The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
@ScottyNational: EU : Nicola Sturgeon states she wants overwhelming win to stay in. '55% or above should settle it you would hope...'
For Casino_Royale on what Leave needs to do. We need to explain it is better for UK politicians that we can throw out to determine how many benefits we need at work and where the best balance is for the UK.
There is an anecdotal assumption by many on the left that workers' rights will be severely curtailed if we leave the EU. This is an area LEAVE needs to address to try and get more of the tribal Labour and rump Lib Dem (which is still ~ 35% of the voting electorate) onboard.
The argument is fundamentally undemocratic. It is that there is a risk that if these matters were determined in the UK those nasty Tories may well take those rights away. If they are determined by people we do not elect and cannot throw out of office they are safe.
How do you address this without a snort of disgust? I am really not sure. Pointing out that Tories who, for example, reduced maternity rights would probably not get re-elected is unlikely to do it.
There is nothing anti-democratic about pointing out that the Tories and Labour can get an overall majority on 37% of the vote and can introduce policies that the majority are opposed to.
Sure, but the voters can elect a left wing government (and have done) which extends workers' statutory rights.
The very worst argument for Remain is that it stops an elected government from legislating in ways you don't like.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
I would urge them to stop taking about theoretical rubbish like sovereignty and start talking about practical realities. So, for example, if we come out of the EU we come out of CAP. Who on earth wants to defend the CAP? We need to explain how the £2.5bn could be better spent giving us a better environment and cheaper food. We need to explain what we could do if we once again controlled our own fisheries and help our coastal towns who have suffered so badly. We need to explain it is better for UK politicians that we can throw out to determine how many benefits we need at work and where the best balance is for the UK. We need to be clear that we recognise the importance of the Single Market and accept that that imposes some limitations on what we can do even outside the EU. We need to explain how EFTA and the EEA work together where that is in their interests and that we would too. This is not goodbye but a different relationship
If we vote to leave we will negotiate a new deal with the EU well in advance of the next election. That will tie us just as much as our current membership does. The idea that we will just be able to change governments and so change the terms of our relationship with the EU is fanciful. The EU would first have to agree.
Our new agreement with the EU would cover the Single Market, the 4 freedoms related to that, possibly our terms of trade with third parties that we wanted to sign up to but it would not cover any of the points I have mentioned in any detail and control of these matters would return to the UK.
Of course the agreements on the Single Market might impose some restrictions on farming support because they would otherwise have an unfair competitive advantage within that single market. Leaving the CFP does not mean our part of the north sea will suddenly be teeming with cod again. There may well be common sense in coordinating our conservation measures with others in the north sea.
But these are then matters for negotiation and agreement. We are no longer bound by QMV rules of a club we are no longer members of. That is really the point.
But we will be bound by a new agreement and would not just be able to vote out a government in order to change it. So everything depends on what that agreement says. It may say what you want it to say, or it may not. We don't know. And that is the problem.
oH dear can.t read a simple survey Thought I was answering Remain and Leave %. Can't edit it either.!! I see quite a few others whose numbers add up to exactly 100% presumably they made the same mistake.
If you make a mistake, enter again with the same name/email and I'll remove the first.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
I can guarantee right now that if Leave loses, by whatever margin, then Leavers will be convinced that it wasn't fair.
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
I can guarantee right now that if Leave loses, by whatever margin, then Leavers will be convinced that it wasn't fair.
Like. We'll never hear the last of it. Politics isn't fair.
For Casino_Royale on what Leave needs to do. We need to explain it is better for UK politicians that we can throw out to determine how many benefits we need at work and where the best balance is for the UK.
There is an anecdotal assumption by many on the left that workers' rights will be severely curtailed if we leave the EU. This is an area LEAVE needs to address to try and get more of the tribal Labour and rump Lib Dem (which is still ~ 35% of the voting electorate) onboard.
The argument is fundamentally undemocratic. It is that there is a risk that if these matters were determined in the UK those nasty Tories may well take those rights away. If they are determined by people we do not elect and cannot throw out of office they are safe.
How do you address this without a snort of disgust? I am really not sure. Pointing out that Tories who, for example, reduced maternity rights would probably not get re-elected is unlikely to do it.
There is nothing anti-democratic about pointing out that the Tories and Labour can get an overall majority on 37% of the vote and can introduce policies that the majority are opposed to.
Sure, but the voters can elect a left wing government (and have done) which extends workers' statutory rights.
The very worst argument for Remain is that it stops an elected government from legislating in ways you don't like.
Not if you are seeking to appeal to those who favour the employment and social rights that people have currently. It may not be accurate, but it may well be effective. It's one of the ways to get left of centre voters to turn out in what currently looks like an argument among Tories.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
I can guarantee right now that if Leave loses, by whatever margin, then Leavers will be convinced that it wasn't fair.
Like. We'll never hear the last of it. Politics isn't fair.
Life's not fair. Scar from the Lion King taught me that.
I heard from two friends last night, both life-long eurosceptics, who are now "on the fence". One is a partner in a law firm, the other an international security risk consultant.
A third, who's voted UKIP in the past, was going to vote Leave, but has changed his mind off the back of Cameron's deal. He works as a senior statistician in a major pharmaceutical company.
All are AB professionals, all graduates, all homeowners, and all live in the south-east.
I am following up with each of them, but Leave really should have all their votes in the bag.
Agreed. It's clearly working. In effect the British people are being bullied, if not terrorised, into voting REMAIN, by the elite. It's an odious spectacle. As I've said before, post-referendum the emotional backlash - and the recriminations in the Tory party - will be intense. The europhiles will get their victory, but they will be made to suffer afterwards, as happened in Scotland.
Why when REMAIN state the negatives consequences they forsee if we leave it's "project fear" but when LEAVE tell us Turkey is going to join the EU and we are going to be overrun with muslims etc - that's fair comment?
Both sides are as bad as each other in the scare stories they come out with to suit their particular viewpoint. But it poses the obvious question, if "fear" is the potent voting driver you claim it is why does it only work for the REMAIN side?
It very much looks like to me as though LEAVE are getting their excuses in early. In Indyref you say "Project Fear" won it, I say people weighed the options and thought it wasn't worth the risk.
If people are as incapable of rationally making their own decisions as you suggest then doesn't that somewhat negate the purpose of returning "sovereignty" to the UK, as clearly, in your opinion, people wont know what to do with it anyway.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
I can guarantee right now that if Leave loses, by whatever margin, then Leavers will be convinced that it wasn't fair.
If Leave win that will not be the end of the arguments - we will then start on where we leave to plus endless arguments about endless other treaties and laws. And if Leave win the arguments and demands on how we treat immigrants and blacks and muslims will only just begin.
Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote.
Not exactly.
He said whichever side wins the losers needs to know they lost
I think GO will discover he has lost a few friends come budget time - he's in for a difficult time as his deficit delay goes on and on and on...
Agreed, there's not much appetite for tax rises within his party without some serious accompanying spending cuts - think closing/merging whole departments rather than the tinkering around the edges which has gone on so far.
And in previous years he has had the party rally round him. Not so much this year. The year when the deficit is eliminated goes back and back...
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood's guidance says ministers opposing the official government line should not be given access to government papers on the referendum or Prime Minister David Cameron's EU renegotiations - apart from ones they had already seen.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
'Democratic will of the people'? Based on that logic, we should only have one more general election. Tories, get in, sorted. No need for another one - democratic will of the people has spoken.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
Well like Ted Cruz in Iowa going against ethanol subsidies, Leave should be bold enough to put forward these arguments. But its a many headed beast, so obviously it won't as it can't be clear on this and many other issues.
Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote.
Not exactly.
He said whichever side wins the losers needs to know they lost
Is that like the Scottish Referendum where the unionists are still fixated on it and cannot stop whinging about a second one. Losers are perfectly happy but the "Winners" seem incapable of accepting it.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
Once we vote to leave we are not negotiating from the status quo ante.
Once we vote to leave, if there is no agreement, then they lose preferred access to the UK market. So, overall, the deal has to be acceptable to both sides - which will not be the case if it is worse than the current one for the UK
Or for the EU member states. So what you are, in fact, saying is that the best deal doable is basically the one we have currently.
No. I am saying that we are negotiating from a different starting point, so we don't necessarily need to give up something to get restrictions on movement.
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
South Korea is in Schengen "Visa-free access to the Schengen states for 90 days in any 180 day period, although some Annex II nationals can enjoy longer visa-free access in some circumstances (EC 539/2001 Annex II)".
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
'Democratic will of the people'? Based on that logic, we should only have one more general election. Tories, get in, sorted. No need for another one - democratic will of the people has spoken.
On your logic we should have a 'Leave' referendum every 5 years? So how big a win for Remain before you accept it and how often do you want 'Leave' referenda?
Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.
If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!
Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.
Hypocrite.
Dullard
Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.
Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
If that is the elected government's choice so be it. I would like us to focus on the ecological health and diversity of our landscape rather than subsidising production and personally would be prepared to pay farmers to do what was necessary to achieve it.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
This is one of the weird thing about the renegotiation deal: Some of it needs a treaty, but if this treaty ever happens, it will most likely be put to a referendum in Britain, and the British will vote it down.
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
'Democratic will of the people'? Based on that logic, we should only have one more general election. Tories, get in, sorted. No need for another one - democratic will of the people has spoken.
It's certainly imaginable that a Government should be elected until a referendum calls for another GE...
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
I can guarantee right now that if Leave loses, by whatever margin, then Leavers will be convinced that it wasn't fair.
If Leave win that will not be the end of the arguments - we will then start on where we leave to plus endless arguments about endless other treaties and laws. And if Leave win the arguments and demands on how we treat immigrants and blacks and muslims will only just begin.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
@ScottyNational: EU : Nicola Sturgeon states she wants overwhelming win to stay in. '55% or above should settle it you would hope...'
Yep 55% has worked so well in Scotland....
Scott is not so quick on the uptake , a visit to Scotland to see reality may help him.
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
as a country dweller I would hope we would eliminate all subsidies to the financial sector :-)
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
This is one of the weird thing about the renegotiation deal: Some of it needs a treaty, but if this treaty ever happens, it will most likely be put to a referendum in Britain, and the British will vote it down.
If we have triggered Article 50 then we would be voting on Leave+Deal or Leave+NoDeal. I'm not sure there would be a referendum as the second option would be clearly terrible.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Like all those dire warnings we were given if we didn't join the Euro?
Just heard Chris Grayling unable to explain what our new trading arrangements would be if we left the EU other than to say we buy a 'lot of stuff' from the French and their farmers are a feisty bunch so don't tell me they won't work out some sort of a trading agreement with us....and the Germans too with their cars....
It's not that he didn't know that bothers me it all sounded so Heath Robinson. I know the British like a gung ho spirit but it just felt so 2nd World War...
Of course, the practical effect of not agreeing a deal with the Germans and the French would be potentially to make their imports more expensive to buy for British consumers, so reducing choice. If BMWs, Volkswagens, FIATs, SEATs, Peugeots, Citroens, Ladas etc go up in price, that increases demand for cars imported in from elsewhere or manufactured in the UK. What is the obvious supplier reaction to increased demand and less competition? It is not to reduce prices.
French agricultural products? The premium ones - Champagne, other wines, cheeses and so on - can only be obtained from France. So that just means higher prices for them. As it does for similar types of product from elsewhere in the EU.
Then there is the specialist stuff that we import and which is hard to source from elsewhere. That is still going to come from the EU, but will just be more expensive.
Two questions the EU member states will be asking themselves during a negotiation are: how much of our current exports to the UK can we bank whatever happens?; and, for the rest, how willing is the British government to inflict higher prices and reduced competition on British consumers in order to drive a deal.
None of this is brain surgery.
The fact is that we only get a Brexit deal once it has been negotiated. And the negotiation is not a one way street. What Leave needs to tell us is which of the freedoms we currently enjoy are we going to have to give up to get what we want.
Of course, if we just join the EEA none of this will be much of an issue. But neither will we be in a position to reduce immigration from the EU in any meaningful way.
It saddens me that I have to compliment you on talking such common sense.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood's guidance says ministers opposing the official government line should not be given access to government papers on the referendum or Prime Minister David Cameron's EU renegotiations - apart from ones they had already seen.
I would imagine that Mr Gove in particular is consulting his leaned friends about that. Expect it to be challenged if it restricts the workings of his department and can't be worked around eg by having a junior minister get a briefing from the CS on behalf of his master.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Ya Ricardo
thing is if you were shit scared the world would fall off a cliff because of Brexit, wouldn't it make more sense to tell Germany and France to pull their fingers out before the negotiations rather than the british electorate afterward ?
I believe Remain will win by around 52/48 and that's when the problems will start.
The first occasion the EU work against us, say by increasing our contribution, demanding we help bail out another Eurozone member or whatever, then the country will be up in arms. Cameron, Osborne and the rest will be seen as the snivelling, lying bullies that they are, and the next referendum won't take 40 years, more like four.
I believe we will be out by 2022 come what may.
Yes, exactly. As soon as the "deal" is proved to be worthless, and a con - which it will, in fairly short order - the anger will be intense, within and without the Tory party (but, especially, within). Portraits of Cameron will be used as dartboards. Osborne will be continuously pelted with enormous cowpats in the Commons. By his own MPs. Etc.
Who knows where the Tories will go then.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
So, both of you Leavers think Remain will win by 4% or so, but that won't make you give up. How big a Remain win will it take for you to accept it as the democratic will of the people?
'Democratic will of the people'? Based on that logic, we should only have one more general election. Tories, get in, sorted. No need for another one - democratic will of the people has spoken.
On your logic we should have a 'Leave' referendum every 5 years? So how big a win for Remain before you accept it and how often do you want 'Leave' referenda?
I accept realities. If Remain win, they've won. That doesn't mean I'll change my mind; you don't have to be popular to be right.
In terms of how often? As often as we need. The idea that we have one chance to influence some of the massive changes the EU will need to undertake for the salvation of the Euro is daft, and frankly, undemocratic.
That said, I'd rather a government decided that we were going to leave based on the national interest. This referendum was a gambit to secure Cameron's election chances.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
This is one of the weird thing about the renegotiation deal: Some of it needs a treaty, but if this treaty ever happens, it will most likely be put to a referendum in Britain, and the British will vote it down.
That's how I think we might end up leaving, by default, without an explicit in/out referendum. We will vote down a treaty and the only way to square the circle will be to negotiate some associate member status - in effect leaving, but without calling it that, so no one gets too het up.
Remember we first entered the EEC without a referendum. So there is a fairly emphatic precedent.
And the PM who denied the voters a say in the matter never won another election...
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
We would probably still need to maintain strategic agricultural reserve capacity which means subsidies, though it wouldn't have to be anywhere near as extensive (and expensive) as the CAP.
Boris is playing exactly the same game as Dave by pretending that we are going to get meaningful reforms on free movement in any agreement we reach with the EU should there be a Leave vote.
At least one of them is going to be hated whatever the result. Dave or Boris is set to become the Right's Blair - despised by his own side for the betrayals he will have committed.
Except Canada and South Korea have it, and MigrationWatch have estimated immigration would drop by 100,000 if we left. So your charge of dishonesty is very weak. Unlike Cameron who told such an outright lie even Richard Nabavi accepts its untrue.
Canada and South Korea have never been a part of a multi-national free movement agreement, so have never been in a position where they have had to ask anyone they are negotiating with to give that up. Migration Watch is not a disinterested observer and has not explained on what basis this 100,000 figure would be achieved. It certainly would not be if we were part of the EEA.
Canada has very much been part of a multinational free movement agreement. It was called the Commonwealth. They migrated from that to just free trade between them and UK.
As fr MigrationWatch, their only interest is to reduce immigration, so its an interest that enhances their credibility.
I'm not sure Commonwealth guaranteed freedom of movement, did it? I mean it did for us Brits, but other than that, it was pretty patchy.
The commonweath didn't and nor did the empire. For completeness, empire free trade was also a chimera.
I heard from two friends last night, both life-long eurosceptics, who are now "on the fence". One is a partner in a law firm, the other an international security risk consultant.
A third, who's voted UKIP in the past, was going to vote Leave, but has changed his mind off the back of Cameron's deal. He works as a senior statistician in a major pharmaceutical company.
All are AB professionals, all graduates, all homeowners, and all live in the south-east.
I am following up with each of them, but Leave really should have all their votes in the bag.
Agreed. It's clearly working. In effect the British people are being bullied, if not terrorised, into voting REMAIN, by the elite. It's an odious spectacle. As I've said before, post-referendum the emotional backlash - and the recriminations in the Tory party - will be intense. The europhiles will get their victory, but they will be made to suffer afterwards, as happened in Scotland.
Indeed, I really want to tell them to get a backbone and that they're being taken for fools and will live to regret their decision (without actually saying that, of course, which might damage our friendship)
My particular problem with REMAIN is that it is the government selling it. My government. A Tory government I voted for. And this Tory government is clearly and desperately lying to me.
Call me Mister Naive but I find it quite shocking. I will never forget Cameron selling that piece-of-shit "deal" as some great reform. Standing there on my TV screen telling a total pack of lies - and he knew they were lies. And on the most important of subjects.
I genuinely didn't expect him to act in such a morally degraded way. It's rather depressing, in truth.
Having fled Labour post-Cornbyn I find my self in the odd position of really disliking the smug personna that is Cameron but voting Conservative if there was a GE tomorrow. Corbyn would be a disaster and Cameron is sufficiently socially liberal and centrist for me to vote for - and at the end of the day it really is a binary choice. The reasons he attracts me probably repel others. Such is politics.
"project Fear" (I'll humour you!) will win IMO because it's threats are more credible. If I genuinely believed that we would be overrun by Turkish muslims if we REMAIN then I would vote LERAVE like a shot. Unfortunately I don't believe it for a second.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
There are a very large number of sensible commentators who think it will be fine as well.
Looking at Poland, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria it appears that between 1-3% of their populations have moved to the UK since accession.
There are 85m Serbians, Turks, Macedonians, Albanians and citizens of Montenegro on the waiting list.
Previous history implies between 850,000 and 2.5m further arrivals if they are granted access.
What is Remain's position? Free movement?
How are they going to fund the schools, housing, healthcare etc that will be required, and how will Remain ensure that this influx of labour isn't detrimental to UK citizens' wages?
@DavidL "Leave" has a real problem on these issues. For instance if David Cameron was advocating "Leave" he would reassure farmers that they would not suffer if we left the CAP, could say no worker's rights will be reduced etc etc Of course the long term view of future Gov'ts is unknown on these issues so all promises are in effect worthless come say 2035 when we've been out the EU and have gone through a few Gov't cycles... But people generally don't look beyond 5 years anyhow.
As is he is going to make no such promises - he is the Remainer in chief ! It's a tricky one for "Leave" as I say.
I agree with that but the fact is the UK receives back about £2.5bn a year from the CAP for UK farmers. The system is extraordinarily complicated as the Scottish government have demonstrated by their failure to get payments out recently. The Westminster government had similar problems a few years ago.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
I would hope we would eliminate practically all agricultural subsidies post Brexit.
We would probably still need to maintain strategic agricultural reserve capacity which means subsidies, though it wouldn't have to be anywhere near as extensive (and expensive) as the CAP.
More importantly, any agriculture scheme would be designed around the needs of the UK, rather than having to accommodate 27 other farming industries.
It would also open up markets outside the EU, so we could for example buy cheap food from African countries desparately to sell to us rather than rely on aid.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
There are a very large number of sensible commentators who think it will be fine as well.
But you choose to ignore those.
Richard has a touch of the double Nelsons at times.
@dlknowles: @TomChivers@PCollinsTimes I can mostly sum up why I have become a passionate europhile of late in three words: Iain Duncan Smith
This the biggest problem for Leave.
All of the main spokespeople are off-putting to large parts of the target electorate.
Cameron, while some (especially here) dislike him, he won a GE with a majority. He doesn't attract nearly as much venom as his opponents in general, and some of those who do despise him (Nats for example) are on the same side of the argument
The Cabinet Office report on Brexit is complex and it is fair to say daunting to the leave campaign. However, I do not think branding every warning as ‘Project Fear’ will prove a success as those voters living their day to day lives are bound to take on some of the concerns. Leave need to make their own positive case which to date they have singularly failed to do. Boris is suggesting that Osborne lent on the G20 leaders to come out with serious economic warnings on Brexit that do not suit leave’s case but is he seriously suggesting the leaders of the USA, China, the IMF and everyone else is simply going to do Osborne’s bidding. Leave need to get their act together quickly if they want to win the referendum and lay out exactly how they are going to agree trade deals and prevent free movement of labour into the UK. Leave seem to think the migration crisis will work in their favour, which it may, but we already have control of our borders and David Cameron has lead the EU by example on how the crisis should be dealt with and this will not change whether we remain or leave. As far as David Cameron is concerned I cannot see anyone taking over from him in the short term as there is no one, and I mean no one, anywhere near him as a suitable candidate for Prime Minister. I do not see Osborne or Boris as suitable candidates and the Conservative party will need to take a sensible time post the referendum, irrespective of the result, to heal the wounds and eventually start the process of David Cameron’s succession but at the same time remember that they are the party of Government and they must put the Country first.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Like all those dire warnings we were given if we didn't join the Euro?
@dlknowles: @TomChivers@PCollinsTimes I can mostly sum up why I have become a passionate europhile of late in three words: Iain Duncan Smith
This the biggest problem for Leave.
All of the main spokespeople are off-putting to large parts of the target electorate.
Cameron, while some (especially here) dislike him, he won a GE with a majority. He doesn't attract nearly as much venom as his opponents in general, and some of those who do despise him (Nats for example) are on the same side of the argument
All the most effective ministers appear to be leavers ?
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
There are a very large number of sensible commentators who think it will be fine as well.
But you choose to ignore those.
I don't ignore them at at all. I consider the possibility that they might be right.
The Leavers, on the other hand, not only don't consider the possibility that the warnings might be justified, but are reduced to accusing those who express them of lying, bullying, being careerists, or (most hilariously) of being Cameron or Osborne stooges.
One thing which is clear is that the sensible commentators who think it will be all right are in a small minority of sensible commentators, and, most importantly, the balance of risk is not symmetric. As I've been saying for four years, the Leave side needed to address the uncertainties and the issues about the mechanics of the transition. Absolutely nothing has been done on that score, so the Remain side are filling the vacuum, and quite rightly so: the more one looks at the mechanics of Brexit, the more horrendous they look.
That said, I'd rather a government decided that we were going to leave based on the national interest.
And if the government decides it is in the National interest to stay?
Tactitly, the last forty years have been the government of the day making that decision, if you can call it that.
I think it was Olly saying that Leave is getting its excuses in early. Which is harsh, but fair. You would expect Remain to win, as the government and an overwhelming majority of the establishment is preaching Remain. So I expect my side to lose, which is disappointing.
The other major weakness Leave have is what BRexit looks like in practice. That's really hard to predict, unless you're a shameless liar (ref: Cameron's deal). It's clear that BRexit would polarise the EU.
Do we punish Britain pour encourager les autres? Or do we accept it and get on with a trade deal in a pragmatic fashion. Based on their track record, it seems to me that the former is far more likely.
Ultimately, I'm sanguine. The original EEC of 9, or even 14 countries was workable. The EU as presently constituted, is not. It's just a matter of time.
@TomChivers: @PCollinsTimes if I'm honest my main reason for voting Remain will be because it will annoy people who I enjoy seeing annoyed
Why do you think that the Vote Leave campaign have been so quick to distance themselves from Leave.EU and Grassroots Out which is associated with UKIP, Farrage and now Galloway.
I think the anti-establishment factor is much bigger though, people love to vote against what they see as the interests of elites which is why the letters and G20 warnings are falling on deaf ears.
Oh my goodness! My great-uncle joined the RAMC in WW1 and was killed in September 1915. Before he left for the front, one of his more nationalist brothers refused to see him while wearing British Army uniform and, sadly, never saw him again.
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
There's a lot of fun in Irish history - we lived in and around Galway from the 1170s through to the 1920s, but were never really accepted as locals...
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
'One thing which is clear is that the sensible commentators who think it will be all right are in a small minority of sensible commentators'
No it isn't clear - it is your assertion based on who you think is 'sensible' (which apparently excludes around half the MPs of your own party)
As indeed is your claim that the risks are asymmetrically biased to the downside, which is based on your own personal assessment of them.
Confusing your own spin with reality is a bad habit.
To be honest, runnymede, I don't think I need any lessons from someone whose grip on reality is so tenuous that he actually stated, apparently in all seriousness, that the screw-up over Sir Michael Rose was a deliberate move by No 10.
I wish I could be one tenth as confident as the Leavers here that Brexit won't be the disaster which most well-informed commentators (including all the G20 finance minister) think it will.
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
There are a very large number of sensible commentators who think it will be fine as well.
But you choose to ignore those.
I don't ignore them at at all. I consider the possibility that they might be right.
The Leavers, on the other hand, not only don't consider the possibility that the warnings might be justified, but are reduced to accusing those who express them of lying, bullying, being careerists, or (most hilariously) of being Cameron or Osborne stooges.
One thing which is clear is that the sensible commentators who think it will be all right are in a small minority of sensible commentators, and, most importantly, the balance of risk is not symmetric. As I've been saying for four years, the Leave side needed to address the uncertainties and the issues about the mechanics of the transition. Absolutely nothing has been done on that score, so the Remain side are filling the vacuum, and quite rightly so: the more one looks at the mechanics of Brexit, the more horrendous they look.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
@dlknowles: @TomChivers@PCollinsTimes I can mostly sum up why I have become a passionate europhile of late in three words: Iain Duncan Smith
This the biggest problem for Leave.
All of the main spokespeople are off-putting to large parts of the target electorate.
Cameron, while some (especially here) dislike him, he won a GE with a majority. He doesn't attract nearly as much venom as his opponents in general, and some of those who do despise him (Nats for example) are on the same side of the argument
All the most effective ministers appear to be leavers ?
* Apart from Jeremy Hunt - he is one of the few ministers who have got the job done that are in the Remain camp.
It's possible we might end up leaving the EU without a referendum. The eurozone will federalise soon. This will require a big new treaty. We will vote down a treaty. Thus the UK leaves by default.
This is one of the weird thing about the renegotiation deal: Some of it needs a treaty, but if this treaty ever happens, it will most likely be put to a referendum in Britain, and the British will vote it down.
That's how I think we might end up leaving, by default, without an explicit in/out referendum. We will vote down a treaty and the only way to square the circle will be to negotiate some associate member status - in effect leaving, but without calling it that, so no one gets too het up.
Remember we first entered the EEC without a referendum. So there is a fairly emphatic precedent.
And the PM who denied the voters a say in the matter never won another election...
The politics at the point we get to signing a treaty that bakes in the renegotiation points is likely to be pretty febrile, but surely the technical position is the manifesto only requires a referendum on transferring powers TO the EU from national governments and it is by no means clear to me how a new treaty based on the renegotiation would do that.
The greyest area is probably in the financial regulation section and the right to discriminate between eurozone and non-eurozone members. That part is the foggiest to me, despite endless Richard N ping pongs on it with various sceptics. It all just seems to me like one of those parliamentary irregular verbs where only the connotation not the actual meaning changes - we want special status for the City == Cameron achieved certain opt-outs == the EU has the right to discriminate by delivering certain benefits for the eurozone only.
So far today, two "prominent" Outers on national media
@PaulBrandITV: Lord Howard tells @GMB he still thinks there could be 2nd EU ref: "If we vote to leave there's a chance they may come back with a 2nd deal"
That wanting both sides to lose didn't last long before you got back to banging the Cameroon drum what... 10 minutes ? Ever considered a career in politics ?
That said, I'd rather a government decided that we were going to leave based on the national interest.
And if the government decides it is in the National interest to stay?
Tactitly, the last forty years have been the government of the day making that decision, if you can call it that.
I think it was Olly saying that Leave is getting its excuses in early. Which is harsh, but fair. You would expect Remain to win, as the government and an overwhelming majority of the establishment is preaching Remain. So I expect my side to lose, which is disappointing.
The other major weakness Leave have is what BRexit looks like in practice. That's really hard to predict, unless you're a shameless liar (ref: Cameron's deal). It's clear that BRexit would polarise the EU.
Do we punish Britain pour encourager les autres? Or do we accept it and get on with a trade deal in a pragmatic fashion. Based on their track record, it seems to me that the former is far more likely.
Ultimately, I'm sanguine. The original EEC of 9, or even 14 countries was workable. The EU as presently constituted, is not. It's just a matter of time.
The last bit is more than a little ironic as the Brits were amongst those who pushed hardest for expansion. I think that the thinking at the time was that a broader, shallower EU would be more amenable to us than a narrower deeper one. Another great FO theory which bit the dust.
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
That wanting both sides to lose didn't last long before you got back to banging the Cameroon drum what... 10 minutes ? Ever considered a career in politics ?
Pointing out that the Leavers can't agree which end of an egg to open first is hardly "banging the Cameroon drum"
The politics at the point we get to signing a treaty that bakes in the renegotiation points is likely to be pretty febrile, but surely the technical position is the manifesto only requires a referendum on transferring powers TO the EU from national governments and it is by no means clear to me how a new treaty based on the renegotiation would do that.
There isn't going to be a treaty just over Cameron's thing, it'll be the normal monster ten-year-long something-in-it-for-everybody institutional log-roll. If you shuffle lots of things around you're bound to end up doing something that transfers powers to the EU.
That said, they could barely pass Lisbon, which was almost entirely uncontroversial, in sunnier times, with fewer members. What with more people, lots of tricky issues and everybody narked off at each other, the next treaty of the full EU may never get far enough to have a referendum on.
Assuming, and it’s a very big assumption, I know, that the current Syrian cease-fire develops into some sort of peace in the areas unaffected by IS or Al Nusrah. is not the current flow of refugees from Syria likely to slow down or even be reversed?
Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
Yes, I've read all of those.
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
It's a negotiation.
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
Any time you leave something (job, partner, country) there is a "push" element and a "pull" one.
In my experience, any decision motivated only or largely by the "push" factor can lead to the wrong decision. Once you've left all the factors pushing you to leave have gone. So there needs to be more. You need to have some idea of what the answer to the "then what?" question is.
The committed Leavers are very good on the "push" aspect but hopeless, so far, on the "pull" side, not least because they're torn between those wanting to control immigration and those who still want the trading access and don't care that much about the immigration side. (I'm referring more to the vaguely official campaigns rather than some PB'ers on here who have set out their clear views). This will I think undermine Leave's chance of success.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain. They are deliberately confusing "Remain" with the status quo. Also the government has not helped with the negotiation charade and over-selling the "deal".
Both sides' ambiguity (some might call it dishonesty but I think it better to work on the basis that there are honourable reasons for being on either side of what is a difficult question with no easy answers) will bite them on the a*se in due course. How and when will depend on who wins.
But I continue to think it will be Remain - and probably by a reasonable margin.
The politics at the point we get to signing a treaty that bakes in the renegotiation points is likely to be pretty febrile, but surely the technical position is the manifesto only requires a referendum on transferring powers TO the EU from national governments and it is by no means clear to me how a new treaty based on the renegotiation would do that.
There isn't going to be a treaty just over Cameron's thing, it'll be the normal monster ten-year-long something-in-it-for-everybody institutional log-roll. If you shuffle lots of things around you're bound to end up doing something that transfers powers to the EU.
That said, they could barely pass Lisbon, which was almost entirely uncontroversial, in sunnier times, with fewer members. What with more people, lots of tricky issues and everybody narked off at each other, the next treaty of the full EU may never get far enough to have a referendum on.
Don't you think the UK will be desperate that, whatever else is baked in from the other members, either (1) there is a UK opt-out in place (2) the clauses are structured carefully such that it can be reasonably argued that there is no transfer of powers. And fearing a UK referendum on the treaty, don't you think the EU will be accommodating of that?
As to other members - the Irish voters at least might be quite amenable to the next treaty, as they would be conscious of the possibility that problems could ditch the UK overboard.
@dlknowles: @TomChivers@PCollinsTimes I can mostly sum up why I have become a passionate europhile of late in three words: Iain Duncan Smith
This the biggest problem for Leave.
All of the main spokespeople are off-putting to large parts of the target electorate.
Cameron, while some (especially here) dislike him, he won a GE with a majority. He doesn't attract nearly as much venom as his opponents in general, and some of those who do despise him (Nats for example) are on the same side of the argument
All the most effective ministers appear to be leavers ?
* Apart from Jeremy Hunt - he is one of the few ministers who have got the job done that are in the Remain camp.
I think you and I may differ on the effectiveness of Gove and Duncan-Smith, particularly with putting theory into practice.
Comments
The very worst argument for Remain is that it stops an elected government from legislating in ways you don't like.
It depends if it's seen as a fair fight or not.
Surely British politicians can better focus on appropriate priorities for UK agriculture than huge committees worrying about Sardinian olive growers and Greek fraud? Surely that is not a difficult sell?
Both sides are as bad as each other in the scare stories they come out with to suit their particular viewpoint. But it poses the obvious question, if "fear" is the potent voting driver
you claim it is why does it only work for the REMAIN side?
It very much looks like to me as though LEAVE are getting their excuses in early. In Indyref you say "Project Fear" won it, I say people weighed the options and thought it wasn't worth the risk.
If people are as incapable of rationally making their own decisions as you suggest then doesn't that somewhat negate the purpose of returning "sovereignty" to the UK, as clearly, in your opinion, people wont know what to do with it anyway.
They got to count 13 and are going to have a FULL recount !
Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood's guidance says ministers opposing the official government line should not be given access to government papers on the referendum or Prime Minister David Cameron's EU renegotiations - apart from ones they had already seen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35685656
Do any of the trade agreements the EU has with third parties include unfettered right to move?
(also responsible for prosecuting Oscar Wilde and the Archer-Shee case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
This seems the norm for "freedom of movement" with Trade dealing EU countries juding by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Area
So how big a win for Remain before you accept it and how often do you want 'Leave' referenda?
Europe is different.
Most polls show that Cameron is on the wrong side of the people who voted for him last May.
ROFL
ROFLMAO
Oh, I may have done myself an injury...
Leave: forty eight percent
Turnout: seventy eight percent.
Surely after two or three recounts of piles and it still being too close to call, you either order a full recount or declare the result as you see it?
I'm not sure whether to admire their optimism, or to wonder whether they are so arrogant that they haven't actually sat down and thought about the possibility that the warnings might be justified and those issuing the warnings might be simply saying what they think is true.
Like all those dire warnings we were given if we didn't join the Euro?
First you are going to vote against her, now you're calling Nicola "loon sheeple"
Did you not get on Roger's 80/1 tip or something?
thing is if you were shit scared the world would fall off a cliff because of Brexit, wouldn't it make more sense to tell Germany and France to pull their fingers out before the negotiations rather than the british electorate afterward ?
In terms of how often? As often as we need. The idea that we have one chance to influence some of the massive changes the EU will need to undertake for the salvation of the Euro is daft, and frankly, undemocratic.
That said, I'd rather a government decided that we were going to leave based on the national interest. This referendum was a gambit to secure Cameron's election chances.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/28/euro-twaddle-or-tolstoy-you-choose-your-poisson/
Some fair points there.
My particular problem with REMAIN is that it is the government selling it. My government. A Tory government I voted for. And this Tory government is clearly and desperately lying to me.
Call me Mister Naive but I find it quite shocking. I will never forget Cameron selling that piece-of-shit "deal" as some great reform. Standing there on my TV screen telling a total pack of lies - and he knew they were lies. And on the most important of subjects.
I genuinely didn't expect him to act in such a morally degraded way. It's rather depressing, in truth.
Having fled Labour post-Cornbyn I find my self in the odd position of really disliking the smug personna that is Cameron but voting Conservative if there was a GE tomorrow. Corbyn would be a disaster and Cameron is sufficiently socially liberal and centrist for me to vote for - and at the end of the day it really is a binary choice. The reasons he attracts me probably repel others. Such is politics.
"project Fear" (I'll humour you!) will win IMO because it's threats are more credible. If I genuinely believed that we would be overrun by Turkish muslims if we REMAIN then I would vote LERAVE like a shot. Unfortunately I don't believe it for a second.
@TomChivers: @PCollinsTimes if I'm honest my main reason for voting Remain will be because it will annoy people who I enjoy seeing annoyed
But you choose to ignore those.
There are 85m Serbians, Turks, Macedonians, Albanians and citizens of Montenegro on the waiting list.
Previous history implies between 850,000 and 2.5m further arrivals if they are granted access.
What is Remain's position? Free movement?
How are they going to fund the schools, housing, healthcare etc that will be required, and how will Remain ensure that this influx of labour isn't detrimental to UK citizens' wages?
It would also open up markets outside the EU, so we could for example buy cheap food from African countries desparately to sell to us rather than rely on aid.
Then they would be able to make a reasoned argument, rather than: Monsters Are Coming To Get You.
This the biggest problem for Leave.
All of the main spokespeople are off-putting to large parts of the target electorate.
Cameron, while some (especially here) dislike him, he won a GE with a majority. He doesn't attract nearly as much venom as his opponents in general, and some of those who do despise him (Nats for example) are on the same side of the argument
My great great uncle was the secretary of the local Irish Brotherhood which attempted to burn down the police barracks in the small town where the Irish branch of the Cyclefree family has lived since the mists of time. This was during the Fenian uprising of 1867. He was convicted of supplying paraffin oil from the shop he owned (he was the local merchant) and was sentenced to be exiled, choosing to go to France. The family still has many of the French books he acquired during his temporary exile.
I have the land deeds from the family farm from the 1780s - at a time before the 1801 Act of Union - quite a rarity I'd have thought but it is quite hard to find the sort of archivist/historian who would be able to shed more light on them.
The Leavers, on the other hand, not only don't consider the possibility that the warnings might be justified, but are reduced to accusing those who express them of lying, bullying, being careerists, or (most hilariously) of being Cameron or Osborne stooges.
One thing which is clear is that the sensible commentators who think it will be all right are in a small minority of sensible commentators, and, most importantly, the balance of risk is not symmetric. As I've been saying for four years, the Leave side needed to address the uncertainties and the issues about the mechanics of the transition. Absolutely nothing has been done on that score, so the Remain side are filling the vacuum, and quite rightly so: the more one looks at the mechanics of Brexit, the more horrendous they look.
I think it was Olly saying that Leave is getting its excuses in early. Which is harsh, but fair. You would expect Remain to win, as the government and an overwhelming majority of the establishment is preaching Remain. So I expect my side to lose, which is disappointing.
The other major weakness Leave have is what BRexit looks like in practice. That's really hard to predict, unless you're a shameless liar (ref: Cameron's deal). It's clear that BRexit would polarise the EU.
Do we punish Britain pour encourager les autres? Or do we accept it and get on with a trade deal in a pragmatic fashion. Based on their track record, it seems to me that the former is far more likely.
Ultimately, I'm sanguine. The original EEC of 9, or even 14 countries was workable. The EU as presently constituted, is not. It's just a matter of time.
I think the anti-establishment factor is much bigger though, people love to vote against what they see as the interests of elites which is why the letters and G20 warnings are falling on deaf ears.
No it isn't clear - it is your assertion based on who you think is 'sensible' (which apparently excludes around half the MPs of your own party)
As indeed is your claim that the risks are asymmetrically biased to the downside, which is based on your own personal assessment of them.
Confusing your own spin with reality is a bad habit.
You really have no idea how these things work, do you?
Sadly we lost a lot of the paperwork when Castle Ellen was burnt down, but rescued much of the stuff from Ross and Ballynahinch.
Or the IEA report on Brexit?
Or Richard North's papers on the topic?
Or Geoffry Lyon?
The greyest area is probably in the financial regulation section and the right to discriminate between eurozone and non-eurozone members. That part is the foggiest to me, despite endless Richard N ping pongs on it with various sceptics. It all just seems to me like one of those parliamentary irregular verbs where only the connotation not the actual meaning changes - we want special status for the City == Cameron achieved certain opt-outs == the EU has the right to discriminate by delivering certain benefits for the eurozone only.
Does that disqualify you from being a 'sensible commentator'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35687257
As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.
The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).
As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.
That said, they could barely pass Lisbon, which was almost entirely uncontroversial, in sunnier times, with fewer members. What with more people, lots of tricky issues and everybody narked off at each other, the next treaty of the full EU may never get far enough to have a referendum on.
"mistake was made" in naming Gen Sir Michael Rose
Very sloppy. Or deliberately so.
I mean, really. You expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like that?
Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?
Rubio comes across as a very "focus group" man.
In my experience, any decision motivated only or largely by the "push" factor can lead to the wrong decision. Once you've left all the factors pushing you to leave have gone. So there needs to be more. You need to have some idea of what the answer to the "then what?" question is.
The committed Leavers are very good on the "push" aspect but hopeless, so far, on the "pull" side, not least because they're torn between those wanting to control immigration and those who still want the trading access and don't care that much about the immigration side. (I'm referring more to the vaguely official campaigns rather than some PB'ers on here who have set out their clear views). This will I think undermine Leave's chance of success.
Equally, those on the Remain side are very good at explaining all the likely risks of leaving but are being quite unclear and ambiguous about what will likely happen in the event of remain. They are deliberately confusing "Remain" with the status quo. Also the government has not helped with the negotiation charade and over-selling the "deal".
Both sides' ambiguity (some might call it dishonesty but I think it better to work on the basis that there are honourable reasons for being on either side of what is a difficult question with no easy answers) will bite them on the a*se in due course. How and when will depend on who wins.
But I continue to think it will be Remain - and probably by a reasonable margin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35687257
You expect to be taken seriously when you repeat or support obviously misleading claims by the Remain side day after day on here? Apparently you do.
As to other members - the Irish voters at least might be quite amenable to the next treaty, as they would be conscious of the possibility that problems could ditch the UK overboard.