For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think with AV the public impression was that it was only being offered as a sop to Nick Clegg and they reacted accordingly.
Of course, the tide only turned once the Tories pulled their finger out and went really heavy on this ultra-negative with Cameron's blessing.
Will that happen this time? Or are people wise to it?
PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?
Telling people we're odds on to join the Euro in the next decade or two, if we vote to Remain, is guaranteed to produce a clear victory for Leave.
A long time ago when I was actually an MP I used to be a bit careful on the basis that if I said something awkward it would turn up in the Mail. Nowadays, nah.
And if we join, it'll be because it's come to seem a good idea and people will have voted for it (I can't see it happening without a referendum). Democracy, ne c'est pas?
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
That'll be up to the displaced MP.
Indeed it will, but I come back to the fact that it will be a very unusually selfless person who will vote themselves into redundancy.
Of course there won't be MANY rebels on this, but even less than 10 Tory MPs unhappy at losing their seats would be enough for them to be defeated.
Does anyone else feel there are some debates they would like to respond to on here, but don't because some of the individuals are just so obnoxious about it?
Yes, a bit, and I expect others feel it more. But there's a consolation - if your critic is clearly obnoxious, you can win over bystanders to your side by answering reasonably even if you're entirely wrong :-). The scary opponents are the reasonable ones - if SeanT calls you a slimy piece of pond life, meh, that's SeanT, but if David Herdson says he thinks you're unfortunately mistaken, then you probably are...
Quite.
Some people are happy to take as much as they give out, in the obnoxious stakes, which is at least consistent, but others may not want to take such, and as long as they don't also give it out, that's fair enough.
I will however be very disappointed if no-one suggests that 'answering reasonably even if entirely wrong' is the entire Corbyn strategy at the moment by the time I write this. Or that it is Cameron's, given his EU arguments.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
It does if the retirement on offer is for the North Wales MP to retire to the Lords.
There is no alternative to this boundary review. A Tory majority will not and can not let the next election be re-fought on boundaries based on data over two decades out of date.
PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?
Telling people we're odds on to join the Euro in the next decade or two, if we vote to Remain, is guaranteed to produce a clear victory for Leave.
A long time ago when I was actually an MP I used to be a bit careful on the basis that if I said something awkward it would turn up in the Mail. Nowadays, nah.
You certainly put your neck out posting on here. People are always keen to wilfully misinterpret things that are said. If you make hundreds of posts, with many of them in a casual way, maybe loose with words, theyll be something someone will use against you.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
The effective situation is that a person who has been a citizen from birth is eligible. I'd agree that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of "natural born" but it's difficult for them to take the case - unless some state elections board rules against a candidate being eligible.
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
From our perspective, it is impossible for everyone to get a bigger slice, because the super-rich don't only have the biggest slices of the cakes already made, they're also hogging all the ingredients and refusing to give anyone else even a chance to make their own.
So your solution is to take some of the cake and give it to big Government. The poor are addicted to the sugary crumbs they get drip fed and have no hope of getting to make their own cake.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
It does if the retirement on offer is for the North Wales MP to retire to the Lords.
There is no alternative to this boundary review. A Tory majority will not and can not let the next election be re-fought on boundaries based on data over two decades out of date.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
It does if the retirement on offer is for the North Wales MP to retire to the Lords.
There is no alternative to this boundary review. A Tory majority will not and can not let the next election be re-fought on boundaries based on data over two decades out of date.
MPs can move big distances.
Rifkind went from Edinburgh to London. George Young from London to Hampshire
A Welsh MP could easily move to a safe seat in the South East if their seat is abolished.
The problem is, 14 years after Minor, the SCOTUS in Wong quoted and approved the same statement.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
I suppose they must be wrong too, and only 21st Century keyboard warriors can possibly be right...
But it does not in words say what you believe either. Court cases following Wong have repeatedly stated that Wong meant anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen because of the 14th amendment. Including cases that were granted standing for Obama's election affirmed that he was a natural born citizen. No court cases said otherwise. You will need to overturn a century of jurisprudence to say otherwise.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
The effective situation is that a person who has been a citizen from birth is eligible. I'd agree that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of "natural born" but it's difficult for them to take the case - unless some state elections board rules against a candidate being eligible.
Perhaps we could start a fund to cover legal fees, convince someone in that situation to run in an area which would be sure to declare them ineligible, and settle this issue.
'PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?'
Can I second that.
Nick's startlingly frank admission that large numbers of MPs and especially ministers are attracted to the notion of political union in Europe due to the career/power opportunities it may give them really was a breath of fresh air - especially when compared to the tortuous and dishonest lines being spun by a lot of Remainers.
Leaving the EU would not necessarily damage the UK economy, fund manager Neil Woodford has reiterated.
But Mr Woodford argued it was very difficult to build a credible economic argument for the UK either staying in or leaving the union. Rather, the debate was a political argument about issues such as immigration and sovereignty, he
For me it's a very simple argument - iI'll be voting Leave - and I made my mind up about 2 years ago. It was the treatment of Ireland and Greece and the way their citizens meant nothing during the crisis that made me think it was an organisation I didn't want to be part of.
"Cheers" *Claps* *Whistles* *Thunderous Applause"
A few years, well a couple of decades, late to the party, Mr. B., but you got there in the end.
PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?
Telling people we're odds on to join the Euro in the next decade or two, if we vote to Remain, is guaranteed to produce a clear victory for Leave.
A long time ago when I was actually an MP I used to be a bit careful on the basis that if I said something awkward it would turn up in the Mail. Nowadays, nah.
And if we join, it'll be because it's come to seem a good idea and people will have voted for it (I can't see it happening without a referendum). Democracy, ne c'est pas?
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
It's clear that the Constitution including its Amendments adequately defines US citizenship in exactly two classes: born (or natural born) and naturalized. A line from a court ruling over a century ago doesn't change that.
Has is crossed your mind that the SCOTUS, speaking through the Chief Justice, only six years after those words were inserted into the Constitution, might have a more "clear" understanding of the matter than some nonentity spouting about it over a hundred years later?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
Anybody can be wrong. A "nonentity", as you unflatteringly call yourself, can be just as wrong as a judge.
The problem is, 14 years after Minor, the SCOTUS in Wong quoted and approved the same statement.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
I suppose they must be wrong too, and only 21st Century keyboard warriors can possibly be right...
You're the keyboard warrior, railing impotently against the consensus contemporary interpretation.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
The effective situation is that a person who has been a citizen from birth is eligible. I'd agree that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of "natural born" but it's difficult for them to take the case - unless some state elections board rules against a candidate being eligible.
Multiple courts ruled that Obama was valid. Appeals were made to SCOTUS by those ignorant enough to agree with our Rod but SCOTUS refused to hear them. Had Rod been right it would have been quite easy for SCOTUS to hear the appeal rather than dismiss it out of hand and thus let the ruling that he was valid stand.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
It does if the retirement on offer is for the North Wales MP to retire to the Lords.
There is no alternative to this boundary review. A Tory majority will not and can not let the next election be re-fought on boundaries based on data over two decades out of date.
MPs can move big distances.
Rifkind went from Edinburgh to London. George Young from London to Hampshire
A Welsh MP could easily move to a safe seat in the South East if their seat is abolished.
Rifkind and Young both were/are big beasts, most local parties would've wanted them for the extra attention they would bring to the constituency.
Why would a local SE Tory association want some random non-high-profile Tory MP from somewhere else in the country, in preference to one of their own who've they got to know over years? And more to the point, why would said random non-high-profile Tory MP have 100% confidence that a Tory association will be nice enough to take them in years in advance when they're voting on the boundary review?
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
Interesting to compare to the 2011 recommendations:
Eastern -2 (now -1) East Midlands -2 London -5 North East -5 (now -4) North West -7 South East -2 (excluding Isle of Wight, so no change) South West -2 West Midlands -5 (now -6) Yorkshire -4
So Wales/Scotland/NI must have lost a seat to make up for it.
Leaving the EU would not necessarily damage the UK economy, fund manager Neil Woodford has reiterated.
But Mr Woodford argued it was very difficult to build a credible economic argument for the UK either staying in or leaving the union. Rather, the debate was a political argument about issues such as immigration and sovereignty, he
For me it's a very simple argument - iI'll be voting Leave - and I made my mind up about 2 years ago. It was the treatment of Ireland and Greece and the way their citizens meant nothing during the crisis that made me think it was an organisation I didn't want to be part of.
"Cheers" *Claps* *Whistles* *Thunderous Applause"
A few years, well a couple of decades, late to the party, Mr. B., but you got there in the end.
10 years working as MD on the Continent also helped Mr L.
The best comment I had was from a Czech Manager who said of our French management
" we didn't get rid of the Russian Communists just to replace them with french communists"
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
In all honesty, I hope the changes are indeed fair. They may well benefit one side more than another, but that does not in itself mean changes are unreasonable (though they could be), tough as that would be to admit, so I hope they've gotten it right.
PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?
Telling people we're odds on to join the Euro in the next decade or two, if we vote to Remain, is guaranteed to produce a clear victory for Leave.
A long time ago when I was actually an MP I used to be a bit careful on the basis that if I said something awkward it would turn up in the Mail. Nowadays, nah.
And if we join, it'll be because it's come to seem a good idea and people will have voted for it (I can't see it happening without a referendum). Democracy, ne c'est pas?
Or in twenty years time, it will mean the EU has booted out a raft of members who should never have been in the Euro in the first place, and the Eurozone covers Germany and a handful of other strong economies.
When France is back to the Franc. Maybe then it will have some attraction. But getting UK membership of the Euro through a referendum requires imagining a very different world. Maybe a post-apocalyptic vision of wastelands and deprivation on a scale that only a Jeremy Corbyn Government could bring.
That respectable ex-MP Nick Palmer would hardly hang around here
lol!
You could do far worse in life though than be confused with Clegg.
I wonder should Brexit ever happen whether he'd be a good administrator for the process? You'd need a balancing UK-centric force too of course, but maybe that's be a good use of his talents.
Somehow if I never hear of Ed I'll not feel that the country has missed a trick. Clegg though has a certain quality. He can serve yet.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
The effective situation is that a person who has been a citizen from birth is eligible. I'd agree that it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of "natural born" but it's difficult for them to take the case - unless some state elections board rules against a candidate being eligible.
Multiple courts ruled that Obama was valid. Appeals were made to SCOTUS by those ignorant enough to agree with our Rod but SCOTUS refused to hear them. Had Rod been right it would have been quite easy for SCOTUS to hear the appeal rather than dismiss it out of hand and thus let the ruling that he was valid stand.
They didn't take the case for standing, though, IIRC?
Meanwhile, here's the Illinois board on the mythical third citizenship class:
It pointed out that Cruz “did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth” and therefore “further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”
Guido's latest list suggest the NDs consist of a majority of scallywags too scared to declare for Out, or using it as a negotiating chip to get a nice job offer from Osborne, welching and selling out on their previous eurosceptic positions:
In case anyone interested didn't see it earlier, spreadsheet showing the new electorate figures for current constituencies. Red means they need to be modified because they have too few voters, green too many.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
If some American citizen loon fled to Islamic State, and gave birth to, or sired, a child which later returned to the US and ascended to the Presidency, that'd be cool, right?
In any event, the Constitution has within itself the ability to be amended, and has in fact been amended 27 times. Those who wish to amend Article 2 should take their arguments to the People, and perhaps they will succeed. Others have in fact tried, and failed.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
In case anyone interested didn't see it earlier, spreadsheet showing the new electorate figures for current constituencies. Red means they need to be modified because they have too few voters, green too many.
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
Interesting to compare to the 2011 recommendations:
Eastern -2 (now -1) East Midlands -2 London -5 North East -5 (now -4) North West -7 South East -2 (excluding Isle of Wight, so no change) South West -2 West Midlands -5 (now -6) Yorkshire -4
So Wales/Scotland/NI must have lost a seat to make up for it.
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
Interesting to compare to the 2011 recommendations:
Eastern -2 (now -1) East Midlands -2 London -5 North East -5 (now -4) North West -7 South East -2 (excluding Isle of Wight, so no change) South West -2 West Midlands -5 (now -6) Yorkshire -4
So Wales/Scotland/NI must have lost a seat to make up for it.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
If some American citizen loon fled to Islamic State, and gave birth to, or sired, a child which later returned to the US and ascended to the Presidency, that'd be cool, right?
In any event, the Constitution has within itself the ability to be amended, and has in fact been amended 27 times. Those who wish to amend Article 2 should take their arguments to the People, and perhaps they will succeed. Others have in fact tried, and failed.
If an American sired IS child came back to the USA and got elected President, then I suspect that the Constitution would be rather obselete - and the Koran a better guidebook to politics.
Steve Peers, who is a Professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex says that Gove is correct.
His view is also backed up by David Allen Green, both a senior lawyer and legal correspondent.
Did you see Daily Politics? Gisela Stuart seemed to be schooling Nick Boles on the issue, but maybe that's because I wanted her to be right (obv I have no idea)
In December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against the Governor of Indiana to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]." A hearing was held, and on March 16, 2009, the Governor's motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld it on November 12, 2009.[106]
The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[107] On April 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of Indiana rejected, without comment, a request to consider the case.[108]
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Guido's latest list suggest the NDs consist of a majority of scallywags too scared to declare for Out, or using it as a negotiating chip to get a nice job offer from Osborne, welching and selling out on their previous eurosceptic positions:
Steve Brine, Charlie Elphicke and Chris Skidmore all to be added to the List of Shame.
I think that's unfair on Chris Skidmore, who I have always understood to be committed to the EU.
The scallywags are Robert Halfon (whose article in today's Telegraph is cringe-making) Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, the egregious Alan Mak, and Mark Pritchard.
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
If some American citizen loon fled to Islamic State, and gave birth to, or sired, a child which later returned to the US and ascended to the Presidency, that'd be cool, right?
I would think the electors might have something to say about that, it doesn't immediately follow that you should bar otherwise excellent candidates due to that absurd scenario you paint. How do you envisage such a child gaining the support necessary to win the White House?
The problem in your example is not that they were born overseas, but that presumably you fear they would also be a loon because of their heritage and upbringing. And there are other ways to stop a loon being president.
That was really your first example of why overseas born people should not be able to run for president?!
Guido's latest list suggest the NDs consist of a majority of scallywags too scared to declare for Out, or using it as a negotiating chip to get a nice job offer from Osborne, welching and selling out on their previous eurosceptic positions:
Steve Brine, Charlie Elphicke and Chris Skidmore all to be added to the List of Shame.
I think that's unfair on Chris Skidmore, who I have always understood to be committed to the EU.
The scallywags are Robert Halfon (whose article in today's Telegraph is cringe-making) Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, the egregious Alan Mak, and Mark Pritchard.
Good poll for Trump, he may get a little bit of a bounce at the moment as he moves towards the GOP nomination while the Dem battle may go on a little longer but polls will move around, I still think Hillary beats him by less than 1% in one of the closest presidential elections of recent times. It will be 1968 in reverse. Even if Hillary loses Ohio she still wins 270 to 268 if she wins Virginia and Nevada even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina http://www.270towin.com/
Guido's latest list suggest the NDs consist of a majority of scallywags too scared to declare for Out, or using it as a negotiating chip to get a nice job offer from Osborne, welching and selling out on their previous eurosceptic positions:
Steve Brine, Charlie Elphicke and Chris Skidmore all to be added to the List of Shame.
I think that's unfair on Chris Skidmore, who I have always understood to be committed to the EU.
The scallywags are Robert Halfon (whose article in today's Telegraph is cringe-making) Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, the egregious Alan Mak, and Mark Pritchard.
I understood him to be a eurosceptic.
Steve Brine has badly let himself down, having strongly signalled for Out in the past.
That respectable ex-MP Nick Palmer would hardly hang around here
lol!
You could do far worse in life though than be confused with Clegg.
I wonder should Brexit ever happen whether he'd be a good administrator for the process? You'd need a balancing UK-centric force too of course, but maybe that's be a good use of his talents.
Somehow if I never hear of Ed I'll not feel that the country has missed a trick. Clegg though has a certain quality. He can serve yet.
Clegg used to work for the EU didn't he? It would be like asking Kim Philby to negotiate on our behalf with the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Good poll for Trump, he may get a little bit of a bounce at the moment as he moves towards the GOP nomination while the Dem battle may go on a little longer but polls will move around, I still think Hillary beats him by less than 1% in one of the closest presidential elections of recent times. It will be 1968 in reverse. Even if Hillary loses Ohio she still wins 270 to 268 if she wins Virginia and Nevada even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina http://www.270towin.com/
Differential turnout could be a problem for Hillary if the caucuses/primaries carry on as they are.
How many of the Bernie fans will come out when he's been denied being reasonably close on the popular vote to her, and may well have been seen to have been "robbed" by superdelegates.
Trump getting more votes than her in New Hampshire, the Nevada and SC GOp turnout might well be straws in the wind.
Good poll for Trump, he may get a little bit of a bounce at the moment as he moves towards the GOP nomination while the Dem battle may go on a little longer but polls will move around, I still think Hillary beats him by less than 1% in one of the closest presidential elections of recent times. It will be 1968 in reverse. Even if Hillary loses Ohio she still wins 270 to 268 if she wins Virginia and Nevada even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina http://www.270towin.com/
Differential turnout could be a problem for Hillary if the caucuses/primaries carry on as they are.
Turnout in caucuses/primaries does not really translate to the general automatically as more ideological voters turn out in primaries and caucuses not swing voters. If Hillary has any sense she will pick Julian Castro as her VP nominee to help ratchet up Hispanic turnout in the likes of Nevada. In the general election losing candidates voters will eventually fall into line as McCain's did for Dubya in 2000 and Hillary's for Obama in 2008. Not all Republicans are exactly enamoured with Trump either
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
I think Casino's comments are correct but I also think the referendum is winnable for Leave if they campaign effectively and have some luck with the turn of events.
Somebody - Rentoul maybe - predicted on Twitter that by the beginning of April the Leave campaign would be pleading with Boris to do more. He needs to do more now.
If some American citizen loon fled to Islamic State, and gave birth to, or sired, a child which later returned to the US and ascended to the Presidency, that'd be cool, right?
I would think the electors might have something to say about that, it doesn't immediately follow that you should bar otherwise excellent candidates due to that absurd scenario you paint. How do you envisage such a child gaining the support necessary to win the White House?
The problem in your example is not that they were born overseas, but that presumably you fear they would also be a loon because of their heritage and upbringing. And there are other ways to stop a loon being president.
That was really your first example of why overseas born people should not be able to run for president?!
I'm sure an Amendment or whatever could clarify the situation that would satisfy even you, and it certainly is not a subject that animates me enough to continue the discussion (I merely conjectured about the issue being settled somehow), but I still don't understand how 'parent was a loon' as the problem you just stated means 'no one born overseas should be allowed to stand'. Perhaps you will come up with other reasons why someone born overseas is a problem, but is it telling that your first example didn't even make that point at all.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
EFTA countries are 25% richer than the UK and pay a third of the taxes to get the single market. Vote Leave to be £xxx better off immediately and lead to a 25% pay rise. That could win a majority.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
I think Casino's comments are correct but I also think the referendum is winnable for Leave if they campaign effectively and have some luck with the turn of events.
Somebody - Rentoul maybe - predicted on Twitter that by the beginning of April the Leave campaign would be pleading with Boris to do more. He needs to do more now.
He does. Or it will be the Gove that inherits the earth.
Incidentally, every week that goes by more and more people may make up their minds on this.
Vote Leave have brought a knife to a gun fight, so far.
Good poll for Trump, he may get a little bit of a bounce at the moment as he moves towards the GOP nomination while the Dem battle may go on a little longer but polls will move around, I still think Hillary beats him by less than 1% in one of the closest presidential elections of recent times. It will be 1968 in reverse. Even if Hillary loses Ohio she still wins 270 to 268 if she wins Virginia and Nevada even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina http://www.270towin.com/
Differential turnout could be a problem for Hillary if the caucuses/primaries carry on as they are.
Turnout in caucuses/primaries does not really translate to the general automatically as more ideological voters turn out in primaries and caucuses not swing voters. If Hillary has any sense she will pick Julian Castro as her VP nominee to help ratchet up Hispanic turnout in the likes of Nevada. In the general election losing candidates voters will eventually fall into line as McCain's did for Dubya in 2000 and Hillary's for Obama in 2008. Not all Republicans are exactly enamoured with Trump either
Good poll for Trump, he may get a little bit of a bounce at the moment as he moves towards the GOP nomination while the Dem battle may go on a little longer but polls will move around, I still think Hillary beats him by less than 1% in one of the closest presidential elections of recent times. It will be 1968 in reverse. Even if Hillary loses Ohio she still wins 270 to 268 if she wins Virginia and Nevada even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina http://www.270towin.com/
Differential turnout could be a problem for Hillary if the caucuses/primaries carry on as they are.
Turnout in caucuses/primaries does not really translate to the general automatically as more ideological voters turn out in primaries and caucuses not swing voters. If Hillary has any sense she will pick Julian Castro as her VP nominee to help ratchet up Hispanic turnout in the likes of Nevada. In the general election losing candidates voters will eventually fall into line as McCain's did for Dubya in 2000 and Hillary's for Obama in 2008. Not all Republicans are exactly enamoured with Trump either
That respectable ex-MP Nick Palmer would hardly hang around here
lol!
You could do far worse in life though than be confused with Clegg.
I wonder should Brexit ever happen whether he'd be a good administrator for the process? You'd need a balancing UK-centric force too of course, but maybe that's be a good use of his talents.
Somehow if I never hear of Ed I'll not feel that the country has missed a trick. Clegg though has a certain quality. He can serve yet.
Clegg used to work for the EU didn't he? It would be like asking Kim Philby to negotiate on our behalf with the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Peter Mandelson would ride shotgun to keep him honest.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
No issue on its own is enough to win, but I think the only was LEAVE can win is by hammering on the most important one, immigration.
I don't know how many people on here knock about with tradesmen in real life, but I do and it is the only thing they associate with the EU, and not in a good way.
Also, rightly or wrongly, fear of the migrant crisis in Germany seeping over here is a big win for LEAVE
People interested in politics enough to post on here are rarely concerned w such base matters, but in the real world people feeling the effects will vote
It may fascinate political nerds, but I fear Vote Leave are playing on REMAINS terms with abstracts rather than harsh facts
Steve Peers, who is a Professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex says that Gove is correct.
His view is also backed up by David Allen Green, both a senior lawyer and legal correspondent.
Did you see Daily Politics? Gisela Stuart seemed to be schooling Nick Boles on the issue, but maybe that's because I wanted her to be right (obv I have no idea)
When she sticks to facts she is good. But she went loopy on the NHS. Came out with the old selling out NHS and baby eating allegations.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
I think Casino's comments are correct but I also think the referendum is winnable for Leave if they campaign effectively and have some luck with the turn of events.
Somebody - Rentoul maybe - predicted on Twitter that by the beginning of April the Leave campaign would be pleading with Boris to do more. He needs to do more now.
He does. Or it will be the Gove that inherits the earth.
Incidentally, every week that goes by more and more people may make up their minds on this.
Vote Leave have brought a knife to a gun fight, so far.
Farage is more focused on killing off the careers of people in his own party rather than on winning the referendum. The Leave campaign is being wrecked by UKIPs faults.
Steve Peers, who is a Professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex says that Gove is correct.
His view is also backed up by David Allen Green, both a senior lawyer and legal correspondent.
Did you see Daily Politics? Gisela Stuart seemed to be schooling Nick Boles on the issue, but maybe that's because I wanted her to be right (obv I have no idea)
When she sticks to facts she is good. But she went loopy on the NHS. Came out with the old selling out NHS and baby eating allegations.
Her accent talking factually about the workings of the EU (previously an EU lawyer did she say?) could be a big help to LEAVE
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
'PS. Can I encourage Nick Palmer to post as much as possible on the subject of the EU referendum over the next four months, please?'
Can I second that.
Nick's startlingly frank admission that large numbers of MPs and especially ministers are attracted to the notion of political union in Europe due to the career/power opportunities it may give them really was a breath of fresh air - especially when compared to the tortuous and dishonest lines being spun by a lot of Remainers.
I said no such thing! I'll report you to the PB Complaints Commission...
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
It isn't. Most people aren't that angry.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
That respectable ex-MP Nick Palmer would hardly hang around here
lol!
You could do far worse in life though than be confused with Clegg.
I wonder should Brexit ever happen whether he'd be a good administrator for the process? You'd need a balancing UK-centric force too of course, but maybe that's be a good use of his talents.
Somehow if I never hear of Ed I'll not feel that the country has missed a trick. Clegg though has a certain quality. He can serve yet.
Clegg used to work for the EU didn't he? It would be like asking Kim Philby to negotiate on our behalf with the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Peter Mandelson would ride shotgun to keep him honest.
With Clarke and Kinnock, they can be our Quad to negotiate Brexit.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
It isn't. Most people aren't that angry.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
Myths???
An anti immigration party came from nowhere to win the Euros, quadrupled their vote at the GE,its the most important concern to ordinary people in the polling, there are a million refugees swarming the continent, thousands camped on our doorstep, and you don't want to mention it??
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
EFTA countries are 25% richer than the UK and pay a third of the taxes to get the single market. Vote Leave to be £xxx better off immediately and lead to a 25% pay rise. That could win a majority.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
No issue on its own is enough to win, but I think the only was LEAVE can win is by hammering on the most important one, immigration.
I don't know how many people on here knock about with tradesmen in real life, but I do and it is the only thing they associate with the EU, and not in a good way.
Also, rightly or wrongly, fear of the migrant crisis in Germany seeping over here is a big win for LEAVE
People interested in politics enough to post on here are rarely concerned w such base matters, but in the real world people feeling the effects will vote
It may fascinate political nerds, but I fear Vote Leave are playing on REMAINS terms with abstracts rather than harsh facts
A lot of my social group could be characterised as WVM. I wouldn't disagree with any of your points.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
I think a migration crisis is helpful to Leave but it's not a knockout blow in itself. It probably would be if we were in the path between Greece and Germany but we're not.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
No issue on its own is enough to win, but I think the only was LEAVE can win is by hammering on the most important one, immigration.
I don't know how many people on here knock about with tradesmen in real life, but I do and it is the only thing they associate with the EU, and not in a good way.
Also, rightly or wrongly, fear of the migrant crisis in Germany seeping over here is a big win for LEAVE
People interested in politics enough to post on here are rarely concerned w such base matters, but in the real world people feeling the effects will vote
It may fascinate political nerds, but I fear Vote Leave are playing on REMAINS terms with abstracts rather than harsh facts
All that matters is to get the most number of people possible to put their X next to the 'Leave' box.
Our biggest weakness is economic security. That must be countered.
If we just do migration we'll get 40% of the population making a X next to the 'Leave' box on their ballot paper so hard they'll break the pencil, but we'll lose.
To get that extra 11% we must address a better and brighter economic future outside.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
No issue on its own is enough to win, but I think the only was LEAVE can win is by hammering on the most important one, immigration.
I don't know how many people on here knock about with tradesmen in real life, but I do and it is the only thing they associate with the EU, and not in a good way.
Also, rightly or wrongly, fear of the migrant crisis in Germany seeping over here is a big win for LEAVE
People interested in politics enough to post on here are rarely concerned w such base matters, but in the real world people feeling the effects will vote
It may fascinate political nerds, but I fear Vote Leave are playing on REMAINS terms with abstracts rather than harsh facts
All that matters is to get the most number of people possible to put their X next to the 'Leave' box.
Our biggest weakness is economic security. That must be countered.
If we just do migration we'll get 40% of the population making a X next to the 'Leave' box on their ballot paper so hard they'll break the pencil, but we'll lose.
To get that extra 11% we must address a better and brighter economic future outside.
Builders, plumbers, sparks etc think their recent economic past, present and future has been naused by EU immigration. Most people don't even know what GDP is
If the issues were voted on independently, how would you bet
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
What Leave need to get across is that the status quo is not an option. We either pull back from the EU - or we'll get deeply immersed in it. What do you want people? We cannot continue as grumpy by-standers. If we vote to Remain, then the EU will say to us:
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
What Leave need to get across is that the status quo is not an option. We either pull back from the EU - or we'll get deeply immersed in it. What do you want people? We cannot continue as grumpy by-standers. If we vote to Remain, then the EU will say to us:
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
Unless we join the Eurozone, which will never happen, we are never going to be truly integrated into the EU, like Sweden and Denmark and the Czechs we are now in the Outer Core
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
It isn't. Most people aren't that angry.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
Myths???
An anti immigration party came from nowhere to win the Euros, quadrupled their vote at the GE,its the most important concern to ordinary people in the polling, there are a million refugees swarming the continent, thousands camped on our doorstep, and you don't want to mention it??
I'd say that's exactly what REMAIN want
Where did I say don't mention it at all?
I just said it's not enough to win. I also think making it a coalition of the angry isn't enough. Leave needs to be warm, positive and optimistic to win.
Look, I don't want to argue with you. At the end of the day, we're both on the same side.
All I'm saying is that we'll need to be reassuring and flexible in our pitches to different audiences.
Steve Peers, who is a Professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex says that Gove is correct.
His view is also backed up by David Allen Green, both a senior lawyer and legal correspondent.
Did you see Daily Politics? Gisela Stuart seemed to be schooling Nick Boles on the issue, but maybe that's because I wanted her to be right (obv I have no idea)
She spoke with the kind of certainty that is rarely visible in this debate.
The Danes' version of Dave's deal has been overturned eighty times.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
I think Casino's comments are correct but I also think the referendum is winnable for Leave if they campaign effectively and have some luck with the turn of events.
Somebody - Rentoul maybe - predicted on Twitter that by the beginning of April the Leave campaign would be pleading with Boris to do more. He needs to do more now.
Well the way David Cameron is out of the blocks fired up and energised the leave campaign will have lost long before April without sorting out who represents them and what their alternative is. In the most recent poll security and the economy were heavily in favour of remain and to have the remotest chance these two issues have to be made into a positive by leave. All this legal chit chat will not get a hearing with the public. Remain are already in the driving seat and as I see it leave are busy fighting each other and most certainly need to marginalise Farage and Galloway
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
What Leave need to get across is that the status quo is not an option. We either pull back from the EU - or we'll get deeply immersed in it. What do you want people? We cannot continue as grumpy by-standers. If we vote to Remain, then the EU will say to us:
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
Unless we join the Eurozone, which will never happen, we are never going to be truly integrated into the EU, like Sweden and Denmark and the Czechs we are now in the Outer Core
Maybe not but we can unfortunately be a lot more integrated than we are now. And that will come if REMAIN wins in June.
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
Has is crossed your mind that the SCOTUS, speaking through the Chief Justice, only six years after those words were inserted into the Constitution, might have a more "clear" understanding of the matter than some nonentity spouting about it over a hundred years later?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
Anybody can be wrong. A "nonentity", as you unflatteringly call yourself, can be just as wrong as a judge.
The problem is, 14 years after Minor, the SCOTUS in Wong quoted and approved the same statement.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
I suppose they must be wrong too, and only 21st Century keyboard warriors can possibly be right...
You're the keyboard warrior, railing impotently against the consensus contemporary interpretation.
The collective wisdom of the individually ignorant should not impress anyone. I don't rail against it. I just ignore it. The US is not my country, so I have no dog in the fight, and I would have no standing to challenge anything in any case, so the question of impotence doesn't come into it.
Moreover, the man who seems to have a good chance of becoming the next President inconveniently does not adhere to what you believe to be the 'consensus contemporary interpretation', and is winning growing support from legal theorists [if not yet judges], so perhaps he will be successful in rebutting that interpretation.
Hence I feel it entirely appropriate to revisit the question from time to time.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
What Leave need to get across is that the status quo is not an option. We either pull back from the EU - or we'll get deeply immersed in it. What do you want people? We cannot continue as grumpy by-standers. If we vote to Remain, then the EU will say to us:
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
Unless we join the Eurozone, which will never happen, we are never going to be truly integrated into the EU, like Sweden and Denmark and the Czechs we are now in the Outer Core
Maybe not but we can unfortunately be a lot more integrated than we are now. And that will come if REMAIN wins in June.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
It isn't. Most people aren't that angry.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
Myths???
An anti immigration party came from nowhere to win the Euros, quadrupled their vote at the GE,its the most important concern to ordinary people in the polling, there are a million refugees swarming the continent, thousands camped on our doorstep, and you don't want to mention it??
I'd say that's exactly what REMAIN want
Where did I say don't mention it at all?
I just said it's not enough to win. I also think making it a coalition of the angry isn't enough. Leave needs to be warm, positive and optimistic to win.
Look, I don't want to argue with you. At the end of the day, we're both on the same side.
All I'm saying is that we'll need to be reassuring and flexible in our pitches to different audiences.
Think about it. That's all I ask.
Completely agree with the penultimate sentence, that's why it wouldn't bother me if Vote Leave/Grassroots Out, have nothing to do with each other and concentrate on appealing to different parts of the vote
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
EFTA countries are 25% richer than the UK and pay a third of the taxes to get the single market. Vote Leave to be £xxx better off immediately and lead to a 25% pay rise. That could win a majority.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
What Leave need to get across is that the status quo is not an option. We either pull back from the EU - or we'll get deeply immersed in it. What do you want people? We cannot continue as grumpy by-standers. If we vote to Remain, then the EU will say to us:
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
Unless we join the Eurozone, which will never happen, we are never going to be truly integrated into the EU, like Sweden and Denmark and the Czechs we are now in the Outer Core
Maybe not but we can unfortunately be a lot more integrated than we are now. And that will come if REMAIN wins in June.
Maybe Leave should fight fire with fire and do a Project Fear in reverse?
As a post-script, the fact that Gisela is a Labour MP, born in Germany and retaining an accent, makes the message that Dave's deal is a dud, infinitely more compelling.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
...
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think between now and June 23rd, we'll see plenty of shifts and reversals of fortune, and maybe some unknown unknowns. It's too early to say.
There are certainly known unknowns ahead.
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
Migration isn't enough to win.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Migration may be enough to win it. If it can pull in a 40% level of those who vote it then needs a 10%+ from those focused on sovereignty or a general dislike of our leaders. A coalition of the angry.
It isn't. Most people aren't that angry.
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
Myths???
An anti immigration party came from nowhere to win the Euros, quadrupled their vote at the GE,its the most important concern to ordinary people in the polling, there are a million refugees swarming the continent, thousands camped on our doorstep, and you don't want to mention it??
I'd say that's exactly what REMAIN want
Where did I say don't mention it at all?
I just said it's not enough to win. I also think making it a coalition of the angry isn't enough. Leave needs to be warm, positive and optimistic to win.
Look, I don't want to argue with you. At the end of the day, we're both on the same side.
All I'm saying is that we'll need to be reassuring and flexible in our pitches to different audiences.
Think about it. That's all I ask.
If you really think you are on the same side as people like him you are delusional.
Comments
Will that happen this time? Or are people wise to it?
Only time will tell.
And if we join, it'll be because it's come to seem a good idea and people will have voted for it (I can't see it happening without a referendum). Democracy, ne c'est pas?
Of course there won't be MANY rebels on this, but even less than 10 Tory MPs unhappy at losing their seats would be enough for them to be defeated.
Some people are happy to take as much as they give out, in the obnoxious stakes, which is at least consistent, but others may not want to take such, and as long as they don't also give it out, that's fair enough.
I will however be very disappointed if no-one suggests that 'answering reasonably even if entirely wrong' is the entire Corbyn strategy at the moment by the time I write this. Or that it is Cameron's, given his EU arguments.
There is no alternative to this boundary review. A Tory majority will not and can not let the next election be re-fought on boundaries based on data over two decades out of date.
But it means there won't be any leadership challenges any more....
Rifkind went from Edinburgh to London.
George Young from London to Hampshire
A Welsh MP could easily move to a safe seat in the South East if their seat is abolished.
Can I second that.
Nick's startlingly frank admission that large numbers of MPs and especially ministers are attracted to the notion of political union in Europe due to the career/power opportunities it may give them really was a breath of fresh air - especially when compared to the tortuous and dishonest lines being spun by a lot of Remainers.
A few years, well a couple of decades, late to the party, Mr. B., but you got there in the end.
The boundaries are set by an independent commission aren't they, anyway.
Why would a local SE Tory association want some random non-high-profile Tory MP from somewhere else in the country, in preference to one of their own who've they got to know over years? And more to the point, why would said random non-high-profile Tory MP have 100% confidence that a Tory association will be nice enough to take them in years in advance when they're voting on the boundary review?
Eastern -2 (now -1)
East Midlands -2
London -5
North East -5 (now -4)
North West -7
South East -2 (excluding Isle of Wight, so no change)
South West -2
West Midlands -5 (now -6)
Yorkshire -4
So Wales/Scotland/NI must have lost a seat to make up for it.
Northern Ireland -2 (now -1)
Scotland -7 (now -6)
Wales -10 (now -11)
The best comment I had was from a Czech Manager who said of our French management
" we didn't get rid of the Russian Communists just to replace them with french communists"
I knew exactly what he meant :-)
In all honesty, I hope the changes are indeed fair. They may well benefit one side more than another, but that does not in itself mean changes are unreasonable (though they could be), tough as that would be to admit, so I hope they've gotten it right.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/camerons-eu-deal-not-legally-binding-2016-2??r=US&IR=T
Steve Peers, who is a Professor of EU law and human rights law at the University of Essex says that Gove is correct.
His view is also backed up by David Allen Green, both a senior lawyer and legal correspondent.
When France is back to the Franc. Maybe then it will have some attraction. But getting UK membership of the Euro through a referendum requires imagining a very different world. Maybe a post-apocalyptic vision of wastelands and deprivation on a scale that only a Jeremy Corbyn Government could bring.
Ah. Now I see where you are coming from....
I wonder should Brexit ever happen whether he'd be a good administrator for the process? You'd need a balancing UK-centric force too of course, but maybe that's be a good use of his talents.
Somehow if I never hear of Ed I'll not feel that the country has missed a trick. Clegg though has a certain quality. He can serve yet.
Meanwhile, here's the Illinois board on the mythical third citizenship class:
It pointed out that Cruz “did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth” and therefore “further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”
http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2541002/ted-cruz-illinois-natural-born-citizen
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vp6viBi5DA4avMgR2Y8lKrrAUqJp-0zL2LZB6iVD3uU/htmlview#gid=450656551
Steve Brine, Charlie Elphicke and Chris Skidmore all to be added to the List of Shame.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-H4eqc43aDRvF9V_VOjTQRh-rPmNifYJom-yaJ79Rpg/edit#gid=0
Well done to Nick for adding those 51 extra voters in Broxtowe.
In any event, the Constitution has within itself the ability to be amended, and has in fact been amended 27 times. Those who wish to amend Article 2 should take their arguments to the People, and perhaps they will succeed. Others have in fact tried, and failed.
England loses one vs 2011:
North East -1
West Midlands -1
Eastern +1
Dem primary Clinton 56, Sanders 40
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_df82cdf7f0414137bbc532fd0b0caaa7.pdf
Clinton 55
Sanders 32
http://2qtvrz46wjcg34jx1h1blgd2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/02/Goucher-Poll-Release-Feb-24-Democrats-president-and-senate.pdf
That's right - despite huge population growth - electorate has gone down.
Electoral Quota for this review = 74,769
Electoral Quota for 2011 review = 76,641
So down 1,872 - implies electorate DOWN by 1.1 million!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
In December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against the Governor of Indiana to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]." A hearing was held, and on March 16, 2009, the Governor's motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld it on November 12, 2009.[106]
The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[107] On April 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of Indiana rejected, without comment, a request to consider the case.[108]
Personally I believe that the spring will bring on a migrant crisis far beyond that which we've seen before. We all know that something surrounding migrants will happen in the spring though (It's even possible they don't turn up).
Its very likely that migrants will form a slightly negative backdrop (through sheer numbers) to the idea that we should 'Remain'.
The scallywags are Robert Halfon (whose article in today's Telegraph is cringe-making) Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, the egregious Alan Mak, and Mark Pritchard.
The problem in your example is not that they were born overseas, but that presumably you fear they would also be a loon because of their heritage and upbringing. And there are other ways to stop a loon being president.
That was really your first example of why overseas born people should not be able to run for president?!
You know what that means - huge scope for error if pollsters sample the population - rather than the electorate.
Yet they continue to sample the population.
http://www.270towin.com/
Steve Brine has badly let himself down, having strongly signalled for Out in the past.
It would be like asking Kim Philby to negotiate on our behalf with the Soviet Union during the cold war.
How many of the Bernie fans will come out when he's been denied being reasonably close on the popular vote to her, and may well have been seen to have been "robbed" by superdelegates.
Trump getting more votes than her in New Hampshire, the Nevada and SC GOp turnout might well be straws in the wind.
Somebody - Rentoul maybe - predicted on Twitter that by the beginning of April the Leave campaign would be pleading with Boris to do more. He needs to do more now.
The key swing demographic to get to 51% will be voting on the money.
Incidentally, every week that goes by more and more people may make up their minds on this.
Vote Leave have brought a knife to a gun fight, so far.
I don't know how many people on here knock about with tradesmen in real life, but I do and it is the only thing they associate with the EU, and not in a good way.
Also, rightly or wrongly, fear of the migrant crisis in Germany seeping over here is a big win for LEAVE
People interested in politics enough to post on here are rarely concerned w such base matters, but in the real world people feeling the effects will vote
It may fascinate political nerds, but I fear Vote Leave are playing on REMAINS terms with abstracts rather than harsh facts
We need to rid ourselves of the myths and be ultra practical.
An anti immigration party came from nowhere to win the Euros, quadrupled their vote at the GE,its the most important concern to ordinary people in the polling, there are a million refugees swarming the continent, thousands camped on our doorstep, and you don't want to mention it??
I'd say that's exactly what REMAIN want
I wouldn't disagree with any of your points.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/board/2/boundaries
Our biggest weakness is economic security. That must be countered.
If we just do migration we'll get 40% of the population making a X next to the 'Leave' box on their ballot paper so hard they'll break the pencil, but we'll lose.
To get that extra 11% we must address a better and brighter economic future outside.
http://politicalgambler.com/political-betting-on-the-us-election-complete-portfolio/
I hope he comes out with at least a little profit at the end of it.
Builders, plumbers, sparks etc think their recent economic past, present and future has been naused by EU immigration. Most people don't even know what GDP is
If the issues were voted on independently, how would you bet
LEAVE vs REMAIN on immigration
LEAVE vs REMAIN on economic security/GDP etc
"You have had your renegotiation. Your people have had your say. They've chosen to Remain.
Now you will stop being bad little Englanders - and start being good little Europeans. Which involves doing as the EU tells you to do."
I really think there is no majority in this country to allow that to happen. If it can be made to see it that way.
I just said it's not enough to win. I also think making it a coalition of the angry isn't enough. Leave needs to be warm, positive and optimistic to win.
Look, I don't want to argue with you. At the end of the day, we're both on the same side.
All I'm saying is that we'll need to be reassuring and flexible in our pitches to different audiences.
Think about it. That's all I ask.
The Danes' version of Dave's deal has been overturned eighty times.
Moreover, the man who seems to have a good chance of becoming the next President inconveniently does not adhere to what you believe to be the 'consensus contemporary interpretation', and is winning growing support from legal theorists [if not yet judges], so perhaps he will be successful in rebutting that interpretation.
Hence I feel it entirely appropriate to revisit the question from time to time.