Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
Nadine Dorries doesn't want Cameron to stay? Hold the front page if someone so ultraloyal to Cameron as Dorries doesn't want him to stay he may not. If other Cameroons like David Davis call on him to go then he is a goner.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Almost exactly. An almost even split among Labour MPs, and something like 245 to 8 among the Conservatives.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Newsnight last night had an interesting feature on the 75 referendum.
Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
He probably will. But this is all the same as the Scotland referendum campaigning - Leavers suggesting that he'll have to go in order to appeal to anti-Cameronites (whether on left or right), and Cameron saying that he'll stay to defuse that.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Despite a 2:1 defeat, the losers ensured that just 8 years later the Labour party was committed to leaving the EU.
Would Leavers in the Conservative party behave in the same way if Remain wins decisively this time?
Yes. Bernie is dead soon; his only chance is the Feds. David Herdson had a very good post at the weekend detailing how the timing of any FBI involvement would affect the nominee. Get on Biden at 120.0.
Thanks for highlighting that post by David. I hadn't seen it, and you are right, it is excellent.
Kind of you to say so. There may well be a thread coming out of it!
I agree with Wanderer's post downthread that Bernie's national polling is misleading. He'll lose SC and he'll do badly on ST. That should then be it for him - he's unlikely to have won anywhere outside New England while Hillary's lead in states, votes and delegates will be huge and the media narrative written. Had he won Iowa and Nevada, that'd be completely different but he didn't.
One point to add to your post about Hillary: anyone betting on these markets needs to check the exact terms of settlement when thinking about the various possibilities you highlighted.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Which is fair enough but 'projected Electoral College votes' is itself potentially ambiguous in the case of a late withdrawal.
Personally I think turnout is key for the Presidentials. Romney lost due to the pathetic share of the white vote he picked up, due both to his failure to address the national question on immigration and affirmative action, as well as his plutocratic background restructuring Rust Belt industrials. Now these whites didn't vote for Obama instead, they just simply didn't vote. Trump is showing he has the policies and persona to get these blue collar workers to the polls.
Secondly Obama got blacks to vote as even more of a block than usual, and in huge numbers. I don't see HRC repeating this trick, for obvious reasons. Not only do I expect the black vote to fall, but I expect Trump to pick up more of a Reaganesque 15% or better, much better than the usual GOP 5% average with blacks when they choose their usual policies of pandering.
As for Hispanics they remain a small fraction of the vote, with most not bothering to vote, and when they do concentrated in a state like California where they are meaningless. Trump could afford to take a minor hit there.
Hispanics are 18% of electorate in Florida, 21% of Arizona, 15% of Colorado. Republicans need all three to win.
"Irrelevant".
Exactly, a fraction of the white electorate, and that is before you take into account whites actually bother to vote whereas Hispanics don't.
In 2012 Hispanics constituted only 8.4% of the votes cast. Going on trend they could constitute 9.4% this year, unimportant. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/08/six-take-aways-from-the-census-bureaus-voting-report/ Crucially for Romney the total white vote dropped from 100 million in 2008 to 98 million in 2012 (down two percent). Only 64.1 percent of eligible whites voted in 2012, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in the recent high-water mark year of 2004. This was the first time in the history of the Census survey that whites were not the highest-ranking group in terms of their rate of voting. Old black ladies were the story of 2012.
Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
Boris hasn't spent years getting people to vote for him on the basis that he's one thing or the other.
I don't mind Cameron being a passionate and committed europhile. I resent the way he has lied for years and years and made out he's eurosceptic only to reveal himself now as probably the most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister.
The nonsense about his "non reforms" doesn't help either. He is is taking the people he leads for fools and hoping he can get away with it.
Personally I think turnout is key for the Presidentials. Romney lost due to the pathetic share of the white vote he picked up, due both to his failure to address the national question on immigration and affirmative action, as well as his plutocratic background restructuring Rust Belt industrials. Now these whites didn't vote for Obama instead, they just simply didn't vote. Trump is showing he has the policies and persona to get these blue collar workers to the polls.
Secondly Obama got blacks to vote as even more of a block than usual, and in huge numbers. I don't see HRC repeating this trick, for obvious reasons. Not only do I expect the black vote to fall, but I expect Trump to pick up more of a Reaganesque 15% or better, much better than the usual GOP 5% average with blacks when they choose their usual policies of pandering.
As for Hispanics they remain a small fraction of the vote, with most not bothering to vote, and when they do concentrated in a state like California where they are meaningless. Trump could afford to take a minor hit there.
Hispanics are 18% of electorate in Florida, 21% of Arizona, 15% of Colorado. Republicans need all three to win.
"Irrelevant".
Exactly, a fraction of the white electorate, and that is before you take into account whites actually bother to vote whereas Hispanics don't.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
Indeed you have helped convince me and potentially swung my vote. Before then I viewed the EEA as a fax machine. So for everyone who says it isn't possible online to convince anyone ...
Not settled though and conditional upon this not becoming a referendum on migration.
Nadine Dorries appears in the HoC very rarely these days, so has got a bloody cheek to say the PM must go. She is of course a Boris fan and will do everything she can to undermine the PM.
Boris was absolutely woeful yesterday. There is nothing prime ministerial about this man in any shape or form. He is scruffy, lazy and too ill-disciplined to become PM. I think like Gordon Brown he would quickly become overwhelmed by the job (if he got it!).
Personally I think turnout is key for the Presidentials. Romney lost due to the pathetic share of the white vote he picked up, due both to his failure to address the national question on immigration and affirmative action, as well as his plutocratic background restructuring Rust Belt industrials. Now these whites didn't vote for Obama instead, they just simply didn't vote. Trump is showing he has the policies and persona to get these blue collar workers to the polls.
Secondly Obama got blacks to vote as even more of a block than usual, and in huge numbers. I don't see HRC repeating this trick, for obvious reasons. Not only do I expect the black vote to fall, but I expect Trump to pick up more of a Reaganesque 15% or better, much better than the usual GOP 5% average with blacks when they choose their usual policies of pandering.
As for Hispanics they remain a small fraction of the vote, with most not bothering to vote, and when they do concentrated in a state like California where they are meaningless. Trump could afford to take a minor hit there.
Hispanics are 18% of electorate in Florida, 21% of Arizona, 15% of Colorado. Republicans need all three to win.
"Irrelevant".
Exactly, a fraction of the white electorate, and that is before you take into account whites actually bother to vote whereas Hispanics don't.
Exactly, easier for the Conservatives to win with England and Wales, just as it is easier to win for the GOP by targeting the 75% of the electorate that is white.
Personally I think turnout is key for the Presidentials. Romney lost due to the pathetic share of the white vote he picked up, due both to his failure to address the national question on immigration and affirmative action, as well as his plutocratic background restructuring Rust Belt industrials. Now these whites didn't vote for Obama instead, they just simply didn't vote. Trump is showing he has the policies and persona to get these blue collar workers to the polls.
Secondly Obama got blacks to vote as even more of a block than usual, and in huge numbers. I don't see HRC repeating this trick, for obvious reasons. Not only do I expect the black vote to fall, but I expect Trump to pick up more of a Reaganesque 15% or better, much better than the usual GOP 5% average with blacks when they choose their usual policies of pandering.
As for Hispanics they remain a small fraction of the vote, with most not bothering to vote, and when they do concentrated in a state like California where they are meaningless. Trump could afford to take a minor hit there.
Hispanics are 18% of electorate in Florida, 21% of Arizona, 15% of Colorado. Republicans need all three to win.
"Irrelevant".
Exactly, a fraction of the white electorate, and that is before you take into account whites actually bother to vote whereas Hispanics don't.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Newsnight last night had an interesting feature on the 75 referendum.
Some people showing their true colours. I actually don't hold somebody being In or Out against them, i.e. Gove out, Ken Clarke In, but some are just showing how much of a politician they really are.
You might be rather more miffed if they had told the selection committee they were more eurosceptic than Farage, and been banging on about voting leave for months and then when push comes to shove rowed in behind Remain.
People respect integrity, even in their opponents, but mostly hate being taken for a ride.
I heard Mak was already in trouble with his local party.
I think Mak's constituency have a huge number of concerns over the contents of his CV. Maybe a vote of no confidence is in order...
I wonder if the local conservatives will start to deselect some sitting MPs, must be a worry with the new constituences coming.
Depends on other events. Feldman is moving to restrict the Associations role in this on various rounds and there is the timetable waiting for the new boundaries to be set. This will just add to the friction inside the party but Cameron& Osborne seem to keep wanting to create fires inside the party.
So the tories are as nuts as the barstewards of Momentum? If they are then they deserve all they get. Question is does the country?
I'm absolutely pro freedom of movement and trade. Where it falls down is between nations/countries of enormously unequal wealth.
I say we should be able to claim benefits in a country of our choice at the level set by our own govt. I'd happily live on housing benefits and JSA in Puglia.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Despite a 2:1 defeat, the losers ensured that just 8 years later the Labour party was committed to leaving the EU.
Would Leavers in the Conservative party behave in the same way if Remain wins decisively this time?
I suspect so because that's the natural position of the Conservative Party now... Cameron and Osborne (and Hezza, Ken Clarke, etc) are clearly in the minority within the Party with their passionate love of the EU... The only problem is that through lies and deceit and making out they agree with their Party they've got themselves into the key leadership positions...
Though there were warnings along the way (Cameron reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty and then later, saying there were absolutely no circumstances he would ever recommend leaving the EU) I don't think anybody could have envisioned it would end up as bad as this.
The FT has a woeful track record in its writings about Europe. For many years it pushed joining the Euro as essential for the UK, backed up with predictions about the terrible things that would happen to the UK if it did not join. So why should it be accurate now about leaving the EC? The FT leader from 15 October 1999 "in which the paper called for Tony Blair to make “a firm commitment” to membership of the single currency and the leader from 27 September 1999 calling for Tony Blair to get off of the fence in favour of the euro; 16 June 2000 when the paper argued that the Government “should be preparing the country much more vigorously for possible entry”; 6 June, 2000 when it argued that “the Euro debate should be won on the quality of arguments in favour of British membership”; 24 November 2001, which listed the benefits and greater influence Britain would have within the euro; and 7 January 2002, when the FT said the Government “must come out fighting for a ‘yes’ in the referendum”, if and when it is called.
On 2 January 2002, the FT "After decades as a dream, 10 years as a plan and three as a virtual currency, the Euro has arrived. The prosaic details of the introduction of Euro notes and coins conceal its historic significance. The new currency is a triumph of political will over practical objections. Its physical launch is a testament to a generation of visionary leaders who pursued a dream, often against the grain of public opinion." Quotes from the Guilty Men book
Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
Boris hasn't spent years getting people to vote for him on the basis that he's one thing or the other.
I don't mind Cameron being a passionate and committed europhile. I resent the way he has lied for years and years and made out he's eurosceptic only to reveal himself now as probably the most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister.
The nonsense about his "non reforms" doesn't help either. He is is taking the people he leads for fools and hoping he can get away with it.
Cameron didn't want people 'banging on about Europe', hardly a committed Europhile. The 'most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister' ?? What about Ted Heath? It's difficult to take what you say seriously when you come out with comments like that.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't know why Chris Grayling gets such a bad press. He always gives a good interview, as he has just done on BBC. Was very warm and full of praise for the PM after Jane Hill's typical BBC rather clumsy attempt at 'stirring.'
The FT has a woeful track record in its writings about Europe. For many years it pushed joining the Euro as essential for the UK, backed up with predictions about the terrible things that would happen to the UK if it did not join. So why should it be accurate now about leaving the EC? The FT leader from 15 October 1999 "in which the paper called for Tony Blair to make “a firm commitment” to membership of the single currency and the leader from 27 September 1999 calling for Tony Blair to get off of the fence in favour of the euro; 16 June 2000 when the paper argued that the Government “should be preparing the country much more vigorously for possible entry”; 6 June, 2000 when it argued that “the Euro debate should be won on the quality of arguments in favour of British membership”; 24 November 2001, which listed the benefits and greater influence Britain would have within the euro; and 7 January 2002, when the FT said the Government “must come out fighting for a ‘yes’ in the referendum”, if and when it is called.
On 2 January 2002, the FT "After decades as a dream, 10 years as a plan and three as a virtual currency, the Euro has arrived. The prosaic details of the introduction of Euro notes and coins conceal its historic significance. The new currency is a triumph of political will over practical objections. Its physical launch is a testament to a generation of visionary leaders who pursued a dream, often against the grain of public opinion." Quotes from the Guilty Men book
I don;t know why they don;t rename it 'The Davos Bilderberg Times'.
EFTA/EEA I think is plausible - but it will not make any difference to where we are now and I fail to see where the EZ acts any more for or against our prospects whether we are in or out of the EU. Does German industry suffer, do German exports suffer by being in the EU? The mega motive for leaving the EU is immigration - it is the driving force for what has become BNPlite - UKIP. But our immigration comes from far and wide and not just the EU - the majority of our immigration is non EU. You suggest that we can via the EEA still be in the single market, yes but that includes free EU movement. So the entire reason for leaving the EU and still having a coherent trade policy is totally bogus.
The notion that we do not join or remain in the EEA, ie cut away totally independent of anything, and are still able to maintain our lead status for EU inward investment is moot to say the least. And thats before we miraculously negotiate brilliantly selfishly successful trade deals out of thin air with a fawning grateful world! We can leave behind all the politics of the EU by joining the EEA but that means we have no say in the EU so how in the end does that help us or make any difference. The EU/EZ is here to stay and will still exert an influence over us. So does the fact that there would be no difference make any difference? Well I foresee a Leave vote unleashing all sorts of further controversy. Leave have no notion of what they want afterwards save wafty notions of sovereignty at best or crude anti immigrant notions at worst. I do not like the driving force of Leave or the drivers. They do not get my vote.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't know why Chris Grayling gets such a bad press. He always gives a good interview, as he has just done on BBC. Was very warm and full of praise for the PM after Jane Hill's typical BBC rather clumsy attempt at 'stirring.'
You are. Grayling was useless and Gove is gradually unpicking all of Graylings foul ups
Speaking to Nick Ferrari, he said: "This letter, The Times tells us, was organised by a lady called Baroness Rock. She is a friend of George Osborne. She has a £1.7million ski lodge in Klosters that George goes to so it's a little matey.
"When you look down the list, it looks impressive on the face of it. But there's one or two people that perhaps aren't so surprising.
"There's Gail Rebuck - she's the widow of Tony Blair's old pollster.
"There's somebody called Dido Harding. She's the wife of a Tory minister. That's not mentioned funnily enough...
'The FT has a woeful track record in its writings about Europe'
Yes, it is a very biased source. All the main writers are emotionally committed Europhiles. It does not in any way represent financial market or industry opinion on this topic.
Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
Boris hasn't spent years getting people to vote for him on the basis that he's one thing or the other.
I don't mind Cameron being a passionate and committed europhile. I resent the way he has lied for years and years and made out he's eurosceptic only to reveal himself now as probably the most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister.
The nonsense about his "non reforms" doesn't help either. He is is taking the people he leads for fools and hoping he can get away with it.
Cameron didn't want people 'banging on about Europe', hardly a committed Europhile. The 'most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister' ?? What about Ted Heath? It's difficult to take what you say seriously when you come out with comments like that.
Thatcher and Major were both more europhile than Cameron too.
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Despite a 2:1 defeat, the losers ensured that just 8 years later the Labour party was committed to leaving the EU.
Would Leavers in the Conservative party behave in the same way if Remain wins decisively this time?
I suspect so because that's the natural position of the Conservative Party now... Cameron and Osborne (and Hezza, Ken Clarke, etc) are clearly in the minority within the Party with their passionate love of the EU... The only problem is that through lies and deceit and making out they agree with their Party they've got themselves into the key leadership positions...
Though there were warnings along the way (Cameron reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty and then later, saying there were absolutely no circumstances he would ever recommend leaving the EU) I don't think anybody could have envisioned it would end up as bad as this.
You'll have to walk me through your logic here. As you yourself say, David Cameron made no secret about the fact that he was not looking to take Britain out of the EU. We now have a referendum where he is advocating Remain. What bit of that is surprising or appalling?
Steve Hawkes New civil service code for EU Referendum vote. Out Ministers cannot be provided with "briefing or speech material" on this matter
Stunned. Cameron and Osborne clearly want to split the party.
Why?
As Cameron explained yesterday in the HoC, the government has an agreed policy - 'Remain'.....
And unlike any previous govt they have given the nation a choice. You would think even the nutjobs on here would be grateful but they just want to ventilate their prejudices spread their smears.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
I think it would be fine but it will be hugely contentious in the event Leave wins.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
Mr. Tyndall, as you are no doubt aware the EEA is a deal between the EU and three of the four members of the EFTA - Switzerland has negotiated it own deal. Given the size of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route rather than accept an off the peg solution designed fro much smaller countries.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
I think it would be fine but it will be hugely contentious in the event Leave wins.
I think if Leave wins a second referendum to determine EEA or Out altogether is inevitable and the simple way to resolve this. I think it would be an easy victory for EEA too.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
Mr. Tyndall, as you are no doubt aware the EEA is a deal between the EU and three of the four members of the EFTA - Switzerland has negotiated it own deal. Given the size of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route rather than accept an off the peg solution designed fro much smaller countries.
Hopefully the next PM can negotiate a damned sight better than Dave.
Corbyn would agree to take all the Calais immigrants as an opening gambit.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
What if it is a referendum on resigning sovereignty while keeping European free trade? Like Norway
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
Steve Hawkes New civil service code for EU Referendum vote. Out Ministers cannot be provided with "briefing or speech material" on this matter
Stunned. Cameron and Osborne clearly want to split the party.
Why?
As Cameron explained yesterday in the HoC, the government has an agreed policy - 'Remain'.....
And unlike any previous govt they have given the nation a choice. You would think even the nutjobs on here would be grateful but they just want to ventilate their prejudices spread their smears.
Hands up, Dave is a consummate politician. As tories, we have a good deal to thank him for.
The electorate is ruthless, however. Every politician has their best before date. And our gratitude should not extend to giving Dave the answer he wants.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
Getting rid of migrants?
Get a grip man ffs
It's what I see quite regularly from BNP, UKIP and GO supporters. I'm not voting for any of that bunch.
BBC News Press Team ANNOUNCEMENT: BBC will hold three major #EUreferendum debates. More details here: https://t.co/fff5aOCdXi #EUref
BBC One will stage three major debate programmes in the run-up to the EU referendum. All three of the programmes will feature key campaigners from both sides of the debate, and live audiences from a cross-section of the electorate.
The first programme will be aimed at young voters, who are traditionally alienated by conventional political coverage. Victoria Derbyshire will present the programme live from Glasgow, Scotland on Thursday 19 May.
Just over a week before polling, on Wednesday 15 June, David Dimbleby will moderate a special edition of BBC One’s Question Time programme, featuring one senior advocate from each side.
And, as the campaign reaches its climax, David will be joined by Mishal Husain and Emily Maitlis, live at Wembley Arena for the BBC’s biggest ever campaign event. We will be inviting thousands of voters to question representatives from the 'leave' and 'remain' camps on Tuesday 21 June.
'The FT has a woeful track record in its writings about Europe'
Yes, it is a very biased source. All the main writers are emotionally committed Europhiles. It does not in any way represent financial market or industry opinion on this topic.
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
If it wants to sell anything in the EU, the products have to comply with EU regs they can't write.
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
I think it would be fine but it will be hugely contentious in the event Leave wins.
I think if Leave wins a second referendum to determine EEA or Out altogether is inevitable and the simple way to resolve this. I think it would be an easy victory for EEA too.
Do we have this before or after the second referendum on the revised terms that are going to be offered to us by the EU hierarchy, as promised by Boris Johnson?
Would have been the other way around in the 1970's.
The 75 refernedum was the start of the split that kept Labour out of power for 18 years. Will that, ultimately, be Cameron and Osborne's legacy? A party divided, destroyed and ruined for a generation?
Despite a 2:1 defeat, the losers ensured that just 8 years later the Labour party was committed to leaving the EU.
Would Leavers in the Conservative party behave in the same way if Remain wins decisively this time?
I suspect so because that's the natural position of the Conservative Party now... Cameron and Osborne (and Hezza, Ken Clarke, etc) are clearly in the minority within the Party with their passionate love of the EU... The only problem is that through lies and deceit and making out they agree with their Party they've got themselves into the key leadership positions...
Though there were warnings along the way (Cameron reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty and then later, saying there were absolutely no circumstances he would ever recommend leaving the EU) I don't think anybody could have envisioned it would end up as bad as this.
You'll have to walk me through your logic here. As you yourself say, David Cameron made no secret about the fact that he was not looking to take Britain out of the EU. We now have a referendum where he is advocating Remain. What bit of that is surprising or appalling?
There is no logic. Like oh so many others posting their nonsense its all being made up as they go along. If the general public were as nutjobby as the PB ranters then we would be in a mess. As it is the public are very sort of 'err durrr...' about the EU. That why Leave want to associate the EU with 'its dem mad muslims like innit' and swarms of immigrant rapists. Its nonsense them pretending otherwise because the main tactic that PBhysterics have clearly recommended to Leave is to be all wink wing nudge nudge immigrant this that the other and Cologne attacks.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
Getting rid of migrants?
Get a grip man ffs
It's what I see quite regularly from BNP, UKIP and GO supporters. I'm not voting for any of that bunch.
They won't be in a position to implement a Leave vote.
Mr. Tyndall, as you are no doubt aware the EEA is a deal between the EU and three of the four members of the EFTA - Switzerland has negotiated it own deal. Given the size of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route rather than accept an off the peg solution designed fro much smaller countries.
Problem is this isn't a stated option on the ballot paper. So Leave is, on any analysis, a leap in the dark in terms of where we end up afterwards - we'd end up with one option, and I'd hope a British Government and civil service would find the best option for Britain, but nobody can assert that because the Swiss have a particular arrangement with the EU/EEA which seems attractive, that we could do too.
Do we have this before or after the second referendum on the revised terms that are going to be offered to us by the EU hierarchy, as promised by Boris Johnson?
And does it come before or after the "inevitable" Indyref2 in Scotland?
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
Getting rid of migrants?
Get a grip man ffs
It's what I see quite regularly from BNP, UKIP and GO supporters. I'm not voting for any of that bunch.
Although having pretty much decided to vote LEAVE, I have to say that I was hugely impressed by David Cameron's terrific performance in the House of Commons yesterday ..... a real tour de force to be sure. Answering dozens of very varied questions from all shades of political opinion he was totally in command of all the facts and figures. It is difficult to think of any leader in modern times who has delivered such an impressive performance. If and when he resigns as Prime Minister he will be a great loss to the HoC it has to be said, irrespective of one's personal political persuasion.
LOL! He's the Ted Heath of modern British politics. Though actually he's worse than Heath because at least Ted was honest about this EUPhillia unlike slimy Cameron.
Dave is just an opportunist and a liar (I see today he has been lying that he was actually a eurosceptic when he was LOTO but in office he's "come to his senses" LOL) I should imagine the vast majority of the Conservative Party are wondering whatever they've done having this clown as their leader - They should have just given Ken Clarke the leadership years ago... At least he'd have won the Tories a good majority against Brown in 2010.
Boris hasn't spent years getting people to vote for him on the basis that he's one thing or the other.
I don't mind Cameron being a passionate and committed europhile. I resent the way he has lied for years and years and made out he's eurosceptic only to reveal himself now as probably the most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister.
The nonsense about his "non reforms" doesn't help either. He is is taking the people he leads for fools and hoping he can get away with it.
Cameron didn't want people 'banging on about Europe', hardly a committed Europhile. The 'most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister' ?? What about Ted Heath? It's difficult to take what you say seriously when you come out with comments like that.
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
If it wants to sell anything in the EU, the products have to comply with EU regs they can't write.
Yes. Bernie is dead soon; his only chance is the Feds. David Herdson had a very good post at the weekend detailing how the timing of any FBI involvement would affect the nominee. Get on Biden at 120.0.
Thanks for highlighting that post by David. I hadn't seen it, and you are right, it is excellent.
Kind of you to say so. There may well be a thread coming out of it!
I agree with Wanderer's post downthread that Bernie's national polling is misleading. He'll lose SC and he'll do badly on ST. That should then be it for him - he's unlikely to have won anywhere outside New England while Hillary's lead in states, votes and delegates will be huge and the media narrative written. Had he won Iowa and Nevada, that'd be completely different but he didn't.
One point to add to your post about Hillary: anyone betting on these markets needs to check the exact terms of settlement when thinking about the various possibilities you highlighted.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Which is fair enough but 'projected Electoral College votes' is itself potentially ambiguous in the case of a late withdrawal.
Betfair are looking to settle on the night of the election. So if Hillary is still the clear nominee they will be settling then. If Biden (or whoever) has supplanted her, but she is still technically on the ballot, then I would imagine they will argue that those votes (or at least a portion of them, depending on state laws) cannot be projected for her.
BBC News Press Team ANNOUNCEMENT: BBC will hold three major #EUreferendum debates. More details here: https://t.co/fff5aOCdXi #EUref
BBC One will stage three major debate programmes in the run-up to the EU referendum. All three of the programmes will feature key campaigners from both sides of the debate, and live audiences from a cross-section of the electorate.
The first programme will be aimed at young voters, who are traditionally alienated by conventional political coverage. Victoria Derbyshire will present the programme live from Glasgow, Scotland on Thursday 19 May.
Just over a week before polling, on Wednesday 15 June, David Dimbleby will moderate a special edition of BBC One’s Question Time programme, featuring one senior advocate from each side.
And, as the campaign reaches its climax, David will be joined by Mishal Husain and Emily Maitlis, live at Wembley Arena for the BBC’s biggest ever campaign event. We will be inviting thousands of voters to question representatives from the 'leave' and 'remain' camps on Tuesday 21 June.
Hope all this EU coverage doesn't interfere with coverage of Euro2016.
That will irritate football-friendly voters...!
Though Dimbleby playing a Wembley Arena gig could be worth watching!
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
I think it would be fine but it will be hugely contentious in the event Leave wins.
I think if Leave wins a second referendum to determine EEA or Out altogether is inevitable and the simple way to resolve this. I think it would be an easy victory for EEA too.
Do we have this before or after the second referendum on the revised terms that are going to be offered to us by the EU hierarchy, as promised by Boris Johnson?
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
If it wants to sell anything in the EU, the products have to comply with EU regs they can't write.
We sell quite a lot of stuff to the EU...
If we want to sell anything to the USA, the products have to comply with USA regs we can't write.
I run a small business that does no international trade. Yet I need to observe a whole swathe of European regulations that have nothing to do with trade. If we were in the EEA we could decide on those laws ourselves.
BBC News Press Team ANNOUNCEMENT: BBC will hold three major #EUreferendum debates. More details here: https://t.co/fff5aOCdXi #EUref
BBC One will stage three major debate programmes in the run-up to the EU referendum. All three of the programmes will feature key campaigners from both sides of the debate, and live audiences from a cross-section of the electorate.
The first programme will be aimed at young voters, who are traditionally alienated by conventional political coverage. Victoria Derbyshire will present the programme live from Glasgow, Scotland on Thursday 19 May.
Just over a week before polling, on Wednesday 15 June, David Dimbleby will moderate a special edition of BBC One’s Question Time programme, featuring one senior advocate from each side.
And, as the campaign reaches its climax, David will be joined by Mishal Husain and Emily Maitlis, live at Wembley Arena for the BBC’s biggest ever campaign event. We will be inviting thousands of voters to question representatives from the 'leave' and 'remain' camps on Tuesday 21 June.
Hope all this EU coverage doesn't interfere with coverage of Euro2016.
That will irritate football-friendly voters...!
Though Dimbleby playing a Wembley Arena gig could be worth watching!
Victoria Derbyshire as host for Da Yoof will irritate all voters...
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
What if it is a referendum on resigning sovereignty while keeping European free trade? Like Norway
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
I'm probably Free Movement. So that continuing if we go EEA/EFTA is a good thing not a bad thing.
The pros that have convinced me that switching is better are signing new trade deals and losing a lot of regulations. It would not be miraculous to sign new trade deals, other nations have managed it. The difference is that in the EU we negotiate to the lowest common denominator so if the French want to protect their farmers from Kiwi farmers then free trade with New Zealand is impossible etc - if we go by ourselves we don't need to worry about lowest common denominator. Plus as the world's fifth biggest economy we are a good market to trade with.
As for regulations apparently according to Gove and Hannan the EFTA nations implement less than 10% of EU regulations and even those are typically global standards that would be implemented anyway. So we lose stuff we don't need.
I agree that the crude anti immigration notions don't get my vote which is why a Grassroots Out or UKIP led leave campaign will not get my vote.
I think everything you have said there is accurate. I would add that the EFTA countries in the EEA have far more input into the single market regulations than Flightpath claims.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
Mr. Tyndall, as you are no doubt aware the EEA is a deal between the EU and three of the four members of the EFTA - Switzerland has negotiated it own deal. Given the size of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route rather than accept an off the peg solution designed fro much smaller countries.
Hopefully the next PM can negotiate a damned sight better than Dave.
....
My cat is a better at negotiation than Cameron, so the bar is quite low. Not that that will necessarily preclude the Conservative Party from choosing a leader who can't jump over it. The pool of available talent isn't very deep or wide.
Yes. Bernie is dead soon; his only chance is the Feds. David Herdson had a very good post at the weekend detailing how the timing of any FBI involvement would affect the nominee. Get on Biden at 120.0.
Thanks for highlighting that post by David. I hadn't seen it, and you are right, it is excellent.
Kind of you to say so. There may well be a thread coming out of it!
I agree with Wanderer's post downthread that Bernie's national polling is misleading. He'll lose SC and he'll do badly on ST. That should then be it for him - he's unlikely to have won anywhere outside New England while Hillary's lead in states, votes and delegates will be huge and the media narrative written. Had he won Iowa and Nevada, that'd be completely different but he didn't.
One point to add to your post about Hillary: anyone betting on these markets needs to check the exact terms of settlement when thinking about the various possibilities you highlighted.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Which is fair enough but 'projected Electoral College votes' is itself potentially ambiguous in the case of a late withdrawal.
Betfair are looking to settle on the night of the election. So if Hillary is still the clear nominee they will be settling then. If Biden (or whoever) has supplanted her, but she is still technically on the ballot, then I would imagine they will argue that those votes (or at least a portion of them, depending on state laws) cannot be projected for her.
In any case, the GOP win, so this is all moot
I could do with the White House blocking the FBI for the next fortnight tbh ^^;
AFP #BREAKING Belgium reinstates France border checks over Calais 'Jungle' fears
We are facing a major immigration crisis all over Europe plus Turkey because of the Syrian Civil War but also because of flows of migrants from africa. Its a sea of suffering. Not sure what the answer is, but its hardly a bit of a giggle.
I am struggling trying to understand your position Mr. Thompson. Are you saying that you will vote based on the people or on the issues?
Both. If this is a proxy referendum on getting rid of migrants and leaving the EEA altogether to facilitate that then I will not just vote but possibly campaign against that. If that nastiness wins it will harm the country.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
Getting rid of migrants?
Get a grip man ffs
It's what I see quite regularly from BNP, UKIP and GO supporters. I'm not voting for any of that bunch.
That's right, you're not voting for any bunch.
On June 24th the bunch will be conservatives.
If Cameron loses a campaign based on anti migrant talk then he'll have to be replaced by a hardliner who is anti migrant.
If Cameron loses a campaign based on pro sovereignty talk then he'll have to be replaced by someone who is pro sovereignty.
If you don't see the difference between those I don't know how much clearer it can be made.
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
If it wants to sell anything in the EU, the products have to comply with EU regs they can't write.
We sell quite a lot of stuff to the EU...
And our products have to meet American rules/ Chinese rules etc, etc etc that we cant write if we wish to sell them in these places.
The referendum campaign has become a fascinating political opera with the most amazing allegiances and power play. I expect that the Conservative Party is likely to be virtually 50: 50 split but the way Conservative MP’s are declaring their allegiance may well have many different facets. Many on the remain side, like David Cameron, are genuinely convinced that it is in the UK’s best interest while others will be looking to their future careers. Similarly on the leave side many will be genuinely committed, but others will be looking over their shoulder to their constituencies and also the influence UKIP could have on their future prospects if they did not campaign for leave. It will be interesting to note how many on both sides take an active role in their position and others that maintain a low profile. In the circumstance of a remain vote I would expect a considerable number of the leave MP’s to be quietly pleased though many will be upset. In the event of leave I would expect the remain MP’s to accept the verdict and move on. In both cases (and irrespective of Nadine Dorries comments that DC will have to stand down if leave is successful) I would expect David Cameron to appoint a completely new cabinet with places for Boris, Gove and Pritel, Hunt to be moved sideways and for DC to become a figurehead for the rest of his term while the new cabinet settles down with the Ministers establishing their roles before the succession. In the event of leave I expect DC to appoint Boris and Gove to lead the negotiations. It is interesting that in November Michael Froman, the American Trade Representative stated that the US will not sign an individual trade deal with us if UK leaves the EU. Additionally Obama is visiting the UK in his farewell tour in April and apparently he will strongly endorse the UK in Europe. The leave campaign need to have a coherent answer to the question on US trade deal as it will need an answer at a time when the campaign will be at its most intense. For clarification my own opinion is heart to leave and head to remain and for me to vote leave the leave campaign have to convince my head.
Norway implements less than 10% of the EU's regulations (it isn't even compelled to do that much) and chooses for itself on everything else. So how is that resigning sovereignty?
If it wants to sell anything in the EU, the products have to comply with EU regs they can't write.
We sell quite a lot of stuff to the EU...
If we want to sell anything to the USA, the products have to comply with USA regs we can't write.
I run a small business that does no international trade. Yet I need to observe a whole swathe of European regulations that have nothing to do with trade. If we were in the EEA we could decide on those laws ourselves.
But WOULD we adopt our own measures? Your small business might only trade domestically, but thousands of others will trade with the EU. The demand for UK law to coincide with EU standards would be deafening. And even if it wasn't, companies would mostly choose to adopt EU standards for ease and convenience. And anything imported to the UK from the EU would be of a common EU standard, so our consumers would continue to be used to products meeting EU standards.
Comments
Owen Paterson came close to saying this. Now Nadine Dorries has. Cam will have to quit if he loses: http://www.lbc.co.uk/nadine-dorries-if-we-vote-to-leave-cameron-must-go-125570 …
twitter.com/MarkHopkins123/status/702144307948605440
EU Referendum: How Boris Johnson Has Changed His Tune On Britain Remaining In The European Union
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html
Osborne would be finished as well (with a bit of luck Osborne will still be finished even if it's REMAIN)
Free tax credit top ups/health care/education/Child benefit is perhaps something else?
I should like to make clear that the 'Richard' who posted this in the comments is not me!
So apart from hedge fund managers, Brexit would be a disaster
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071z4j5
But polls - schmoles, JackW has forecast for Remain by a clear margin.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/almost-half-of-londons-tory-mps-back-boris-call-for-brexit-a3186926.html
@ShippersUnbound · 2m2 minutes ago
Owen Paterson came close to saying this. Now Nadine Dorries has. Cam will have to quit if he loses: http://www.lbc.co.uk/nadine-dorries-if-we-vote-to-leave-cameron-must-go-125570
Truly amazing, who would ever have thought that.
Would Leavers in the Conservative party behave in the same way if Remain wins decisively this time?
Charlie's not a bad bloke, he's simply a career politician, he has no principles. The only time he voted against govt was over gay marriage.
In 2012 Hispanics constituted only 8.4% of the votes cast. Going on trend they could constitute 9.4% this year, unimportant.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/08/six-take-aways-from-the-census-bureaus-voting-report/
Crucially for Romney the total white vote dropped from 100 million in 2008 to 98 million in 2012 (down two percent). Only 64.1 percent of eligible whites voted in 2012, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in the recent high-water mark year of 2004. This was the first time in the history of the Census survey that whites were not the highest-ranking group in terms of their rate of voting.
Old black ladies were the story of 2012.
I don't mind Cameron being a passionate and committed europhile. I resent the way he has lied for years and years and made out he's eurosceptic only to reveal himself now as probably the most passionate lover of the EU we've ever had as Prime Minister.
The nonsense about his "non reforms" doesn't help either. He is is taking the people he leads for fools and hoping he can get away with it.
That's like ignoring Wales Scotland.
Personally I feel that for anyone not overly concerned with migration as an issue in the debate, EEA membership is by far the best solution compared to continued EU membership or complete withdrawal.
Not settled though and conditional upon this not becoming a referendum on migration.
AFP
#BREAKING Belgium reinstates France border checks over Calais 'Jungle' fears
I say we should be able to claim benefits in a country of our choice at the level set by our own govt. I'd happily live on housing benefits and JSA in Puglia.
Though there were warnings along the way (Cameron reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty and then later, saying there were absolutely no circumstances he would ever recommend leaving the EU) I don't think anybody could have envisioned it would end up as bad as this.
The FT leader from 15 October 1999 "in which the paper called for Tony Blair to make “a firm commitment” to membership of the single currency and the leader from 27 September 1999 calling for Tony Blair to get off of the fence in favour of the euro; 16 June 2000 when the paper argued that the Government “should be preparing the country much more vigorously for possible entry”; 6 June, 2000 when it argued that “the Euro debate should be won on the quality of arguments in favour of British membership”; 24 November 2001, which listed the benefits and greater influence Britain would have within the euro; and 7 January 2002, when the FT said the Government “must come out fighting for a ‘yes’ in the referendum”, if and when it is called.
On 2 January 2002, the FT "After decades as a dream, 10 years as a plan and three as a virtual currency, the Euro has arrived. The prosaic details of the introduction of Euro notes and coins conceal its historic significance. The new currency is a triumph of political will over practical objections. Its physical launch is a testament to a generation of visionary leaders who pursued a dream, often against the grain of public opinion."
Quotes from the Guilty Men book
http://www.lbc.co.uk/quentin-letts-pulls-apart-business-leaders-letter-125539
Yes, it is a very biased source. All the main writers are emotionally committed Europhiles. It does not in any way represent financial market or industry opinion on this topic.
There's no way I'll ever vote for Toxic Osborne but I can't see myself ever voting for Jezza either.
Decisions. Decisions.
For some people this has become a game of EU top trumps.
You say Farage, I say Mandelson.
You say Galloway, I say Gerry Adams.
The real issues are being lost in personality politics, its risible
Why does it matter what any MP's view is on the EU now we're having a referendum in June?
The people are deciding this one now, not the politicians.
If this is a referendum on regaining sovereignty whole keeping European free trade then I am quite pleased with that.
My point about this MP is pre GE, campaigning in Dover, he was a committed Outer.
Get a grip man ffs
Corbyn would agree to take all the Calais immigrants as an opening gambit.
The electorate is ruthless, however. Every politician has their best before date. And our gratitude should not extend to giving Dave the answer he wants.
ANNOUNCEMENT: BBC will hold three major #EUreferendum debates. More details here: https://t.co/fff5aOCdXi #EUref
We sell quite a lot of stuff to the EU...
If the general public were as nutjobby as the PB ranters then we would be in a mess. As it is the public are very sort of 'err durrr...' about the EU. That why Leave want to associate the EU with 'its dem mad muslims like innit' and swarms of immigrant rapists. Its nonsense them pretending otherwise because the main tactic that PBhysterics have clearly recommended to Leave is to be all wink wing nudge nudge immigrant this that the other and Cologne attacks.
On June 24th the bunch will be conservatives.
In any case, the GOP win, so this is all moot
That will irritate football-friendly voters...!
Though Dimbleby playing a Wembley Arena gig could be worth watching!
I run a small business that does no international trade. Yet I need to observe a whole swathe of European regulations that have nothing to do with trade. If we were in the EEA we could decide on those laws ourselves.
That will irritate football-friendly voters...!
Though Dimbleby playing a Wembley Arena gig could be worth watching!
Victoria Derbyshire as host for Da Yoof will irritate all voters...
And we gold plate them.
Actually thats a silly question, you don't think, you repeat what others say.
If Cameron loses a campaign based on pro sovereignty talk then he'll have to be replaced by someone who is pro sovereignty.
If you don't see the difference between those I don't know how much clearer it can be made.
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/03/31/official-voter-turnout-data-for-latinos-in-2014/
Probably more like 16% this year.
And is it more or less than if we had a hand in writing the rules?