(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
The same is probably true on the full factfind nonsense. Much of that nonsense is as much because of the enthusiasm of UK regulators as EU regulators.
This is one of the many corruscating burdens on commerce that are rarely tackled. But were the Ministers aware of what was the padding from the EC? Getting out of the EC then our politicians have to take responsibility for the laws made and for not changing the laws that are in place.
Jewish human rights group furious at Palsoc’s mock checkpoint
Lawyers for Jewish Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the University of Cambridge hinting that legal action might be taken in response to the mock checkpoint that was erected on Sidgwick site as part of Israeli Apartheid Week.
The letter described the structure as a “deliberately intimidating paramilitary-style antisemitic ‘checkpoint’” and says that it was adorned with an Israeli flag. The letter goes on to say that “It is clear to our client that no-one whatsoever has given any thought to how a Jewish person in the current climate might feel about being forced to walk through such an intimidating road block on the campus.” Finally, the letter condemned the university for endorsing “such virulent antisemitic elements”.
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.
The trouble with those remain people is they haven't offered us a plan. What would Britain look like if we remain?
It's utter cant anyway, it it just the next iteration of being "undecided". Now they fall back on being "decided but open to reason". Its bullshit, its the reaction of party loyalist following the beat of their leaders drum, but not wanting to look dogmatic. If Cameron fell under a bus tomorrow and Patterson was elected leader next week there would be a deafening screech of handbrakes and all of a sudden they would be persuaded by the arguments of leave after all.
I do not accept that proposition at all. I am heart to leave and head to stay,a position held by many of the voters who will decide this referendum. I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve. This does not mean I will not vote leave but leave must convince me on trade and free movement of labour. I am genuinely asking someone, anyone in leave, to provide leave's agreed response to this question.
100% access to the EU single market isn't for me the be all and end all.
No, it's a fetish really. But the reason Remainers like Richard keep emphasising it is twofold:
1. They can argue that without it all kinds of dire things will happen to trade (rubbish of course)
2. If you accept it is completely necessary, then the next step is you have to accept all that goes with it e.g. freedom of movement, subjection to EU directives etc....and ultimately, Richard would argue, EU membership. It's the traditional Europhile argument.
But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points system
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
I have said on here before that Matt Taibbi's articles on the crash were required reading for anyone who wanted to understand the biggest theft in history.
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
All the reasons why they will have to do a deal are listed in that article. It's all too complicated and entangled not to.
Followed by:
Of course, one can’t rule out that in five or 10 years things would improve for the U.K. -- it might become a super-Singapore at the gates of Europe,” said Kerber.
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.
As much as they would have liked to have cut the 'difficult' Greeks adrift, the fall-out was always too much of a risk.
So they take the safe route, kick the can down the road so there is as little disruption as possible and then take forever to engineer any form of meaningful change.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).
To me, the race is close to a toss-up, though tilted slightly to Hillary. That said, if the Republicans do lose then it's their own stupid fault.
However, if Clinton's weak now, god knows how bad she'll look come 2020.
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.
Yes and we hold all the aces but the dealer is crooked.
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...
Yes, I wouldn't anticipate either UKIP or AfD breaking into the top two at a GE any time soon. Unless there's another bad recession.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!
Posted without comment, this from the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (2013):-
"The UK's ability to make necessary reforms to financial regulation risks being constrained by the European regulatory process, which is developing rapidly as Eurozone countries move towards banking union. Some new financial regulation across the EU may be desirable as a support for the Single Market. However, there are at least two dangers for the UK. The first is that the prescriptive and box-ticking tendency of EU rules designed for 27 members will impede the move towards the more judgement-based approach being introduced in the UK in response to past regulatory failures. The second is that some EU regulations may limit the UK's regulatory scope for unilateral action. This could mean moving at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. This is a risk which the UK, as a medium-sized economy hosting one of the world's two most important financial centres, cannot afford."
That is a very concise and accurate summary of the problems. The difficulty I have with Richard's argument is that if we opt for out then the regulation of the London market remains a matter for the UK alone. It is true that in trading within the Single Market they would have to comply with EU regulations in relation to that business but regulatory control would remain here.
London is now so far ahead of the rest of the EU that it needs particular care. The scale of trading is potentially destabilising for a medium sized country like the UK. With turnover exceeding our annual GDP every day market regulators need to be switched on and alert to market trends and systemic risk. Not being so was a major part of the 2008 disaster. An EU solution designed to cover regional banks in Austria or Poland just is not relevant or helpful.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points system
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
So, on balance, what happens the day after a leave vote?
Everyone throws up trade barriers causing disruption for absolutely everybody, or the leaders agree that it is business as usual whilst discussions are ongoing about the UK's New Deal with Europe?
Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points system
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.
So are you saying leave undertakes to the UK free movement of labour will be abolished on leaving
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
So, on balance, what happens the day after a leave vote?
Everyone throws up trade barriers causing disruption for absolutely everybody, or the leaders agree that it is business as usual whilst discussions are ongoing about the UK's New Deal with Europe?
Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?
Or as the UK heads for out, Germany's key business lobby goes to Merkel and says FFS get real. Something Dave says 'CANNOT' happen.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).
That Rolling Stone article suggests this is starting to change rapidly.
This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband's efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted.
You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump's speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the "terrible anxiety" they feel about jobs.
"I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump," says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. "I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don't know who he is. Or they've just heard he's a socialist. Trump they've heard of."
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado. A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
To some, but not to all. The problem Remain has is that a sizeable slice of the electorate - myself included - were looking for a decent deal as a reason to vote Remain. Something along the lines of that promised in the Conservative Party Manifesto in 2015 would have done the job. But what has come back falls so far short of what is in the long-term interests of Britain, we are inclined to vote Leave.
For that, we are fed a diet of fear and abuse and have our sanity questioned.... Way to go, Remain.
There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024
Skilfully changed from your original point.
Was it?! How so?
I wish I could take the use of "skilfully" as a compliment, but I don't think it was!
Yes, your original point was about the MENA migrants "roaming freely across the EU". You then changed that to talking about common residency rights and passports.
The latter is a consequence of EU membership; the former was down to a mixture of events in the Middle East combined with the leadership of one member indulging in an emotional spasm.
Yes but if the latter wasn't so, I couldn't really care less about the former. Does that make sense?
I only really care that Merkel made the offer because of the effect it will have on us in the future.
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent plan
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points system
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.
So are you saying leave undertakes to the UK free movement of labour will be abolished on leaving
I don't speak for leave and therefore undertake nothing. I made no comment of free movement. As a Leave voter I am observing that should that eventuality happen, the potential tariffs that would accrue to us under the WTO Most Favoured Nation status are pretty small. That it would not take much in the way on new markets to offset that loss. And that in any case the total bill for tariffs in a typical year would cost the country less that the EU membership bill.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Just taken a bit of cheap Cruzinsurance at 150.0 for Prez and 60.0 for RepNom.
OK, he might not have much chance, but he's still the second-placed GOP candidate, and those odds are more than generous. If, as the polls indicate, Cruz wins Texas, Rubio loses in FL, and Trump pretty much cleans up elesewhere, then the current relative odds on Cruz and Rubio will look even more lopsided than they do at the moment.
Just taken a bit of cheap Cruzinsurance at 150.0 for Prez and 60.0 for RepNom.
OK, he might not have much chance, but he's still the second-placed GOP candidate, and those odds are more than generous. If, as the polls indicate, Cruz wins Texas, Rubio loses in FL, and Trump pretty much cleans up elesewhere, then the current relative odds on Cruz and Rubio will look even more lopsided than they do at the moment.
Yes a good opportunity to buy some Cruz POTUS. Probably a loser, but at 150.0 who cares. It's live.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).
That Rolling Stone article suggests this is starting to change rapidly.
This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband's efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted.
You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump's speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the "terrible anxiety" they feel about jobs.
"I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump," says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. "I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don't know who he is. Or they've just heard he's a socialist. Trump they've heard of."
Comparing favourability head-to-head isn't a direct guide as it doesn't predict how people who have a favourable view of both (or more likely at the moment, an unfavourable view of both) will go. All the same, Trump is unlikely to win with that sort of score.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!
You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
the more you engage or counter, the more right they are.
not just the corbynistas
or indeed PB Tories (although we are the exception to the rule as we're never wrong...)
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Way too boring. Since I want some excitement in my life I am going for Leave.
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.
Correct but irrelevant then.
Words you are looking for are deranged and irrelevant
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.
Correct but irrelevant then.
Words you are looking for are deranged and irrelevant
Can't we all compromise on "correct, deranged and irrelevant"? I'm sure the Lib Dems themselves would recognise the truth of that description.
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
Bloody hell....
That's left me speechless.
Actually Red Cafe is a Man Utd website but the whole piece was lifted from a Liverpool site, I could find loads of other links if anyone doubts what is stated.
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...
Yes, I wouldn't anticipate either UKIP or AfD breaking into the top two at a GE any time soon. Unless there's another bad recession.
I think it's more likely that the sensible Leave wing of UKIP collapses into the Tories, now, rather than the other way round.
Events of the last month may prove to be extremely important for the long-term health of both parties.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
It's not 'equally'. Have you actually read that FT article?
Just read the section about a third of the way down headed 'The rule book'.
It beggars belief that Leavers simply dismiss the procedural risks as not even worth engaging with. Note in particular the bits about having to negotiate with 27 other EU countries including unanimity plus ratification by parliaments, and the fact that extending the deadline requires unanimity.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado. A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.
Are you serious, you'd rather have President Trump than Clinton?
"The so-called Five Presidents' Report on 'Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union', authored by the commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, "in close cooperation" with Donald Tusk, the European Council president, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the European Stability Mechanism (and of the informal Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers), Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schultz, president of the European Parliament, says the strengthening of the supervisory framework necessitated by a more integrated capital markets across the EU "should lead ultimately to a single European Capital markets supervisor"."
This is from today's date.
To be transparent, the current EU Commission September 2015 Action Plan did not propose a single supervisor for a future Capital Markets Union.
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.
Correct but irrelevant then.
Words you are looking for are deranged and irrelevant
Can't we all compromise on "correct, deranged and irrelevant"? I'm sure the Lib Dems themselves would recognise the truth of that description.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado. A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.
I never saw your response before so I'm happy to bet £500 at evens that the Democrats win Nevada. Are you willing to takeup the offer??
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about Europe
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver
'Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?'
If Article 50 is invoked that creates a two-year period (or in fact shorter or longer, if all parties agree and think it appropriate) in which existing structures will be in force and during which a new arrangement can be negotiated.
There is no question whatever of 'trade barriers' coming into existence on day 1 after Brexit. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
I had this discussion with a local agribusiness last week, the boss of which had received 'Remain' info suggesting exports to the EU would suffer immediate disruption or even end after a Brexit vote.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about Europe
Remind me what the top item of concern for the public for the past several months has been ?
No, your opponent being an idiot that can't eat a bacon sandwich and tells the audience on Question Time that the last Labour government didn't spend too much, wins elections. I understand you opponent being a marxist terrorist-sympathiser works quite well as well
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
It works if you assume that the status quo isn't an option. That we can't stand still. The EU will undoubtedly say "OK, UK, we humoured you. We let you have your "renegotiation". You voted on it. Now you will pay up and shut up and do as the other members tell you to do..."
Are you saying the status quo is an option? If so - on what romantically rose-tinted basis are the other EU members going to let us continue to be some curmudgeonly semi-detatched bastards? No, point forward this goes one of two ways. Both have a duty to spell out what they want. So far, Remain has shown a pathological fear of admitting what Remain looks like, a decade down the line.
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.
Yes and we hold all the aces but the dealer is crooked.
The Germans can't even get their numbers right. 40% of our exports (and falling) is with the EU. Not 50%.
Yesterday there were links to an updated forecast for the Scottish Parliament by, I think, UK elect but it does not appear on their website. Was this some sort of premium service not yet generally available? It had a very useful layout. I want to look if the loss of 1 of the northern constituencies means the Lib Dems go down an MSP or whether they get it back on the list. I am also interested in how vulnerable they are to being squeezed off the list elsewhere by the legendary (and possibly imaginary) Tory surge.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
There's none so blind as will not see.
Quite telling that the more you are questioned the more vague you become.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver
Life is a risk. Anything worthwhile involves taking chances.
So far, Remain has shown a pathological fear of admitting what Remain looks like, a decade down the line.
On the contrary remain has been very clear on this. A decade from now Britain will not be in the Euro, we will not be part of a European army, we will not be part of future Eurozone integration. We will have full access to the single-market, we will have reciprocal free movement, we will play a full part in EU democracy such as it is. In other words it will much like that dreaded phrase, the status quo.
Leave can poke holes in this if they wish but the idea that it hasn't been spelled out is wrong.
I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anyway
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about Europe
Remind me what the top item of concern for the public for the past several months has been ?
No, your opponent being an idiot that can't eat a bacon sandwich and tells the audience on Question Time that the last Labour government didn't spend too much, wins elections. I understand you opponent being a marxist terrorist-sympathiser works quite well as well
Immigration but as no one to date from leave has confirmed unambiguously that by leaving free movement of labour will end the issue is not addressed by either side. And I would make the point that inward immigration and the migration crises are two different subjects
'Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?'
If Article 50 is invoked that creates a two-year period (or in fact shorter or longer, if all parties agree and think it appropriate) in which existing structures will be in force and during which a new arrangement can be negotiated.
There is no question whatever of 'trade barriers' coming into existence on day 1 after Brexit. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
I had this discussion with a local agribusiness last week, the boss of which had received 'Remain' info suggesting exports to the EU would suffer immediate disruption or even end after a Brexit vote.
2 years seems an incredibly short time, especially if 6 months of huff are built into the discussions.
I think it would be more like 4 or 5 years to be honest.
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
There's none so blind as will not see.
Quite telling that the more you are questioned the more vague you become.
How about a straight answer?
A straight answer:
In the long run, we all die. Trying to see forward into the very long term is a fool's errand. 40 years ago we were all going to be holidaying on the moon by now. But we can look forward as far as we can.
In the short run, the route forward for the EU is capable of being visualised. It isn't particularly attractive and it doesn't look particularly likely to get more attractive in the short to medium term. It will continue to be a reactive, lumbering, bureaucratic corporatist beast that moves slowly and behind events.
In the short run, the route forward outside the EU is completely opaque and many of the suggestions put forward are mutually contradictory. The Prime Minister is entirely justified to keep using the phrase a leap in the dark. That is absolutely what is on offer. We wouldn't know what Leave meant until after we'd left. We don't even know what Leave think the prospectus for Leave should look like after we left.
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something new
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver
Interestingly, my dad is a leaver and his feelings towards office work/traditional jobs, is the same. He could have trained be an accountant, but he hates being in an office and having a boss around him. So for most of his life, he's been a field engineer, and he's been self-employed at times as well.
Comments
Lawyers for Jewish Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the University of Cambridge hinting that legal action might be taken in response to the mock checkpoint that was erected on Sidgwick site as part of Israeli Apartheid Week.
The letter described the structure as a “deliberately intimidating paramilitary-style antisemitic ‘checkpoint’” and says that it was adorned with an Israeli flag. The letter goes on to say that “It is clear to our client that no-one whatsoever has given any thought to how a Jewish person in the current climate might feel about being forced to walk through such an intimidating road block on the campus.” Finally, the letter condemned the university for endorsing “such virulent antisemitic elements”.
http://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2016/02/26/jewish-human-rights-group-70859
No, it's a fetish really. But the reason Remainers like Richard keep emphasising it is twofold:
1. They can argue that without it all kinds of dire things will happen to trade (rubbish of course)
2. If you accept it is completely necessary, then the next step is you have to accept all that goes with it e.g. freedom of movement, subjection to EU directives etc....and ultimately, Richard would argue, EU membership. It's the traditional Europhile argument.
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Nothing flashy, just the bald facts. Stated again and again and again.
Followed by:
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.
Indeed, but obviously they would prefer not to have to do so, especially as current arrangements suit them so very well.
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
As much as they would have liked to have cut the 'difficult' Greeks adrift, the fall-out was always too much of a risk.
So they take the safe route, kick the can down the road so there is as little disruption as possible and then take forever to engineer any form of meaningful change.
The same will happen.
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).
To me, the race is close to a toss-up, though tilted slightly to Hillary. That said, if the Republicans do lose then it's their own stupid fault.
However, if Clinton's weak now, god knows how bad she'll look come 2020.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
zzzzzzzzzzzz
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
London is now so far ahead of the rest of the EU that it needs particular care. The scale of trading is potentially destabilising for a medium sized country like the UK. With turnover exceeding our annual GDP every day market regulators need to be switched on and alert to market trends and systemic risk. Not being so was a major part of the 2008 disaster. An EU solution designed to cover regional banks in Austria or Poland just is not relevant or helpful.
Everyone throws up trade barriers causing disruption for absolutely everybody, or the leaders agree that it is business as usual whilst discussions are ongoing about the UK's New Deal with Europe?
Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Trump 45%
Rubio 25%
Cruz 10%
Kasich 8%
Carson 5%
ONE-ON-ONE
Trump 52%, Rubio 38%
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado.
A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.
So if Trump quits the race, Marco wins right ?!
For that, we are fed a diet of fear and abuse and have our sanity questioned.... Way to go, Remain.
Bill Clinton didn't win NH, but did OK. Bush won, but faced a serious, divisive challenge.
Therefore the chances of Bush "hanging on" to the White House for the GOP were negligible...
I only really care that Merkel made the offer because of the effect it will have on us in the future.
OK, he might not have much chance, but he's still the second-placed GOP candidate, and those odds are more than generous. If, as the polls indicate, Cruz wins Texas, Rubio loses in FL, and Trump pretty much cleans up elesewhere, then the current relative odds on Cruz and Rubio will look even more lopsided than they do at the moment.
Trump is still running a net favourability the wrong side of -20.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
Comparing favourability head-to-head isn't a direct guide as it doesn't predict how people who have a favourable view of both (or more likely at the moment, an unfavourable view of both) will go. All the same, Trump is unlikely to win with that sort of score.
not just the corbynistas
or indeed PB Tories (although we are the exception to the rule as we're never wrong...)
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
That's left me speechless.
Events of the last month may prove to be extremely important for the long-term health of both parties.
Farage's ego is leading UKIP down a blind alley.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
Just read the section about a third of the way down headed 'The rule book'.
It beggars belief that Leavers simply dismiss the procedural risks as not even worth engaging with. Note in particular the bits about having to negotiate with 27 other EU countries including unanimity plus ratification by parliaments, and the fact that extending the deadline requires unanimity.
"The so-called Five Presidents' Report on 'Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union', authored by the commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, "in close cooperation" with Donald Tusk, the European Council president, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the European Stability Mechanism (and of the informal Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers), Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schultz, president of the European Parliament, says the strengthening of the supervisory framework necessitated by a more integrated capital markets across the EU "should lead ultimately to a single European Capital markets supervisor"."
This is from today's date.
To be transparent, the current EU Commission September 2015 Action Plan did not propose a single supervisor for a future Capital Markets Union.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver
If Article 50 is invoked that creates a two-year period (or in fact shorter or longer, if all parties agree and think it appropriate) in which existing structures will be in force and during which a new arrangement can be negotiated.
There is no question whatever of 'trade barriers' coming into existence on day 1 after Brexit. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
I had this discussion with a local agribusiness last week, the boss of which had received 'Remain' info suggesting exports to the EU would suffer immediate disruption or even end after a Brexit vote.
No, your opponent being an idiot that can't eat a bacon sandwich and tells the audience on Question Time that the last Labour government didn't spend too much, wins elections. I understand you opponent being a marxist terrorist-sympathiser works quite well as well
Are you saying the status quo is an option? If so - on what romantically rose-tinted basis are the other EU members going to let us continue to be some curmudgeonly semi-detatched bastards? No, point forward this goes one of two ways. Both have a duty to spell out what they want. So far, Remain has shown a pathological fear of admitting what Remain looks like, a decade down the line.
Because they know it would be electoral suicide.
I want to look if the loss of 1 of the northern constituencies means the Lib Dems go down an MSP or whether they get it back on the list. I am also interested in how vulnerable they are to being squeezed off the list elsewhere by the legendary (and possibly imaginary) Tory surge.
http://www.norsk-rettsmuseum.no/en/utstillinger/ddsstraff-a-la-christian-v
How about a straight answer?
Leave can poke holes in this if they wish but the idea that it hasn't been spelled out is wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/25/british-lawmakers-object-to-nfls-redskins-playing-in-london-under-current-name.html
I think it would be more like 4 or 5 years to be honest.
In the long run, we all die. Trying to see forward into the very long term is a fool's errand. 40 years ago we were all going to be holidaying on the moon by now. But we can look forward as far as we can.
In the short run, the route forward for the EU is capable of being visualised. It isn't particularly attractive and it doesn't look particularly likely to get more attractive in the short to medium term. It will continue to be a reactive, lumbering, bureaucratic corporatist beast that moves slowly and behind events.
In the short run, the route forward outside the EU is completely opaque and many of the suggestions put forward are mutually contradictory. The Prime Minister is entirely justified to keep using the phrase a leap in the dark. That is absolutely what is on offer. We wouldn't know what Leave meant until after we'd left. We don't even know what Leave think the prospectus for Leave should look like after we left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_1992#Results_2