On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid: Less immigration. Protectionism Anti-corruption Fewer wars More healthcare Strong defence Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds: More immigration Wall Street More wars More of the same First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
Hillary may be running to be president in the 1990s but Trump is running to be president in the 1950s, neither represent the US of today. Trump repels plenty of Hispanics in the likes of Nevada and moderate suburbanites in the likes of Virginia, both swing states
That's a bad misreading of what is going on with Trump. He's very much a candidate of the times with masterful control of social media and the news cycle. He's explicitly trying to disintermediate the political conversation and has no fear of displaying contempt for the traditional opinion formers. It's resonating in a big way.
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EU
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
When is the decision made as to which group is funded?
Anyone have any idea how American Samoa might vote ?
Have put in 60-40 to Hilary but not sure.
They vote in the primaries and have one representative to the US House, but do not participate in US Presidential or US Senate elections. Their representative is non-voting. In 2014 they returned a Republican - first ever (and also first ever female representative for the territory)
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EU
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
When is the decision made as to which group is funded?
There isn't a linear scale from good to bad that applies to all trade deals in all circumstances. While the collective weight of the EU certainly means that it has more leverage, it also means that negotiations can get bogged down by elements which might be irrelevant to the concerns of some member states taken individually.
That is true, but the converse also applies, namely that the big trading players (basically US and China) prefer to deal with the EU as a big player.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do free trade deals. What I am saying is that there's no low-hanging fruit here which makes the possibility of independent trade deals a significant factor. In other words, it's largely irrelevant either way.
The US likes also to deal with groups of nations, of which the EU is one but see also the TPP which is further along than TTIP and likely to come into effect first. The UK would almost certainly be able to sign on to the heads of terms agreed in either the TPP or TTIP.
We can sign up to anything but we will not have had a say in it.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
That's a bad misreading of what is going on with Trump. He's very much a candidate of the times with masterful control of social media and the news cycle. He's explicitly trying to disintermediate the political conversation and has no fear of displaying contempt for the traditional opinion formers. It's resonating in a big way.
And he won more Hispanic voters in Nevada than the other candidates. So he is resonating with some of them.
Mr Glenn, I think you might like this analysis of Trump's campaign. If the constant disorientation of the other candidates by constantly changing the environment was deliberate, it was also masterful. If it was subconscious and natural, it is scary.
There isn't a linear scale from good to bad that applies to all trade deals in all circumstances. While the collective weight of the EU certainly means that it has more leverage, it also means that negotiations can get bogged down by elements which might be irrelevant to the concerns of some member states taken individually.
That is true, but the converse also applies, namely that the big trading players (basically US and China) prefer to deal with the EU as a big player.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do free trade deals. What I am saying is that there's no low-hanging fruit here which makes the possibility of independent trade deals a significant factor. In other words, it's largely irrelevant either way.
The US likes also to deal with groups of nations, of which the EU is one but see also the TPP which is further along than TTIP and likely to come into effect first. The UK would almost certainly be able to sign on to the heads of terms agreed in either the TPP or TTIP.
We can sign up to anything but we will not have had a say in it.
I think America will be happy to let the world's fifth largest economy have a say in a deal if they're happy to let Australia have a say.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Sorry Sam but you are continuing to pursue a core vote strategy. That might get you 30% or 35% but you need to work out how to get the other 15-20% to have any chance of winning. I don't deny for a second that many people are worried about immigration but all the evidence both from polling and elections shows that this simply won't be enough to get 51% of the vote.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Saying that risks exceed benefits is an argument.
Saying there are no risks whatsoever to consider for the other side is extreme though. You have no more credibility if you do that than those on the other side who discount all risks.
Quite clearly there are risks and benefits for both options we need to balance and decide on. If you refuse to even acknowledge one side has risks then you're not serious.
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
Considering we are the world's fifth largest economy would that not make us the big country in all but four deals so deals would be lopsided to our advantage based on your theory?
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
You haven't looked in detail. Your mind was made up long before this campaign or the renegotiation ever started. You have taken every opportunity to talk up the REMAIN side and Cameron's ridiculously bad deal whilst at the same time trashing any LEAVE claims and using every one of Cameron's scare tactics.
In the process, as was pointed out on here last week, you have also completely trashed any reputation for balanced opinion or logical analysis you might once have had.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think some like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
For the record, I think you're a Cameron fanatic, not a eurofanatic - if Cameron had in some parallel universe opted for 'Leave', I believe you would too.
I also believe that you carefully research the arguments, but only to advocate better the Cameronite position, however untenable that position is. You do it very eloquently as I've remarked upon before, which no doubt you pride yourself upon, but there's a limit to how highly you can polish a turd. Because you're so one-note, your posts really are water off a duck's back. If that's not an issue for you, rock on, but personally I feel it's a waste of your erudition.
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
Considering we are the world's fifth largest economy would that not make us the big country in all but four deals so deals would be lopsided to our advantage based on your theory?
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
You posted some details of the Swiss deal the other night and it seemed so one-sided that I wondered why they signed it.
Though I think interest in the EU may be higher now than it was then.
Havng gone through the decimilsation and an explosion in inflation, there was a massive interest in europe in 1975. We also had less media and no PC games to distract the masses.
There were fewer questions of sovereignty in 1975 and no party campaigning solely to get out of the EU as UKIP are
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EU
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Or Leave need to find a way to appeal to people who bother to vote not just those who don't. I think Carswell may have had an effect on getting the vote out in Clacton like he did in previous elections though even Carswell was within a 4% swing of losing the seat. I'd be curious too given that the Turnout rise in Clacton as a whole in 2015 vs 2010 was well BELOW the national average to see how much of an effect was in reality had in Jaywick?
I was talking about the by election
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
'Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.'
Oh stop huffing and puffing Richard. You don't represent the median voter, nor were you ever a swing voter on this issue as you have pretended in the past.
Why don't you just argue honestly for your pro-EU beliefs instead of hiding behind all these smokescreens?
On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.
Which is why - as I've been saying for about six months (albeit with a little inside information - that I think Bloomberg will run.
Which will guarantee a Trump victory.
Bloomberg essentially takes almost equally from both parties but he will be more likely to run in Trump v Sanders than Trump v Clinton
On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid: Less immigration. Protectionism Anti-corruption Fewer wars More healthcare Strong defence Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds: More immigration Wall Street More wars More of the same First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
Hillary may be running to be president in the 1990s but Trump is running to be president in the 1950s, neither represent the US of today. Trump repels plenty of Hispanics in the likes of Nevada and moderate suburbanites in the likes of Virginia, both swing states
That's a bad misreading of what is going on with Trump. He's very much a candidate of the times with masterful control of social media and the news cycle. He's explicitly trying to disintermediate the political conversation and has no fear of displaying contempt for the traditional opinion formers. It's resonating in a big way.
On policy grounds his campaign is based on returning America to the 1950s ie fewer minorities and America unashamedly No 1 on every front!
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
Considering we are the world's fifth largest economy would that not make us the big country in all but four deals so deals would be lopsided to our advantage based on your theory?
Well, we'd be negotiating with China as the smaller party, with the US as the smaller party, with the EU as the smaller party, and with Japan as the smaller party.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Sorry Sam but you are continuing to pursue a core vote strategy. That might get you 30% or 35% but you need to work out how to get the other 15-20% to have any chance of winning. I don't deny for a second that many people are worried about immigration but all the evidence both from polling and elections shows that this simply won't be enough to get 51% of the vote.
Maybe I am wrong, but to almost everyone I know, the only affect on their lives that they are aware of from the EU is immigration. There are a lot more tradesmen in the country than there are political scientists, and they all get one vote each
IMO it is all about immigration and its the only way LEAVE can possibly win, but I am aware that people on my side disagree. Fair enough, just make sure we get as many "sovereignty/Rights of the City" types on board too
Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Oh missed this part by the way. Wow appealing to those who vote, what a horrible idea!
Guess what, elections are won by convincing those who vote to vote for you.
Most of them have already their minds up or are less inclined to be swayed by campaigns I reckon
Disagreed. Many are in two minds like myself, the corollary to low voter interest day to day in Europe is that most minds aren't set in stone. I know a lot of people who could go either way and all will definitely vote.
If you concentrate on a definite voter and get them to vote for you instead of Remain that's a 1 vote swing.
If you concentrate on non voters then that's most likely a 0 vote swing and even if they turn out its only a 0.5 vote swing.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Nabavi reminds me ofTim after he lost all sense of reason, though Tim had the upside in that he could be funny and entertaining at times.
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
Surely a lopsided deal is better than no deal?? Or a deal where we trade concessions for benefits that accrue to France or Germany?
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?
I think that's a little simplistic.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
Considering we are the world's fifth largest economy would that not make us the big country in all but four deals so deals would be lopsided to our advantage based on your theory?
Well, we'd be negotiating with China as the smaller party, with the US as the smaller party, with the EU as the smaller party, and with Japan as the smaller party.
Those four are about 75% of world demand.
We already negotiate with the EU as the smaller party, hence why there is a full single market in goods and people but not in services which we are still talking about.
As for negotiating with the US, China and Japan that is still being done with us as the small party already. Considering the EU hasn't negotiated a full service single market already what is realistically stopping the EU signing a deal with China that excludes Financial Services anyway? It hasn't signed such a deal yet has it?
I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.
Turnout in the 1975 EEC referendum was close to 70% and this will be a more passionate campaign
There was a higher level of electoral participation in the 1970s though. Still, I agree that turnout this time is likely to be at GE levels.
Yes, it will be a more passionate campaign than then
Do we think Labour looking disinterested in the Referendum will hurt them in politics more generally? If Labour can't get engaged in the big issue of this Parliament...then what is the bloody point? At least the Tories will have a dog in the fight - on both sides. They at least look like they CARE....
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
I think they've been stopped.
Edit: I mean as regards the UK. I think the moves towards ever-closer union will now be confined to the Eurozone and Eurozone satellites. This is partly the renegotiation, but mainly because of a growing weary realisation amongst our EU friends that it's just easier to proceed without us.
But every new law passed by EU parliament will be a reduction in our self-government. Are you claiming those have stopped??
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
That can work in a by election. Good luck getting daytime drinkers out nationally in a referendum.
If you can convince swing voters who actually turnout to vote for you then you win.
If you concentrate solely on non voters you have as much chance of winning as Corbyn.
In this case, you're correct. Leave have to focus on swing voters. Remain have to focus on non-voters. Leave voters are already more motivated than Remain voters.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Nabavi reminds me ofTim after he lost all sense of reason, though Tim had the upside in that he could be funny and entertaining at times.
Nabavi is a one dimensional dullard.
Personally I find Richard's betting insight extremely helpful. YMMV.
I suspect for many Brexit voters, controlling immigration is the number 1 priority. They want to decide who comes in, what they get when they come here, and who we can throw out.
They want our parliament to have the final say on this, and everything else.
Whatever alphabet soup we can or can't get on trade is just the small print.
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
That can work in a by election. Good luck getting daytime drinkers out nationally in a referendum.
If you can convince swing voters who actually turnout to vote for you then you win.
If you concentrate solely on non voters you have as much chance of winning as Corbyn.
In this case, you're correct. Leave have to focus on swing voters. Remain have to focus on non-voters. Leave voters are already more motivated than Remain voters.
I think Remain need to work on swing voters too. Your pension is safer, the economy is safer, the country is safer. All tried and tested lines that work on voters.
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
That can work in a by election. Good luck getting daytime drinkers out nationally in a referendum.
If you can convince swing voters who actually turnout to vote for you then you win.
If you concentrate solely on non voters you have as much chance of winning as Corbyn.
In this case, you're correct. Leave have to focus on swing voters. Remain have to focus on non-voters. Leave voters are already more motivated than Remain voters.
I think Remain need to work on swing voters too. Your pension is safer, the economy is safer, the country is safer. All tried and tested lines that work on voters.
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?
Yes, pretty much. It's a good attempt of the Leave side to try to give the impression that there's some sort of symmetry of risk, but frankly that is verging on loony.
It is loony to foresee any risks to the EU at all when it has unresolved issues of mass unemployment, mass unskilled migration, no real growth for a decade already and a shrinking share of the global market?
OK then.
Since the Euro's creation, the Eurozone has (somewhat surprisingly) a better job creation record than the US.
Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Oh missed this part by the way. Wow appealing to those who vote, what a horrible idea!
Guess what, elections are won by convincing those who vote to vote for you.
Most of them have already their minds up or are less inclined to be swayed by campaigns I reckon
One has to appeal to as many as possible. That means economics, politics, and immigration .
In the case of the EU, it may be good for the economy of the nation in terms of GDP, but for individuals it is a net loss. So the there are fewer winners on the economy than losers.. the reason is immigration
Besides if I'm going for a job interview I dress appropriately. Corbyn is in a job interview stage for us to determine if he's fit to both lead the country and represent our country on the world stage. I know what I think.
Life tells me a suit is appropriate for selling a used car. I don;t wan tto work for anyone who thinks less of me because I am not wearing a suit. Maybe that's why I don't have a job though.
I try to be wary of groupthink re; betting but the consensus seems to be that the value is still on trump.
Are any PB'ers who actually bet taking a position *AGAINST* trump right now?
YES.
For the nomination or Presidency?
Trump will comfortably secure the GOP nomination and comfortably secure second place to Clinton for POTUS.
Hmm with that prediction you wouldn't take a position against Trump other than an organic one delivered by backing Clinton. And you may even back Trump to zero with such a view.
I'm in Kenya, on safari. Yesterday I met a charming, smart 85 year old American multi-millionairess, who is spending the winter months in the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.
Over g&t we fell to talking about the American election. She said she was a neighbour of Trump for many years and knew him, personally, very well.
She said Trump is extremely intelligent, and a great delegator, and would probably be a highly capable president. I have no reason to disbelieve her. She also claimed Trump has no chance of winning. I believe that, too.
I try to be wary of groupthink re; betting but the consensus seems to be that the value is still on trump.
Are any PB'ers who actually bet taking a position *AGAINST* trump right now?
YES.
For the nomination or Presidency?
Trump will comfortably secure the GOP nomination and comfortably secure second place to Clinton for POTUS.
As I said (yesterday?) Trump could have the potential to be ok, certainly better than gw Bush (who was definitively awful) ,but it's not worth the risk. "Terrified" is one way to put it.
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that EU
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to vote
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Or Leave need to find a way to appeal to people who bother to vote not just those who don't. I think Carswell may have had an effect on getting the vote out in Clacton like he did in previous elections though even Carswell was within a 4% swing of losing the seat. I'd be curious too given that the Turnout rise in Clacton as a whole in 2015 vs 2010 was well BELOW the national average to see how much of an effect was in reality had in Jaywick?
I was talking about the by election
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
Farage is a famously poor campaigner. That is why he has never won a seat in Westminster, and the campaigns in a number of by elections have failed.
It is probably unwise for Leave to copy his tactics.
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Saying that risks exceed benefits is an argument.
Saying there are no risks whatsoever to consider for the other side is extreme though. You have no more credibility if you do that than those on the other side who discount all risks.
Quite clearly there are risks and benefits for both options we need to balance and decide on. If you refuse to even acknowledge one side has risks then you're not serious.
But he has just said in the post you are replying to that the the risks of leaving exceed the benefits in his opinion. Has he said there are no risks in staying?
I suspect for many Brexit voters, controlling immigration is the number 1 priority. They want to decide who comes in, what they get when they come here, and who we can throw out.
They want our parliament to have the final say on this, and everything else.
Whatever alphabet soup we can or can't get on trade is just the small print.
What about non EU immigation which is more than EU.
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EU
I wonder if an organisation such as Migration Watch have a bombshell of a report yet to come out into the effects of immigration on pay rates and housing costs?
Or on schools,in bradford the schools are in crisis with population increase and migration from Easern Europe.
The leave camp should be hitting home on this and things you have pointed out from around the country.
Quality of life for people is a Big issue.
District expected to need 40,000 extra places by 2020
< Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.
You are completely mad.
Nope. You are completely blind to the way you appear on here. I can only assume because that is a true reflection of your beliefs.
If you think someone like me is a 'fanatic', simply because my judgement, having looked in detail at the arguments, is that the risks of Brexit exceed the likely advantages of Brexit, then you are raving mad.
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Saying that risks exceed benefits is an argument.
Saying there are no risks whatsoever to consider for the other side is extreme though. You have no more credibility if you do that than those on the other side who discount all risks.
Quite clearly there are risks and benefits for both options we need to balance and decide on. If you refuse to even acknowledge one side has risks then you're not serious.
But he has just said in the post you are replying to that the the risks of leaving exceed the benefits in his opinion. Has he said there are no risks in staying?
Comments
RepNom: Trump +20, Rubio -40, Cruz +60, Other -6
Prez: Trump +70, Rubio -40, Cruz -20, Kasich +30, Bloomberg +40, Hillary +40, Sanders -55, Biden +475
It's not where I'd like to be, but I screwed up by laying Trump in around November.
Basically I'm OK unless Rubio wins the nomination, or Sanders gets into the White House
GOP
Trump 43
Rubio 25
Cruz 10
Carson 3
Dems
Clinton 48
Sanders 41
http://ripr.org/post/clinton-trump-top-new-brown-university-presidential-poll
Views like yours are why Leave will lose the referendum.
Big country - smaller country trade deals are often very lopsided. The TPP is much more advantagous to the US than to Australia or Japan, for example. Or take the China-Switzerland free trade deal: China gets far more access to the Swiss market than the other way around.
The problem we have with negotiating FTAs with countries like China and India (and this is true for the EU as well) is that many of the parts of the UK that are internationally competitive are in areas that China, India, etc. see as 'strategic'. So, there is no realistic possibility that an FTA with China would allow British financial services firms to sell directly to Chinese consumers. (Financial services was specifically excluded from the Swiss deal, for example.)
If I can manage to understand the new ONS website I'll recalculate the GDP per head growth rate.
One proviso I would add though isn't the UK economy far less dependent upon the price of oil than it used to be ?
Mr Glenn, I think you might like this analysis of Trump's campaign. If the constant disorientation of the other candidates by constantly changing the environment was deliberate, it was also masterful. If it was subconscious and natural, it is scary.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-explains-why-donald-trump-leads-and-how-he-will-fail/
Sorry Sam but you are continuing to pursue a core vote strategy. That might get you 30% or 35% but you need to work out how to get the other 15-20% to have any chance of winning. I don't deny for a second that many people are worried about immigration but all the evidence both from polling and elections shows that this simply won't be enough to get 51% of the vote.
Trump 688.57
Rubio -376.29
Cruz +3920.95
Kasich 933.13
Carson 275.46
Ryan 29.65
Romney 80.95
C Christie 1236.85
Fiorina 160.12
Field 489.18
Saying there are no risks whatsoever to consider for the other side is extreme though. You have no more credibility if you do that than those on the other side who discount all risks.
Quite clearly there are risks and benefits for both options we need to balance and decide on. If you refuse to even acknowledge one side has risks then you're not serious.
Trump 34
Rubio 22
Cruz 14
Kasich 7
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/02/23/arizona-gop-poll-donald-trump-leads-marco-rubio.html
GOP
Trump 30
Rubio 20
Cruz 19
Kasich 8
Carson 8
Dems
Sanders 44
Clinton 43
http://fox6now.com/2016/02/25/new-marquette-university-law-school-poll/
In the process, as was pointed out on here last week, you have also completely trashed any reputation for balanced opinion or logical analysis you might once have had.
As I said, you are now the Comical Ali of PB.com
I also believe that you carefully research the arguments, but only to advocate better the Cameronite position, however untenable that position is. You do it very eloquently as I've remarked upon before, which no doubt you pride yourself upon, but there's a limit to how highly you can polish a turd. Because you're so one-note, your posts really are water off a duck's back. If that's not an issue for you, rock on, but personally I feel it's a waste of your erudition.
I try to be wary of groupthink re; betting but the consensus seems to be that the value is still on trump.
Are any PB'ers who actually bet taking a position *AGAINST* trump right now?
Frinton (the posh/politically engaged part) was 55/45 UKIP/Tory, Jaywick (a glorified trailer park) was UKIP or not voting
Farage was trapsing around Jaywick on the day of the vote (maybe should've been in Heywood and Middleton)getting the unemployed/daytime drinker vote
Hilary is looking well set.
Oh stop huffing and puffing Richard. You don't represent the median voter, nor were you ever a swing voter on this issue as you have pretended in the past.
Why don't you just argue honestly for your pro-EU beliefs instead of hiding behind all these smokescreens?
If you can convince swing voters who actually turnout to vote for you then you win.
If you concentrate solely on non voters you have as much chance of winning as Corbyn.
Those four are about 75% of world demand.
IMO it is all about immigration and its the only way LEAVE can possibly win, but I am aware that people on my side disagree. Fair enough, just make sure we get as many "sovereignty/Rights of the City" types on board too
If you concentrate on a definite voter and get them to vote for you instead of Remain that's a 1 vote swing.
If you concentrate on non voters then that's most likely a 0 vote swing and even if they turn out its only a 0.5 vote swing.
Nabavi is a one dimensional dullard.
As for negotiating with the US, China and Japan that is still being done with us as the small party already. Considering the EU hasn't negotiated a full service single market already what is realistically stopping the EU signing a deal with China that excludes Financial Services anyway? It hasn't signed such a deal yet has it?
They want our parliament to have the final say on this, and everything else.
Whatever alphabet soup we can or can't get on trade is just the small print.
Its the Bernie, Clinton, Biden
vs
GOP
vs
Bloomberg market.
It is probably unwise for Leave to copy his tactics.
The leave camp should be hitting home on this and things you have pointed out from around the country.
Quality of life for people is a Big issue.
District expected to need 40,000 extra places by 2020
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8457301.Crisis_looms_over_Bradford_school_places_shortage/#comments-anchor
Plans to ease pressure on some school rolls set to be agreed by Bradford councillors
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14249251.Plans_to_ease_pressure_on_some_school_rolls_set_to_be_agreed_by_Bradford_councillors/#comments-anchor