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.
Cameron and REMAIN must also say what a post Brexit country will be like. Cameron will still be PM and the Conservatives will still be in government on 24th June. It strikes me that if he instigated this referendum without knowing the consequences of both possible outcomes he acted with utmost recklessness. Farage & Co will not have to determine policy but HMG will.
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.
It has one simple flaw. All we have for any of that are political promises.
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
Leaving that to one side, the Eurozone continues to integrate, and decides that transactions in Euros can only take place in Eurozone countries, vote is passed by QMV, we object, and the ECJ rules against us. see Denmark in 1982 to see what the ECJ thinks about political promises. Do we sit by and let the city load a huge chunk of business, or do we join the Euro ?
'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.
We could always have six months of preparation before we invoke the Article.
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.
It has one simple flaw. All we have for any of that are political promises.
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
That argument has one simple flaw: past experience.
Twenty years ago we elected a leftwing government on a landslide with a pro-European Prime Minister who wanted to go "all in". In the time since then the only thing that's had a material affect on most people's day-to-day experience of being in the EU was the expansion to include most of the Eastern block.
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.
But will the UK be funding unlimited migration into the EU? Will the UK be allotted a quota of migrants it has to take, both existing migrants within the EU and those yet to arrive in the future? Will additional members further erode the practical impact of such voting rights as we have? Will our financial services sector be adversely impacted by further regulation imposed upon the UK? If the EU moves towards uniform income and corporation tax rates, will we be able to veto them at the national level? Will the system of English law come under threat? Will our FPTP voting systems be deemed incompatible with EU norms? Will our national land use come under greater EU control? Notwithstanding what Cameron has come back with, to what extent will non-Euro countries become de facto second class citizens within the EU? What if an EU-wide Army comes out of NATO?
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.
We will never know, under any circumstance, now or in the future, what Leave means until after we have left. That is the whole point of Article 50. You leave, then you argue about what it means. Would it even be bad enough for you to take the risk ? You are giving a counsel of despair, we will never know what is will happen, so we better just play it safe - nation of merchant adventurers my arse, nation hiding behind the sofa with their hands over their eyes more like.
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.
The difference between being part of the EU and not, to millions of people, is the ability to be able to change immigration policy.
While we have uncontrolled immigration from the EU, our governments attitude to low skilled British workers seem to me to be the equivalent of someone breaking your legs and providing free physio afterwards when theyd rather be given a chance to play
LEAVE can appeal to the masses by promising the chance of a decent wage with no competition from people with such an unfair advantage as the status quo allows
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.
Thats all meaningless unless we know what the Eurozone looks like, giving they will be the ones deciding our laws. Will they have a president? Would the position be elected? Treasury? Formal fiscal transfers? If so, how much? Will southern debt be written off? Will the southern or northern bloc dominate monetary policy? Will the recent migrants get EU passports? What new policy areas will they seek to regulate? How much bigger will the single finance rulebook get? Will they seek to restrain hedge fund/private equity sector? Etc.
I do agree with Alastair that if Leave are going to get in the game they need a clear, deliverable and credible vision of what happens next. Whilst it is true that the campaign itself will not be responsible for delivering that the government of the day will. What are they to aim for? What does Leave mean?
There is a difference of view on this which in simplistic terms is the difference between the Kippers and the Tories. Most Tories want to remain in the EEA and Single Market. Most Kippers don't, at least not without probably undeliverable restrictions on freedom of movement.
The opportunity to Leave the EU is in danger of being lost in this difference of view. Without a clear and unequivocal answer nurse will be held onto, even if she smells.
My answer is that step (a) can lead to step (b) if (a) turns out not to be satisfactory. Step (b), as a first step looks too risky to sell. But there needs to be a consensus on this and I don't see one.
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.
It has one simple flaw. All we have for any of that are political promises.
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
That argument has one simple flaw: past experience.
Twenty years ago we elected a leftwing government on a landslide with a pro-European Prime Minister who wanted to go "all in". In the time since then the only thing that's had a material affect on most people's day-to-day experience of being in the EU was the expansion to include most of the Eastern block.
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.
But will the UK be funding unlimited migration into the EU? Will the UK be allotted a quota of migrants it has to take, both existing migrants within the EU and those yet to arrive in the future? Will additional members further erode the practical impact of such voting rights as we have? Will our financial services sector be adversely impacted by further regulation imposed upon the UK? If the EU moves towards uniform income and corporation tax rates, will we be able to veto them at the national level? Will the system of English law come under threat? Will our FPTP voting systems be deemed incompatible with EU norms? Will our national land use come under greater EU control? Notwithstanding what Cameron has come back with, to what extent will non-Euro countries become de facto second class citizens within the EU? What if an EU-wide Army comes out of NATO?
These are but a few of the risks of Remain....
Turn the clock back 12 months
Did we expect millions of migrants to be encouraged by Merkel/EU? Was that a plan?
Did we expect Schengen to fall/border controls to return?
I'd say it came as quite a shock actually, and undermines the "risk free" REMAIN argument
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
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.
But will the UK be funding unlimited migration into the EU? Will the UK be allotted a quota of migrants it has to take, both existing migrants within the EU and those yet to arrive in the future? Will additional members further erode the practical impact of such voting rights as we have? Will our financial services sector be adversely impacted by further regulation imposed upon the UK? If the EU moves towards uniform income and corporation tax rates, will we be able to veto them at the national level? Will the system of English law come under threat? Will our FPTP voting systems be deemed incompatible with EU norms? Will our national land use come under greater EU control? Notwithstanding what Cameron has come back with, to what extent will non-Euro countries become de facto second class citizens within the EU? What if an EU-wide Army comes out of NATO?
These are but a few of the risks of Remain....
Voting to stop the world from turning has never been possible. If any of the risks of remaining come true to an extent that the British people don't want to tolerate then they will always be free to elect a government on a platform of promising a new referendum, or simply of activating Article 50 immediately.
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.
It has one simple flaw. All we have for any of that are political promises.
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
Leaving that to one side, the Eurozone continues to integrate, and decides that transactions in Euros can only take place in Eurozone countries, vote is passed by QMV, we object, and the ECJ rules against us. see Denmark in 1982 to see what the ECJ thinks about political promises. Do we sit by and let the city load a huge chunk of business, or do we join the Euro ?
Technically, it's Eurozone clearing that could - theoretically - take place only in the Eurozone. Were this to happen, it would be the same as US dollar transactions which clear only in the US.
Obviously, actual Euro, Yen, Dollar transactions can happen anywhere.
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.
You need to assume the "Boris" protocol; the only reason these people are so hard to negotiate with is because we haven't told them we are leaving.
Once we do that, they will fall over themselves to help.
Actually, this might more accurately be attributed to Eck, but Boris is the most recent proponent
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.
It has one simple flaw. All we have for any of that are political promises.
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
That argument has one simple flaw: past experience.
Twenty years ago we elected a leftwing government on a landslide with a pro-European Prime Minister who wanted to go "all in". In the time since then the only thing that's had a material affect on most people's day-to-day experience of being in the EU was the expansion to include most of the Eastern block.
Tony was a Tory didn't you know ?
A delusion which no doubt helps assuage the remorse that Tory Eurosceptics should feel about making their party unelectable throughout most of the period in question.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Not sure that is entirely ECHR compliant. Which is a different argument altogether of course.
There are quite a lot of spikes, wheels, burnings and beheadings there.
When I have accused some Leavers of being backward-looking, to be fair I hadn't been thinking of looking back as far as the Medieval period.
What is the point of this insult? Are you just inviting an insult in response such as describing REMAIN people as surrender monkeys or a 5th column* or appeasers pushing treason to undermine our country?
Yes you may prefer to be shackled to the decaying corpse of an economic union from the last century, others of us are in the 21st century.
Now let us please end the childish labels.
*A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation —from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack.
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.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Not sure that is entirely ECHR compliant. Which is a different argument altogether of course.
There are quite a lot of spikes, wheels, burnings and beheadings there.
When I have accused some Leavers of being backward-looking, to be fair I hadn't been thinking of looking back as far as the Medieval period.
What is the point of this insult? Are you just inviting an insult in response such as describing REMAIN people as surrender monkeys or a 5th column* or appeasers pushing treason to undermine our country?
Yes you may prefer to be shackled to the decaying corpse of an economic union from the last century, others of us are in the 21st century.
Now let us please end the childish labels.
*A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation —from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack.
I do agree with Alastair that if Leave are going to get in the game they need a clear, deliverable and credible vision of what happens next. Whilst it is true that the campaign itself will not be responsible for delivering that the government of the day will. What are they to aim for? What does Leave mean?
But it's another rhetorical flourish.
You could say the same about asking a class in a school if they wanted to go on a trip to the same place as last year or somewhere new. The "same" brigade will say "ok, where do you want to go then, how much does it cost" etc. It is perfectly respectable to decide to go somewhere new, and then talk about where to go, especially if it is the teacher that actually makes the decision.
'Obviously, actual Euro, Yen, Dollar transactions can happen anywhere.'
Indeed, and will do so wherever they are done best.
London has been doing financial business for countries all over the world for centuries on the basis that it is the best place to do them. That will continue outside the EU, provided the City remains sharp enough to ensure it is the best place.
The structure of City business may look a bit different 5-10 years after Brexit, but it has changed many times before.
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.
But will the UK be funding unlimited migration into the EU? Will the UK be allotted a quota of migrants it has to take, both existing migrants within the EU and those yet to arrive in the future? Will additional members further erode the practical impact of such voting rights as we have? Will our financial services sector be adversely impacted by further regulation imposed upon the UK? If the EU moves towards uniform income and corporation tax rates, will we be able to veto them at the national level? Will the system of English law come under threat? Will our FPTP voting systems be deemed incompatible with EU norms? Will our national land use come under greater EU control? Notwithstanding what Cameron has come back with, to what extent will non-Euro countries become de facto second class citizens within the EU? What if an EU-wide Army comes out of NATO?
These are but a few of the risks of Remain....
Turn the clock back 12 months
Did we expect millions of migrants to be encouraged by Merkel/EU? Was that a plan?
Did we expect Schengen to fall/border controls to return?
I'd say it came as quite a shock actually, and undermines the "risk free" REMAIN argument
And I do think there may be significant further upheaval within the next four months. Events are moving very quickly ahead of the new "migrant season".
Cameron was politically wise to go for the minimal time period for the Referendum, but on another level it does look rather panicked, for fear of what is coming down the pike... His risk is that if, heaven forbid, there is an incident of some sort - whether political or terrorist - then he has far less time to counter any voter knee-jerk reaction toward Leave. I also think that having insulted the intelligence of voters once, they would be far less inclined to give him the political benefit of the doubt again
He is a significant hostage to a Black Swan event over the coming four months.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
The differences being that (a) the renegotiation is a fairly small adjustment, not a completely new agreement, (b) in the case of the exit negotiation, we don't even know what we'd be asking for yet, (c) the other 27 countries have actually agreed to the renegotiation deal, in writing, and (d) failure of the renegotiation deal wouldn't lead to total chaos.
Popular senator of Massachusetts, tried to follow the Dukakis path to the nomination but democrats wanted change not another liberal establishment guy from Massachusetts.
So after experimenting with different candidates for a while they went for the conservative democrat from Arkansas, who sounded like Elvis, on Super Tuesday.
I can't think how our innovative financial services sector will cope with a changing environment- said nobody ever.
True either way, though.
Absolutely wrong, Richard
I see day by the day the constraints that ill-conceived European regulation is drawing around the City. Let's put it down to naivety and lack of understanding rather than malice.
Outside that constraint, yes, the Euro business may be impacted (but if clients want to buy our services we will find a way to deliver them). But we can chase full-tilt for the global business.
Inside we will be more constrained on European business and ham-strung on international business.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
I do agree with Alastair that if Leave are going to get in the game they need a clear, deliverable and credible vision of what happens next. Whilst it is true that the campaign itself will not be responsible for delivering that the government of the day will. What are they to aim for? What does Leave mean?
But it's another rhetorical flourish.
You could say the same about asking a class in a school if they wanted to go on a trip to the same place as last year or somewhere new. The "same" brigade will say "ok, where do you want to go then, how much does it cost" etc. It is perfectly respectable to decide to go somewhere new, and then talk about where to go, especially if it is the teacher that actually makes the decision.
Sure but if you are to get a majority for change you need to sell an actual choice. I just want something different, not sure what, does not win.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Aw, bless. Getting all offended on behalf of people who for decades don't seem to have known they should have been offended. How very Corbynista of these public-spirited souls.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
The differences being that (a) the renegotiation is a fairly small adjustment, not a completely new agreement, (b) in the case of the exit negotiation, we don't even know what we'd be asking for yet, (c) the other 27 countries have actually agreed to the renegotiation deal, in writing, and (d) failure of the renegotiation deal wouldn't lead to total chaos.
Other than that, good point.
So you accept the renegotiation deal might fail? That it is not cast-iron.
I see day by the day the constraints that ill-conceived European regulation is drawing around the City. Let's put it down to naivety and lack of understanding rather than malice.
Outside that constraint, yes, the Euro business may be impacted (but if clients want to buy our services we will find a way to deliver them). But we can chase full-tilt for the global business.
Inside we will be more constrained on European business and ham-strung on international business.
I do agree with Alastair that if Leave are going to get in the game they need a clear, deliverable and credible vision of what happens next. Whilst it is true that the campaign itself will not be responsible for delivering that the government of the day will. What are they to aim for? What does Leave mean?
But it's another rhetorical flourish.
You could say the same about asking a class in a school if they wanted to go on a trip to the same place as last year or somewhere new. The "same" brigade will say "ok, where do you want to go then, how much does it cost" etc. It is perfectly respectable to decide to go somewhere new, and then talk about where to go, especially if it is the teacher that actually makes the decision.
Sure but if you are to get a majority for change you need to sell an actual choice. I just want something different, not sure what, does not win.
So for the sake of argument, Vote.Kipper exceed all expectations and come up with a detailed plan for leaving EU and the EHCR, and going it alone with bespoke trade agreements. The public are so enamored by this new chance to throw out all sorts of malcontents that they give them the benefit of the doubt and there is a majority for leave. The government then says screw that, and opts for an EEA approach. The PM might get changed but it will be for a Boris or a Gove who also favour an EEA approach so no different. The voters are extremely pissed off but it's a choice of Tory/EEA or bring the government down and Corbyn/EU++, so EEA it is. What is the point of that Vote.Kipper prospectus, and who misled who ?
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
I see day by the day the constraints that ill-conceived European regulation is drawing around the City. Let's put it down to naivety and lack of understanding rather than malice.
Outside that constraint, yes, the Euro business may be impacted (but if clients want to buy our services we will find a way to deliver them). But we can chase full-tilt for the global business.
Inside we will be more constrained on European business and ham-strung on international business.
Ruth Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Smeeth and Ian Austin in touch with the aspirations and needs of constituents. Today's 2 minute hate is inspired by the name of an American Football team.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
The differences being that (a) the renegotiation is a fairly small adjustment, not a completely new agreement, (b) in the case of the exit negotiation, we don't even know what we'd be asking for yet, (c) the other 27 countries have actually agreed to the renegotiation deal, in writing, and (d) failure of the renegotiation deal wouldn't lead to total chaos.
Other than that, good point.
So you accept the renegotiation deal might fail? That it is not cast-iron.
I think it's as certain as these things ever can be.
We are talking orders of magnitude of difference of risk here.
Here's some good news. My local football team have announced that a season ticket for 2016-17 will be £179! That is in the Championship. It will be subsidised by the increased funding coming from the TV deal. Does anyone know of a Premiership club doing the same? Thought not.
It's not just about 'less' regulation Richard, it's about regulation that is smart and is appropriate for the UK. I thought only the bone-headed lefties couldn't understand the difference.
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Next up it will be the animal protection league kicking off about the Miami Dolphins.
And how can New York have a team of "Giants". How height elitist is THAT? Won't somebody think of the dwarves...er...people of restricted....aaaaargh.....
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Aw, bless. Getting all offended on behalf of people who for decades don't seem to have known they should have been offended. How very Corbynista of these public-spirited souls.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
The differences being that (a) the renegotiation is a fairly small adjustment, not a completely new agreement, (b) in the case of the exit negotiation, we don't even know what we'd be asking for yet, (c) the other 27 countries have actually agreed to the renegotiation deal, in writing, and (d) failure of the renegotiation deal wouldn't lead to total chaos.
Other than that, good point.
So you accept the renegotiation deal might fail? That it is not cast-iron.
I think it's as certain as these things ever can be.
Or as it was described by a retired ECJ judge earlier in the week "bullshit"
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
Next up it will be the animal protection league kicking off about the Miami Dolphins.
And how can New York have a team of "Giants". How height elitist is THAT? Won't somebody think of the dwarves...er...people of restricted....aaaaargh.....
Ruth Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Smeeth and Ian Austin in touch with the aspirations and needs of constituents. Today's 2 minute hate is inspired by the name of an American Football team.
I do agree with Alastair that if Leave are going to get in the game they need a clear, deliverable and credible vision of what happens next. Whilst it is true that the campaign itself will not be responsible for delivering that the government of the day will. What are they to aim for? What does Leave mean?
But it's another rhetorical flourish.
You could say the same about asking a class in a school if they wanted to go on a trip to the same place as last year or somewhere new. The "same" brigade will say "ok, where do you want to go then, how much does it cost" etc. It is perfectly respectable to decide to go somewhere new, and then talk about where to go, especially if it is the teacher that actually makes the decision.
Sure but if you are to get a majority for change you need to sell an actual choice. I just want something different, not sure what, does not win.
So for the sake of argument, Vote.Kipper exceed all expectations and come up with a detailed plan for leaving EU and the EHCR, and going it alone with bespoke trade agreements. The public are so enamored by this new chance to throw out all sorts of malcontents that they give them the benefit of the doubt and there is a majority for leave. The government then says screw that, and opts for an EEA approach. The PM might get changed but it will be for a Boris or a Gove who also favour an EEA approach so no different. The voters are extremely pissed off but it's a choice of Tory/EEA or bring the government down and Corbyn/EU++, so EEA it is. What is the point of that Vote.Kipper prospectus, and who misled who ?
Firstly, if the consensus is Leave altogether and the government of the day does not deliver that it gets voted out of office. That is more likely if that is the choice that people made because that is the prospectus on which Leave fought but even if it isn't it is possible that in the 2 or more years we are negotiating people think sod this, the deal being offered by rEU is not worth having, we are off.
Secondly, as I have said, if we move to the EEA we don't have to stay there and it would still be possible for UKIP to campaign for greater border controls etc and try to persuade people of that.
The question is what is the priority and for me that is to leave the EU, restore a range of powers to our elected Parliament and demonstrate by our actions that there is absolutely nothing inevitable about ever closer union. If we do I think others will leave too and that the EU may end up a much looser association, possibly with an integrated core.
UKIP look to me like people who will only eat cake if it is chocolate with a cherry on top. If they say it is either chocolate and cherry or nothing they will end up with nothing.
Never know they could go for a surprise.....somebody from the Indy? Plenty of lefties out of a job there. The wake held at the BBC after that news, I am surprised they didn't announce an "Indy Relief" to match Sport Relief and Comic Relief. Perhaps hiring some of their staff could be their contribution.
Never know they could go for a surprise.....somebody from the Indy? Plenty of lefties out of a job there. The wake held at the BBC after that news, I am surprised they didn't announce an "Indy Relief" to match Sport Relief and Comic Relief. Perhaps hiring some of their staff could be their contribution.
Hmm. Is the site a little slow for anyone else? Nothing major, but there's a small delay when typing, scrolling, etc. I thought it might be my PC, and maybe it is, but other sites seem ok.
The question is what is the priority and for me that is to leave the EU, restore a range of powers to our elected Parliament and demonstrate by our actions that there is absolutely nothing inevitable about ever closer union. If we do I think others will leave too and that the EU may end up a much looser association, possibly with an integrated core.
UKIP look to me like people who will only eat cake if it is chocolate with a cherry on top. If they say it is either chocolate and cherry or nothing they will end up with nothing.
There is some truth in that, but the current deal is a massive hostage to fortune, if there is any backsliding on the other side of the deal, the kippers, half the Tories and a large chunk of the public are going to tear the government a new one.
Talk about ending your leadership in ignominy, the ECJ rejects the deal on migrants benefits as discriminatory after the government spent four months telling everyone how they could be trusted and how the deal was the bee's knees. It could go as far as causing a vote of confidence in the government, I wouldn't want to be the one hoping that Peter Bone and friends didn't abstain.
Coming home and rejecting the renegotiation as worthless, and pitching the EU on its merits would be been both intellectually vastly more honest, and far less prone to blowing up in his face.
"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.
Dan Hodges' has thoroughly embarrassed himself today. He fails to see the importance of a report published by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi and Martin Schulz outlining proposals that could severely impact the UK.
And there was another secret plan. It was contained in something called the “Five Presidents' Report”. These mysterious Five Presidents were going to take over everything and enforce social, budgetary and political union. Worse, they were going to stop us recycling teabags, and prevent children under eight from blowing up balloons. So we had to get out! We had to get out now!!!!
Firstly, if the consensus is Leave altogether and the government of the day does not deliver that it gets voted out of office. That is more likely if that is the choice that people made because that is the prospectus on which Leave fought but even if it isn't it is possible that in the 2 or more years we are negotiating people think sod this, the deal being offered by rEU is not worth having, we are off.
This is the bit I have trouble with, the GE isn't until 2020, and Labour can't put down a confidence motion criticising the government for not doing something that they voted against as well! Even then people might be deeply pissed off with the government for not delivering, but they are still not going to vote for Corbyn, so it doesn't matter.
The whole impression of impunity is very unedifying, its rather like Cameron and Osborne's recent performances, it feels like they believe they can more or less ignore what the voters want because they are never going to put Jezza in office.
Mr. Indigo, I agree entirely. Labour have not only shafted themselves by foolishly allowing a socialist to be their leader, it's also allowed the Conservatives to take the electorate for granted because the alternative is the kind of muppet who is unhappy at the idea of shooting suicide bombers.
"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.
Dan Hodges' has thoroughly embarrassed himself today. He fails to see the importance of a report published by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi and Martin Schulz outlining proposals that could severely impact the UK.
And there was another secret plan. It was contained in something called the “Five Presidents' Report”. These mysterious Five Presidents were going to take over everything and enforce social, budgetary and political union. Worse, they were going to stop us recycling teabags, and prevent children under eight from blowing up balloons. So we had to get out! We had to get out now!!!!
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.
1960 was a close election 2016 will be a close election which Hillary is likely to win, she will certainly win Pennsylvania it even voted for Kerry and probably Nevada too with Castro on the ticket
He’s with a pile of makeup putting it on his face, and I say Marco, easy with the makeup, you don’t need that much.... I saw him backstage, he was putting it on with a trowel.
Funny that when we make exactly the same point about 27 other countries and the EU Parliament having to ratify the Cameron rengotiation you seem to think it us not a problem.
The differences being that (a) the renegotiation is a fairly small adjustment, not a completely new agreement, (b) in the case of the exit negotiation, we don't even know what we'd be asking for yet, (c) the other 27 countries have actually agreed to the renegotiation deal, in writing, and (d) failure of the renegotiation deal wouldn't lead to total chaos.
Other than that, good point.
It is a good point and one you have completely failed to refute.
(a) The fact it is in your words "a fairly small adjustment" makes it even more likely it will be rejected by one o those 27 countries. Particularly as they know the consequences for them will be nothing at all. (b) Straw man argument. We are talking about rejection of the renegotiation - the one that was apparently significant enough to convince you the city would be protected. (c) The political leaders of those countries have agreed. That doesn't mean the countries themselves have agreed. They are all democracies who have their own means of ratifying agreements. At the very least for most of them that means Parliamentary ratification. For some it will mean a possible referendum before it is finally enshrined in treaty. If Cameron came back having agreed to something that required Parliamentary approval would you say it was absolutely set in stone before he got that? (d) Straw Man argument just as point (b) was.
You seem to ascribe all the best intentions to other EU countries when they are being asked to do something you agree with and all the worst of intentions when they are going to be asked to do something you disagree with. It is a most disingenuous position to adopt.
You seem to ascribe all the best intentions to other EU countries when they are being asked to do something you agree with and all the worst of intentions when they are going to be asked to do something you disagree with. It is a most disingenuous position to adopt.
That had me laughing out loud, Richard! Excellent stuff!
We shall consider four scenarios, for the time period out to about 2030 (i.e. the next 15 years): Deeper political union Muddle on through Collapse Looser partnership
John Harwood @JohnJHarwood Christie endorsing Trump: Marco Rubio "wholly unprepared to be president"
Looks like Rubio is now in deep, deep trouble.
A typical strategy is to have surrogates do the dirty job for you, Trump will still go after Rubio but now has Christie do the dirty job for him, and Christie has proven that he can do it.
Anyway Trump right now is using the press conference to pile on Rubio.
On Fox News the headline is "Trump: Rubio has abandoned Florida as their senator" , and everyone is watching it because of the breaking news with Christie.
You seem to ascribe all the best intentions to other EU countries when they are being asked to do something you agree with and all the worst of intentions when they are going to be asked to do something you disagree with. It is a most disingenuous position to adopt.
That had me laughing out loud, Richard! Excellent stuff!
Trump has recruited Christie to go after him big big time on his behalf.
Looks like it's over.
It was over after Nevada, Trump is just making sure that Rubio's chances go as close to zero as possible and make people understand that Rubio has a zero chance.
Once again Trump is thinking 2 steps ahead, he knows he's winning he just wants that 100% assurance that he will win, not just 99% or 90%.
Comments
They fall either because we get a leftwing government in the UK, which decided to go "all in" while it can. If we get a Corbynite government next, we will be in all of those, and more or less irreversibly so, the only way that doesn't happen, is not to be in the EU.
Leaving that to one side, the Eurozone continues to integrate, and decides that transactions in Euros can only take place in Eurozone countries, vote is passed by QMV, we object, and the ECJ rules against us. see Denmark in 1982 to see what the ECJ thinks about political promises. Do we sit by and let the city load a huge chunk of business, or do we join the Euro ?
Twenty years ago we elected a leftwing government on a landslide with a pro-European Prime Minister who wanted to go "all in". In the time since then the only thing that's had a material affect on most people's day-to-day experience of being in the EU was the expansion to include most of the Eastern block.
Sir Michael Rose is quoted as stating
'sovereignty and security are intrinsically linked and in recent years we've seen the EU erode our sovereignty'.
These are but a few of the risks of Remain....
While we have uncontrolled immigration from the EU, our governments attitude to low skilled British workers seem to me to be the equivalent of someone breaking your legs and providing free physio afterwards when theyd rather be given a chance to play
LEAVE can appeal to the masses by promising the chance of a decent wage with no competition from people with such an unfair advantage as the status quo allows
£££££££
There is a difference of view on this which in simplistic terms is the difference between the Kippers and the Tories. Most Tories want to remain in the EEA and Single Market. Most Kippers don't, at least not without probably undeliverable restrictions on freedom of movement.
The opportunity to Leave the EU is in danger of being lost in this difference of view. Without a clear and unequivocal answer nurse will be held onto, even if she smells.
My answer is that step (a) can lead to step (b) if (a) turns out not to be satisfactory. Step (b), as a first step looks too risky to sell. But there needs to be a consensus on this and I don't see one.
Did we expect millions of migrants to be encouraged by Merkel/EU? Was that a plan?
Did we expect Schengen to fall/border controls to return?
I'd say it came as quite a shock actually, and undermines the "risk free" REMAIN argument
Two British politicians have written to the NFL calling on it to stop the Washington Redskins from playing in London later this year because of concerns about the team's name.
Labour Party MPs Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter that the NFL "should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur
What is it with these people . Just utterly deranged.
http://news.sky.com/story/1649104/uk-politicians-want-to-stop-redskins-london-game
Obviously, actual Euro, Yen, Dollar transactions can happen anywhere.
Once we do that, they will fall over themselves to help.
Actually, this might more accurately be attributed to Eck, but Boris is the most recent proponent
Yes you may prefer to be shackled to the decaying corpse of an economic union from the last century, others of us are in the 21st century.
Now let us please end the childish labels.
*A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation —from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack.
You could say the same about asking a class in a school if they wanted to go on a trip to the same place as last year or somewhere new. The "same" brigade will say "ok, where do you want to go then, how much does it cost" etc. It is perfectly respectable to decide to go somewhere new, and then talk about where to go, especially if it is the teacher that actually makes the decision.
Indeed, and will do so wherever they are done best.
London has been doing financial business for countries all over the world for centuries on the basis that it is the best place to do them. That will continue outside the EU, provided the City remains sharp enough to ensure it is the best place.
The structure of City business may look a bit different 5-10 years after Brexit, but it has changed many times before.
Cameron was politically wise to go for the minimal time period for the Referendum, but on another level it does look rather panicked, for fear of what is coming down the pike... His risk is that if, heaven forbid, there is an incident of some sort - whether political or terrorist - then he has far less time to counter any voter knee-jerk reaction toward Leave. I also think that having insulted the intelligence of voters once, they would be far less inclined to give him the political benefit of the doubt again
He is a significant hostage to a Black Swan event over the coming four months.
Other than that, good point.
So after experimenting with different candidates for a while they went for the conservative democrat from Arkansas, who sounded like Elvis, on Super Tuesday.
I see day by the day the constraints that ill-conceived European regulation is drawing around the City. Let's put it down to naivety and lack of understanding rather than malice.
Outside that constraint, yes, the Euro business may be impacted (but if clients want to buy our services we will find a way to deliver them). But we can chase full-tilt for the global business.
Inside we will be more constrained on European business and ham-strung on international business.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12138611/Brexit-would-not-lead-to-golden-world-of-deregulation-says-Bank-deputy.html
jeez I hate to think what these two Labour MPs or even an Oxford student would make of that?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/703162583772049408
We are talking orders of magnitude of difference of risk here.
'sigh'
It's not just about 'less' regulation Richard, it's about regulation that is smart and is appropriate for the UK. I thought only the bone-headed lefties couldn't understand the difference.
Not betting on the rugby. Suspect Wales will win, by a small margin.
Wonder who they will go for.....
Why, why, why, Delilah
All together now, even you Chris Bryant...
Secondly, as I have said, if we move to the EEA we don't have to stay there and it would still be possible for UKIP to campaign for greater border controls etc and try to persuade people of that.
The question is what is the priority and for me that is to leave the EU, restore a range of powers to our elected Parliament and demonstrate by our actions that there is absolutely nothing inevitable about ever closer union. If we do I think others will leave too and that the EU may end up a much looser association, possibly with an integrated core.
UKIP look to me like people who will only eat cake if it is chocolate with a cherry on top. If they say it is either chocolate and cherry or nothing they will end up with nothing.
https://www.theguardian.com/info/2014/oct/22/the-guardian-us-team-reporters-and-correspondents
I rarely ever agree with her. Her last column was about out opts of compulsory organ donation.
WTF?
Talk about ending your leadership in ignominy, the ECJ rejects the deal on migrants benefits as discriminatory after the government spent four months telling everyone how they could be trusted and how the deal was the bee's knees. It could go as far as causing a vote of confidence in the government, I wouldn't want to be the one hoping that Peter Bone and friends didn't abstain.
Coming home and rejecting the renegotiation as worthless, and pitching the EU on its merits would be been both intellectually vastly more honest, and far less prone to blowing up in his face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyvXUAKEdUo
Trump landslide forecast...
Yes @tedcruz; @realdonaldtrump did fire me on Celebrity Apprentice. But he's about to fire your ass too! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
The whole impression of impunity is very unedifying, its rather like Cameron and Osborne's recent performances, it feels like they believe they can more or less ignore what the voters want because they are never going to put Jezza in office.
Hodges is another no-borders loon, of course he loves the EU.
Gianni Infantino becomes new FIFA president and promises to 'work with all of you to restore a new era
Trump/Christie - it's like a surrealist novel.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/
It's time for the GOP to get behind the Donald.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/boris-cameron-eu-referendum-remain-prime-minister_n_9328366.html?1456505954
GOP madness continues or Christie figuring get HRC in for one term and then have another go?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35674192
John Harwood @JohnJHarwood
Christie endorsing Trump: Marco Rubio "wholly unprepared to be president"
Looks like Rubio is now in deep, deep trouble.
(a) The fact it is in your words "a fairly small adjustment" makes it even more likely it will be rejected by one o those 27 countries. Particularly as they know the consequences for them will be nothing at all.
(b) Straw man argument. We are talking about rejection of the renegotiation - the one that was apparently significant enough to convince you the city would be protected.
(c) The political leaders of those countries have agreed. That doesn't mean the countries themselves have agreed. They are all democracies who have their own means of ratifying agreements. At the very least for most of them that means Parliamentary ratification. For some it will mean a possible referendum before it is finally enshrined in treaty. If Cameron came back having agreed to something that required Parliamentary approval would you say it was absolutely set in stone before he got that?
(d) Straw Man argument just as point (b) was.
You seem to ascribe all the best intentions to other EU countries when they are being asked to do something you agree with and all the worst of intentions when they are going to be asked to do something you disagree with. It is a most disingenuous position to adopt.
Trump has recruited Christie to go after him big big time on his behalf.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12174582/How-the-EU-would-dominate-us-if-we-stayed-inside.html
Time for some traffic problems in the establishment lane
Anyway Trump right now is using the press conference to pile on Rubio.
On Fox News the headline is "Trump: Rubio has abandoned Florida as their senator" , and everyone is watching it because of the breaking news with Christie.
To dump a second bucket of manure over him while advancing his own national prospects must be delicious.
Trump 360
Clinton 178
which is very close to my own pre-Norpoth forecast...
Brian Beutler @brianbeutler
The effect of Christie’s actions today and on the debate stage won’t just be to deny Rubio the nomination, but to end his political career.
Easy to forget but Rubio is abdicating his Senate seat. If he loses the nom, he’ll have a hard time clawing his way back into the arena.
Maybe he can try selling watches in Manhattan.
Once again Trump is thinking 2 steps ahead, he knows he's winning he just wants that 100% assurance that he will win, not just 99% or 90%.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/10/25/28cfaff0-6d59-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
Cheers for the answer.