risk committee of the Bank for International Settlements is the de facto regulator for every bank in the world.
well exactly and I have edited my post to more accurately reflect CRD IV.
now - perhaps people have a problem with the BiS and, given recent history, it is difficult to say it has worked well, but it is a completely different kettle of fish to worrying about the EU and the single rulebook, where the key exemption in the deal is that we don't have to participate in the various single resolution measures.
The BIS, by setting the risk weighting for mortgages at 25%, even if you only owned the equity stub of a stack of mortgages, did more to cause the GFC than any other institution.
No huge argument from me there, but we don't get to sidestep Basel III if we leave the EU...
It's funny, isn't it. We worry a lot about MIFID, CRD IV, etc., and yet the most important regulating entity of financial services in the UK sits in Switzerland and is under no democratic oversight whatsoever.
You have only just noticed the fundamental absurdity in the Leave argument?
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
It's also tosh; which prices? Food would likely be cheaper, for example.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
Because previously we didn't have to follow the single rule book - this agreement states that we do have to.
No it absolutely doesn't.
Hilariously, we now have two posters - one saying that we have always had to follow the single rule book, another that we absolutely do not have to follow it after the agreement.
Which is it chaps (and chapesses)?
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
(Edit: from the final text)
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV, as the implementation mechanism of the Basel protocols, there is less of an issue.
That only protects the role of the BoE. It doesn't protect the City from any other regulations.
Basel is a BIS agreement, not an EU agreement, so we'd need to follow anyway - it's a red herring.
Quite. Admittedly I am only an historian, but this is the paragraph (immediately following the now oft quoted piece from TOPPPING) that scared me in the appallingly written document:
The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. Substantive Union law to be applied by the European Central Bank in the exercise of its functions of single supervisor, or by the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, including the single rulebook as regards prudential requirements for credit institutions or other legislative measures to be adopted for the purpose of safeguarding financial stability, may need to be conceived in a more uniform manner than corresponding rules to be applied by national authorities of Member States that do not take part in the banking union. To this end, specific provisions within the single rulebook and other relevant instruments may be necessary, while preserving the level-playing field and contributing to financial stability.
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV it is less clear, although as a natural extension of the Basel protocols there is less of an issue.
By setting risk weightings, the unelected risk committee of the Bank for International Settlements is the de facto regulator for every bank in the world.
well exactly and I have edited my post to more accurately reflect CRD IV.
now - perhaps people have a problem with the BiS and, given recent history, it is difficult to say it has worked well, but it is a completely different kettle of fish to worrying about the EU and the single rulebook, where the key exemption in the deal is that we don't have to participate in the various single resolution measures.
The BIS, by setting the risk weighting for mortgages at 25%, even if you only owned the equity stub of a stack of mortgages, did more to cause the GFC than any other institution.
No huge argument from me there, but we don't get to sidestep Basel III if we leave the EU...
It's funny, isn't it. We worry a lot about MIFID, CRD IV, etc., and yet the most important regulating entity of financial services in the UK sits in Switzerland and is under no democratic oversight whatsoever.
You have only just noticed the fundamental absurdity in the Leave argument?
Not as absurd as sitting here and reading the results of you rolling your face on the keyboard, Good Night!
Hilariously, we now have two posters - one saying that we have always had to follow the single rule book, another that we absolutely do not have to follow it after the agreement.
Which is it chaps (and chapesses)?
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV it is less clear, although as a natural extension of the Basel protocols there is less of an issue.
By setting risk weightings, the unelected risk committee of the Bank for International Settlements is the de facto regulator for every bank in the world.
well exactly and I have edited my post to more accurately reflect CRD IV.
now - perhaps people have a problem with the BiS and, given recent history, it is difficult to say it has worked well, but it is a completely different kettle of fish to worrying about the EU and the single rulebook, where the key exemption in the deal is that we don't have to participate in the various single resolution measures.
The BIS, by setting the risk weighting for mortgages at 25%, even if you only owned the equity stub of a stack of mortgages, did more to cause the GFC than any other institution.
No huge argument from me there, but we don't get to sidestep Basel III if we leave the EU...
It's funny, isn't it. We worry a lot about MIFID, CRD IV, etc., and yet the most important regulating entity of financial services in the UK sits in Switzerland and is under no democratic oversight whatsoever.
You have only just noticed the fundamental absurdity in the Leave argument?
I'm not discussing this is the context of In/Out, merely that there is an international body, under no democratic oversight whatsover, that has incredible power over the world financial system.
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
You'd like that would you?
The reality is they will discuss matters (where daily more and more are deciding that the leadership has sold out the membership and possibly a majority of voters on the EU) and then continue to govern for 4 years.
When they'll probably win again.
This is the BEST time to have a debate about sovereignty - early on in a parliament, when you're in power and your leader is going anyway.
And when your opponent is Jeremy Corbyn.
Anyway, it will provide us all with immense entertainment over coming months. Politics is no fun without drama.
Tommy Sheridan@citizentommy #EUreferendum Don't replace Westminster rule with Brussels rule #IndependenceMeansIndependence #LoveEuropeLeaveEU #Yes 2 the right 2 govern. https://twitter.com/citizentommy
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
It's also tosh; which prices? Food would likely be cheaper, for example.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
It's also tosh; which prices? Food would likely be cheaper, for example.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
Mr Farage will lap up all those disappointed voters that feel they got sold a pup. The Kippers might get.... 3 MPs in GE2020
Because previously we didn't have to follow the single rule book - this agreement states that we do have to.
No it absolutely doesn't.
Hilariously, we now have two posters - one saying that we have always had to follow the single rule book, another that we absolutely do not have to follow it after the agreement.
Which is it chaps (and chapesses)?
ah sorry. You are right it is not easy to understand. The key bit as far as we are concerned is this:
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.
so for the SSM, SRM we are exempt. For capital requirements, CRD IV it is less clear, although as a natural extension of the Basel protocols there is less of an issue.
By setting risk weightings, the unelected risk committee of the Bank for International Settlements is the de facto regulator for every bank in the world.
well exactly and I have edited my post to more accurately reflect CRD IV.
now - perhaps people have a problem with the BiS and, given recent history, it is difficult to say it has worked well, but it is a completely different kettle of fish to worrying about the EU and the single rulebook, where the key exemption in the deal is that we don't have to participate in the various single resolution measures.
The BIS, by setting the risk weighting for mortgages at 25%, even if you only owned the equity stub of a stack of mortgages, did more to cause the GFC than any other institution.
No huge argument from me there, but we don't get to sidestep Basel III if we leave the EU...
It's funny, isn't it. We worry a lot about MIFID, CRD IV, etc., and yet the most important regulating entity of financial services in the UK sits in Switzerland and is under no democratic oversight whatsoever.
Well, we own the shares and Mark Carney is on the Board...
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
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.
Why is it a retrograde step?
Because previously we didn't have to follow the single rule book - this agreement states that we do have to.
No it absolutely doesn't.
If you will excuse the pantomime moment - oh yes it does. It is explicit that the Single Rulebook applies to all states, eurozone or not. It says that if we do.not like something in the dingle rulebook then we can raise an objection. But it also says the Council does not have to change its decision because of the protest.
We are signed up to CRD IV, which is the implementation method of Basel III - ie capital requirements. We have never had too much of an issue with global standards for bank capital, or have we?
As for the more contentious elements - ie SSM, SRM, then we do have exemption. As do we have exemption from other ECB laws on banking union, in the clause I have pasted now (including this one) three times:
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.
So, contra Charles, the regulatory environment for the Eurozone and non-Euro countries will continue to be different.
Only for the ECB vs BOE
It's basically mirroring the split between the PRA and the FCA.
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
The left does have some reason to be optimistic.
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
The Conservatives are going to spend an absolute minimum of four months screaming at each other, accusing each other of unspeakable betrayals and trashing each others' integrity.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
You'd like that would you?
(where daily more and more are deciding that the leadership has sold out the membership and possibly a majority of voters on the EU)
This is the bit that gives me the clue that the discussion isn't going to end neatly in June and probably won't end in 2016.
A good point - though as a Tory with a natural assumption that the MPs generally know how to solve a problem that could involve their own job security, after last week's antics I expect they'll ensure two outers on the final ballot however the vote goes.
Just for context, I have given literally thousands of hours help to the Tory party over the past 10 years. And I'm one of the more europhile members. And even I think the PM is hopeless for selling this as a victory and something worth voting for.
If he and the leadership cannot please me, they definitely cannot please the majority.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
It's also tosh; which prices? Food would likely be cheaper, for example.
I was right, wasn't I? About the emotional backlash against Cameron. EVEN IF HE WINS HE WILL BE HATED.
I like Cameron, and even I could have called that years ago - half his party disagree with him on this one (and even with a better deal probably 1/4-1/3 would have) and many of those would end up hating him for speaking against them, particularly if he wins. One of the more predictable political happenings.
Quite. Admittedly I am only an historian, but this is the paragraph (immediately following the now oft quoted piece from TOPPPING) that scared me in the appallingly written document:
The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. Substantive Union law to be applied by the European Central Bank in the exercise of its functions of single supervisor, or by the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, including the single rulebook as regards prudential requirements for credit institutions or other legislative measures to be adopted for the purpose of safeguarding financial stability, may need to be conceived in a more uniform manner than corresponding rules to be applied by national authorities of Member States that do not take part in the banking union. To this end, specific provisions within the single rulebook and other relevant instruments may be necessary, while preserving the level-playing field and contributing to financial stability.
Eek. Hadn't seen that "contributing to financial stability" was what they argued for the clearing rules
"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.
I'm not discussing this is the context of In/Out, merely that there is an international body, under no democratic oversight whatsover, that has incredible power over the world financial system.
Charles mentioned that under Cameron's deal, we would no longer be able to sue before the ECJ against ECB power grabs (eg over clearing). If we are all subject to the same rules, wouldn't it make such power grabs more difficult al it would amount to discrimination?
Sorry to repeat myself, just trying to get my head around the regulatory side.
It won't be discrimination because the same rule book applies to everyone.
Previously on clearing - sorry to come back to this - it was discrimination because there were different rules for Euro and non-Euro countries, and the Eurozone came up with a rule saying "all Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". So we sued and won.
Now they can come up with a single rule, applicable to everyone, saying that "All Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". We protest about it, there is a period of time during which the Commission tries to reach a consensus, then there is a vote and the rule is implemented
Quite. Admittedly I am only an historian, but this is the paragraph (immediately following the now oft quoted piece from TOPPPING) that scared me in the appallingly written document:
The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. Substantive Union law to be applied by the European Central Bank in the exercise of its functions of single supervisor, or by the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, including the single rulebook as regards prudential requirements for credit institutions or other legislative measures to be adopted for the purpose of safeguarding financial stability, may need to be conceived in a more uniform manner than corresponding rules to be applied by national authorities of Member States that do not take part in the banking union. To this end, specific provisions within the single rulebook and other relevant instruments may be necessary, while preserving the level-playing field and contributing to financial stability.
Eek. Hadn't seen that "contributing to financial stability" was what they argued for the clearing rules
I'm guessing that I am right to be worried by that section, then?
One thing's for sure. All the witch hazel in the world isn't going to be sufficient balm for the bruises and wounds in the Conservative party when all this has ended.
Bruised and battered Tories, meet Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy is the best friend you will ever have ...
It's precisely because the Conservatives don't fear Jeremy Corbyn that they feel able to behave so badly to each other. The divisions in each main party are encouraging members of the other main party to become more internally confrontational.
Labour discipline began to fail during the weak leadership of Hague and IDS, which offered no challenge to Labour. It plants seeds that germinate later on.
The trick Labour has to pull off is to keep JC in place to maximise the space for Tory decent and then swap him for a more effective leader once the Tories have reached the point of no return.
Will it happen? Who knows.
I take issue with Hague's 'weak' leadership.
As a rugby coach (and the principles are the same) it would've been beyond me to take control of a side relegated to the bottom division, when no bugger wants to turn up to training, with the media labelling your side a laughing stock, and then manage to motivate the players. Hague did what he could in terribly trying circumstances, and I suspect it could've been a lot worse.
IDS's leadership was awful. A case study in reality becoming satire.
As for Labour discipline failing? They did manage - miraculously - after ten years in power, to sign-up all ten million of their MPs to Gordon Brown's coronation; backing him in ridding the world of the scourge of Blairism. Some lack of discipline that!
I still reckon Blair would've won GE2010* if Brown's superhubris hadn't gotten in the way.
*I'm in a minority of two on this one. Me and Rentoul.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
Thats only Farages version of Out. There are 56 other varieties.
And the USA has said it does not want to make FTAs with individual countries and would not conclude one with a brexited UK. (US trade representative, Michael Froman)
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
It's also tosh; which prices? Food would likely be cheaper, for example.
You said "Members doesn't equal voters. 300k members. 30 million voters."
You misread my post. In relation to overall policies (not the environment) I was citing the figures for Labour voters, not members. Only 7% of Labour VOTERs said that policies were too left wing. So that is the vote that is most at risk from further leftward lurches, i.e. about 2% of the total vote. So the Labour number would drop from around 29% to 27% if it lost ALL of those VOTERS.
Meanwhile, 34% of Labour VOTERS (not members, to be clear so you don't misread my post again) think that the policies are not left-wing enough.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Rather like the creation of the Irish Free State. It makes little difference immediately. It makes a lot of difference in the long term.
Interesting to look at previous leaders's succession planning as a factor in next Tory leadership market.Not much of a trend as a positive recommendation but a negative one,with all the PM's power and patronage at his disposal,can surely end a contender's ambitions.Wilson effectively destroyed Tony Benn after the 1975 euroref and Cameron can do the same to Johnson. Could Boris Johnson get on the list for the last 2 against some very experienced cabinet ministers if he was still on the back-benches which is surely to be his long-term home. The herd have backed him in to 2-1 fav for next Tory leader.Time for a contrarian lay.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Rather like the creation of the Irish Free State. It makes little difference immediately. It makes a lot of difference in the long term.
And look what happened when the Irish Free State was created.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Nope.
If we Leave a party will be able to put in its manifesto that ALL visitors will be treated equally, regardless of nationality.
Bah, I missed that. I can't top Death Valley/Furnace Creek for amazing everything.
I must go back there, the heat, ghost towns, craters, Disney dunes, joshua trees and racing rocks. I'm a huge canyon fan - the silence and heat is fantastic.
I wonder how anyone lived in these ultra harsh places in the 1880s
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
Thats only Farages version of Out. There are 56 other varieties.
And the USA has said it does not want to make FTAs with individual countries and would not conclude one with a brexited UK. (US trade representative, Michael Froman)
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
Thats only Farages version of Out. There are 56 other varieties.
And the USA has said it does not want to make FTAs with individual countries and would not conclude one with a brexited UK. (US trade representative, Michael Froman)
Of course the US would sign an agreement with the UK, in the event of Brexit. We aren't Cuba.
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
It's only anecdotal, but I know lots of EU nationals resident in London working in financial services who are getting UK citizenship as an insurance policy.
@lucycthomas: .@Anna_Soubry nails Nigel Farage on what Out would look like. He admits NO single market. Means prices up,tariffs & barriers #c4news #euref
Pfft by an average of what, 1-1.5% I am sure people are worried.
Thats only Farages version of Out. There are 56 other varieties.
And the USA has said it does not want to make FTAs with individual countries and would not conclude one with a brexited UK. (US trade representative, Michael Froman)
Of course the US would sign an agreement with the UK, in the event of Brexit. We aren't Cuba.
A zero-agreement situation is what we currently have, so the absence of an agreement basically equals business as usual.
It's fairly probable that other NAFTA countries - Canada and Mexico - would become quickly amenable. They have pre-existing agreements with EFTA that could be replicated.
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
Presumably Britons would need a visa to travel to the Continent too then?
"As Dole endorsed Rubio’s candidacy, the former U.S. senator from Kansas also warned of Donald Trump’s ability to win, saying he could secure the nomination if he sweeps the Super Tuesday states.
“Then I think you start printing the inaugural invitation,” Dole joked.
“If [Trump] has a good day on Super Tuesday, that's going to be hard to deny him the nomination. And if reality sets in and he's gonna start counting enough delegates, we've got to hope he'll be a good president,” he said. "
"As Dole endorsed Rubio’s candidacy, the former U.S. senator from Kansas also warned of Donald Trump’s ability to win, saying he could secure the nomination if he sweeps the Super Tuesday states.
“Then I think you start printing the inaugural invitation,” Dole joked.
“If [Trump] has a good day on Super Tuesday, that's going to be hard to deny him the nomination. And if reality sets in and he's gonna start counting enough delegates, we've got to hope he'll be a good president,” he said. "
" “I'd be happy to be his adviser,” Dole added."
A rather muted endorsement and Dole did not help Jeb much
I was right, wasn't I? About the emotional backlash against Cameron. EVEN IF HE WINS HE WILL BE HATED.
I like Cameron, and even I could have called that years ago - half his party disagree with him on this one (and even with a better deal probably 1/4-1/3 would have) and many of those would end up hating him for speaking against them, particularly if he wins. One of the more predictable political happenings.
The Tory party did not agree with Churchill in his wilderness years. Who was voted the Greatest Briton of all time? Should we view someone by the judgement of backbench tories.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Rather like the creation of the Irish Free State. It makes little difference immediately. It makes a lot of difference in the long term.
It will be a lot less dramatic than the creation of the Irish Free State!
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Nope.
If we Leave a party will be able to put in its manifesto that ALL visitors will be treated equally, regardless of nationality.
It is a fundamental change
Should we vote Leave, by the time of the next GE there would be a new agreement in place, negotiated by the Conservative government, that enshrines free movement of goods, services, people and capital. The Tory Leavers and Remainers who have a chance of leading the party do not disagree on this. And they will be doing the deal.
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
Presumably Britons would need a visa to travel to the Continent too then?
I'm sure common movement rights and common employment rights can be negotiated. They can work here, we can work there. Theyre not entitled to any public support here, and we arent entitled to any there.
Does not seem unreasonable, or even difficult to make work. We can also strip non residents (all non residents, not just from the EU) of the tax free allowance. When I worked in Australia, only residents got the tax free allowance.
There can be certain incentives. Tax free allowance would be available for certain skills. You essentially use the tax system as a means to manage migration.
Earning £14k, paying tax on £4k (£800) , getting £1,700 in child benefit and £8,500 in tax credits and child tax credits (just did the numbers on a male earner, with a wife and two children), thats around £23,100 *after income tax*.
Take the sweeties away and that £23,100 turns into £11,200.
Charles mentioned that under Cameron's deal, we would no longer be able to sue before the ECJ against ECB power grabs (eg over clearing). If we are all subject to the same rules, wouldn't it make such power grabs more difficult as it would amount to discrimination?
Sorry to repeat myself, just trying to get my head around the regulatory side.
It won't be discrimination because the same rule book applies to everyone.
Previously on clearing - sorry to come back to this - it was discrimination because there were different rules for Euro and non-Euro countries, and the Eurozone came up with a rule saying "all Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". So we sued and won.
Now they can come up with a single rule, applicable to everyone, saying that "All Euro-denominated clearing must be in a Eurozone country". We protest about it, there is a period of time during which the Commission tries to reach a consensus, then there is a vote and the rule is implemented
And I expect something like that to happen. It will eviscerate our financial sector or push us into joining the euro. And I think it was designed exactly to do that. Win/win for the Eurozone either way.
Cameron may have commanded the Commons today (didn't see so don't know). He may have humiliated Boris etc etc. All this is good fun. But the real substance is in what happens in these oddly worded agreements where pedantic understanding of every nuance and detail is needed not performances before an audience. This is where I think Cameron has fallen down and why I think this agreement will end up meaning nothing and we will or may find in time all sorts of adverse consequences.
Cameron will be long gone by then and no-one will care, other than those of us with long experience and long memories who have experience of similar agreements and regulations and being assured by our civil servants that it doesn't mean what it says or it means something else or not to worry about it because it will never happen and then hearing from their opposite numbers in other capitals that, au contraire, it means this and the following things will happen and then seeing that, in fact, exactly those things do happen and when you go back to the English civil servants they look at you blankly or shamefacedly and admit that yes, that is right but there's nothing to be done, oh well, never mind. And this happens not once or twice but every single time.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Nope.
If we Leave a party will be able to put in its manifesto that ALL visitors will be treated equally, regardless of nationality.
It is a fundamental change
Should we vote Leave, by the time of the next GE there would be a new agreement in place, negotiated by the Conservative government, that enshrines free movement of goods, services, people and capital. The Tory Leavers and Remainers who have a chance of leading the party do not disagree on this. And they will be doing the deal.
Which is why all these accusations from the Remainders that we don't know what Leave would look like are rubbish. We know who will be negotiating the deal generally even if we don't know the name of the PM at that point. So we know that the Single Market freedoms either I'm actuality or in effect will be in place.
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
Presumably Britons would need a visa to travel to the Continent too then?
Why should anyone be swayed in the vote by the posturing of politicians?
And---asking naively & simply, and assuming that logic is relevant---If posturing shouldn't matter, then where can one get well-expressed, honest, informative explanations of the factors that should influence his/her vote?
Presumably Britons would need a visa to travel to the Continent too then?
If that was the wish of the destination country.
It simply means treating Europeans the same way we treat non-Europeans. That means higher expectations with employment and self funding.
I'm sure that we will not require visas for EU citizens who wish to come to the UK as tourists.
Yes, for many instances it's little more than a passport stamp.
The stamp gives an entry duration and the particular wording indicates the terms of entry, permitted length of stay and right of access to public services/funds.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
It's staring the commentariat in the face. For most voters a Remain or Leave vote is going to make no difference. Immigration policy will be almost entirely unaffected whichever side wins.
Nope.
If we Leave a party will be able to put in its manifesto that ALL visitors will be treated equally, regardless of nationality.
It is a fundamental change
Should we vote Leave, by the time of the next GE there would be a new agreement in place, negotiated by the Conservative government, that enshrines free movement of goods, services, people and capital. The Tory Leavers and Remainers who have a chance of leading the party do not disagree on this. And they will be doing the deal.
Which is why all these accusations from the Remainders that we don't know what Leave would look like are rubbish. We know who will be negotiating the deal generally even if we don't know the name of the PM at that point. So we know that the Single Market freedoms either I'm actuality or in effect will be in place.
Absolutely right. For most people a Remain or Leave result will make very little difference. It's a lot of shouting over relatively little.
Comments
@PickardJE: Ickle adds ballast to rapidly swelling Out movement https://t.co/PtyXToamf8
It's already clear that the Tories are going to rip each to shreds during the referendum campaign. It could never be otherwise, perhaps.
The Tories are also becoming complacent in formulating policy, careless about which sections of the public they alienate.
The Tories are going to lose their election-winning leader. The obvious replacements are all being damaged by the referendum.
If Labour do emerge with an electable leader (who could be from the left, imo) then the Tories may be in a very poor state to resist. But, of course, that's a very big if. In fact, it probably won't happen in this Parliament.
One open question is whether the Tories will succeed in tainting the Labour brand by association with Corbyn, which is something that will happen anyway, to some extent, without the Tories' help. My guess is that they will and that Labour will find it hard to close the book on Corbyn when he is gone.
http://www.aecr.eu/less-than-10-of-norways-laws-emanate-from-brussels/ As compared to between 50 and 70% of UK Law depending on who you believe.
https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/
Personally, I think we should aspire to the same position as the Vatican.
And then they're going to turn round to the public and say "vote for us".
There was a bit of wishful thinking on here about a nice referendum campaign, which I think has never happened anywhere outside Switzerland, which is preternaturally nice
A lot of people here just forgot what losing politics feels like
(Unlike @Cyclefree, I have a lot of sympathy with BNP's management. I hate countries - and organisations like the EU - that seek extra-territorial jurisdiction.)
It's fab, isn't it
The reality is they will discuss matters (where daily more and more are deciding that the leadership has sold out the membership and possibly a majority of voters on the EU) and then continue to govern for 4 years.
When they'll probably win again.
This is the BEST time to have a debate about sovereignty - early on in a parliament, when you're in power and your leader is going anyway.
Basel is a BIS agreement, not an EU agreement, so we'd need to follow anyway - it's a red herring.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
The single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level-playing field within the internal market. Substantive Union law to be applied by the European Central Bank in the exercise of its functions of single supervisor, or by the Single Resolution Board or Union bodies exercising similar functions, including the single rulebook as regards prudential requirements for credit institutions or other legislative measures to be adopted for the purpose of safeguarding financial stability, may need to be conceived in a more uniform manner than corresponding rules to be applied by national authorities of Member States that do not take part in the banking union. To this end, specific provisions within the single rulebook and other relevant instruments may be necessary, while preserving the level-playing field and contributing to financial stability.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/aston-villa-lost-to-their-own-u21-side-on-friday-as-remi-garde-watched-on-a6889586.html
And I'm not talking about Goldman Sachs.
Anyway, it will provide us all with immense entertainment over coming months. Politics is no fun without drama.
#LoveEuropeLeaveEU
#Yes 2 the right 2 govern.
https://twitter.com/citizentommy
It's basically mirroring the split between the PRA and the FCA.
Just for context, I have given literally thousands of hours help to the Tory party over the past 10 years. And I'm one of the more europhile members. And even I think the PM is hopeless for selling this as a victory and something worth voting for.
If he and the leadership cannot please me, they definitely cannot please the majority.
Though not as much as Nevada.
"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.
Or
How very stagecoach
Pinkertons will provide shotguns
As a rugby coach (and the principles are the same) it would've been beyond me to take control of a side relegated to the bottom division, when no bugger wants to turn up to training, with the media labelling your side a laughing stock, and then manage to motivate the players. Hague did what he could in terribly trying circumstances, and I suspect it could've been a lot worse.
IDS's leadership was awful. A case study in reality becoming satire.
As for Labour discipline failing? They did manage - miraculously - after ten years in power, to sign-up all ten million of their MPs to Gordon Brown's coronation; backing him in ridding the world of the scourge of Blairism. Some lack of discipline that!
I still reckon Blair would've won GE2010* if Brown's superhubris hadn't gotten in the way.
*I'm in a minority of two on this one. Me and Rentoul.
And the USA has said it does not want to make FTAs with individual countries and would not conclude one with a brexited UK.
(US trade representative, Michael Froman)
Conservative MPs: 141 remain;
120 leave. That leaves a total of 69 who are undecided or we've not yet heard from (via @jackcevans)
I was thinking, geeez, how young was he when he did that!? Doh.
Dopey valleyboy.
You said "Members doesn't equal voters. 300k members. 30 million voters."
You misread my post. In relation to overall policies (not the environment) I was citing the figures for Labour voters, not members. Only 7% of Labour VOTERs said that policies were too left wing. So that is the vote that is most at risk from further leftward lurches, i.e. about 2% of the total vote. So the Labour number would drop from around 29% to 27% if it lost ALL of those VOTERS.
Meanwhile, 34% of Labour VOTERS (not members, to be clear so you don't misread my post again) think that the policies are not left-wing enough.
Could Boris Johnson get on the list for the last 2 against some very experienced cabinet ministers if he was still on the back-benches which is surely to be his long-term home.
The herd have backed him in to 2-1 fav for next Tory leader.Time for a contrarian lay.
If we Leave a party will be able to put in its manifesto that ALL visitors will be treated equally, regardless of nationality.
It is a fundamental change
I must go back there, the heat, ghost towns, craters, Disney dunes, joshua trees and racing rocks. I'm a huge canyon fan - the silence and heat is fantastic.
I wonder how anyone lived in these ultra harsh places in the 1880s
Why do you post such rubbish?
Could make for interesting betting if the vote is broken down into regions/constituencies.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
It's fairly probable that other NAFTA countries - Canada and Mexico - would become quickly amenable. They have pre-existing agreements with EFTA that could be replicated.
That's 150m people.
All it's shown me (and I'll own to being nonplussed by the fact) is that I don't have a natural party to vote for at the next election.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-bob-dole-endorses-marco-rubio-2016-race/story?id=37117597
"As Dole endorsed Rubio’s candidacy, the former U.S. senator from Kansas also warned of Donald Trump’s ability to win, saying he could secure the nomination if he sweeps the Super Tuesday states.
“Then I think you start printing the inaugural invitation,” Dole joked.
“If [Trump] has a good day on Super Tuesday, that's going to be hard to deny him the nomination. And if reality sets in and he's gonna start counting enough delegates, we've got to hope he'll be a good president,” he said. "
" “I'd be happy to be his adviser,” Dole added."
It simply means treating Europeans the same way we treat non-Europeans. That means higher expectations with employment and self funding.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/tory-mp-heckles-jeremy-corbyn-who-are-you/
Ms Eagle face looks like she is licking piss of a nettle.
Does not seem unreasonable, or even difficult to make work. We can also strip non residents (all non residents, not just from the EU) of the tax free allowance. When I worked in Australia, only residents got the tax free allowance.
There can be certain incentives. Tax free allowance would be available for certain skills. You essentially use the tax system as a means to manage migration.
Earning £14k, paying tax on £4k (£800) , getting £1,700 in child benefit and £8,500 in tax credits and child tax credits (just did the numbers on a male earner, with a wife and two children), thats around £23,100 *after income tax*.
Take the sweeties away and that £23,100 turns into £11,200.
Cameron may have commanded the Commons today (didn't see so don't know). He may have humiliated Boris etc etc. All this is good fun. But the real substance is in what happens in these oddly worded agreements where pedantic understanding of every nuance and detail is needed not performances before an audience. This is where I think Cameron has fallen down and why I think this agreement will end up meaning nothing and we will or may find in time all sorts of adverse consequences.
Cameron will be long gone by then and no-one will care, other than those of us with long experience and long memories who have experience of similar agreements and regulations and being assured by our civil servants that it doesn't mean what it says or it means something else or not to worry about it because it will never happen and then hearing from their opposite numbers in other capitals that, au contraire, it means this and the following things will happen and then seeing that, in fact, exactly those things do happen and when you go back to the English civil servants they look at you blankly or shamefacedly and admit that yes, that is right but there's nothing to be done, oh well, never mind. And this happens not once or twice but every single time.
Why should anyone be swayed in the vote by the posturing of politicians?
And---asking naively & simply, and assuming that logic is relevant---If posturing shouldn't matter, then where can one get well-expressed, honest, informative explanations of the factors that should influence his/her vote?
The stamp gives an entry duration and the particular wording indicates the terms of entry, permitted length of stay and right of access to public services/funds.
https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/10154121494004238/?fref=nf