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?
It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
No, we won't.
The EU agrees a common negotiating position. Whatever they do behind the scenes to come up with that common position is no concern of ours.
It is if it takes years for them to agree. What happens in the meantime? As we have seen from other deals the EU negotiates it takes a great deal of time because all member states have to be satisfied before anything can be signed.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?
We invite in alternative suppliers from the 190 nations outside the EU?
We promote an increase in domestic production?
We approach BMW etc and suggest that they manufacture here to circumvent any barrier?
The issue is that many key parts in the engine/drive train may only be sourced form Europe.. eg Fuel Injection systems..
So if you impose import tariffs, you may get retribution given in the form of export tariffs which will make UK manufacture uncompetitive...
Beggar my neighbour politics...like in the 1930s.. That worked well didn't it?
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.
Interesting and persuasive point, not just in the context of politics.
'Certainly, as a partner in a small fund management firm, the loss of the Single European Passport for financial services regulation would be a pretty severe blow to our firm.'
Perhaps - but on the question of welfare gains I was thinking in rather broader terms than the experiences of one small company.
So for example if we dial back a few decades, what were the most important aspects of the various GATT and WTO trade rounds? The tariff reductions or other items?
John Berman @JohnBerman 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: (BIG) Trump near 50% in new National @CNN/ORC poll. Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%, Kasich 6%.
If he's touching 50% in a 5 way race, surely it's time for Rubio and Cruz to call it a day? If Rubio does try and drag it out until Trump's delegate lead is unassailable he'll only damage the party.
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.
Interesting and persuasive point, not just in the context of politics.
I learnt it, like most things in life, the hard way.
John Berman @JohnBerman 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: (BIG) Trump near 50% in new National @CNN/ORC poll. Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%, Kasich 6%.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
If he's touching 50% in a 5 way race, surely it's time for Rubio and Cruz to call it a day? If Rubio does try and drag it out until Trump's delegate lead is unassailable he'll only damage the party.
All kinds of schemes and strategies are still on the table to stop Trump. Trump may "win" the delegates, but the GOP still gets to choose, or at least to heavily manipulate, who those delegates actually are. For the most part they will be establishment insiders, "pledged" to Trump, but perhaps only for one ballot...
''I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.''
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has
Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market. ly weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.
But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.
It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
If he's touching 50% in a 5 way race, surely it's time for Rubio and Cruz to call it a day? If Rubio does try and drag it out until Trump's delegate lead is unassailable he'll only damage the party.
All kinds of schemes and strategies are still on the table to stop Trump. Trump may "win" the delegates, but the GOP still gets to choose, or at least to heavily manipulate, who those delegates actually are. For the most part they will be establishment insiders, "pledged" to Trump, but perhaps only for one ballot...
But all the schemes depend on Trump not getting to 1,237 delegates. It doesn't even look like they have a chance of doing that.
Relevantly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/eurozone-slides-back-into-deflation/ Deflation is seriously nasty. If it takes hold of the EZ then it's time to start caching weapons, and buying tinned soup...... I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.
"I expect REMAIN to win in June" also, but my little guesstimate of a spreadsheet is guessing a small LEAVE win so I have gone with that model as an earlier model guessed that Corbyn would win (I only had 14/1). Sean also agree that the numerous car crashes inside the EU will eventually force us out.
Maybe the first rule is not to believe in any entity that cannot agree to cut down from 2 HQs to 1? Usually a bad sign in a company to have 2 HQs.
AlastairMeeks said: » show previous quotes Aw, love you too.
My reason for deciding for now to vote Remain is largely because the bulk of the Leavers are monomaniacs trading off an irrational dislike of foreigners.
I can see why that would appeal to Scottish Nationalists though.
Could have just saved yourself a lot of pixels and shouted " Rayciiissssstttttttt"
John Berman @JohnBerman 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: (BIG) Trump near 50% in new National @CNN/ORC poll. Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%, Kasich 6%.
I think Chris Chistie's endorsement has given Trump an enormous boost to near hegemony. Surely Christie will be Trump's VP choice.
Owen Patterson on DP has just pitched another incoherent Out position. He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50. He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts. So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.
It is called negotiation tactics. Are you unfamiliar with that? Controlling the clock - even when it starts - is a good practice.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
Owen Patterson on DP has just pitched another incoherent Out position. He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50. He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts. So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.
It is called negotiation tactics. Are you unfamiliar with that? Controlling the clock - even when it starts - is a good practice.
Sounds bog standard. The reality is that once there is a Leave vote the government would need to negotiate in the best interests of the UK on that vote. Entirely coherent, Article 50 is a mere technicality not the end goal.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
I haven't said the latter. I have always said that this is a very finely balanced decision.
The Leave case would be the same as that for Scottish independence i.e. that being in control of your own destiny is better on the whole than being richer but subservient. The additional case might be that the ability to trade is not the sole measure of human or a country's happiness. The decision is not purely an economic one.
To be honest, based on what I have read, the economic arguments on either side are much of a muchness. There is not much to choose between them. They are not - at least for me - the trump card. Whether in or out I think Britain will thrive. It's what kind of a Britain it will be that is the issue. And it will be different in the different scenarios in ways which may mean more or less to different groups. That's why the vision of Britain which the In / Out groups has is so important.
It is a very fine morning. Spring is wonderful. We should - really - be outside not stuck in front of our computers.
''I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.''
This, apparently, is the SAFER option....
Yes it doesn't make sense to me either. If you think the ship is going to sink get off before it leaves port, don't wait until it hits the iceberg.
If he's touching 50% in a 5 way race, surely it's time for Rubio and Cruz to call it a day? If Rubio does try and drag it out until Trump's delegate lead is unassailable he'll only damage the party.
All kinds of schemes and strategies are still on the table to stop Trump. Trump may "win" the delegates, but the GOP still gets to choose, or at least to heavily manipulate, who those delegates actually are. For the most part they will be establishment insiders, "pledged" to Trump, but perhaps only for one ballot...
If Trump say got to 1200 delegates and he didn't win the nomination, he'd run as a 3rd party I think. Hillary would be the biggest shoo in you've ever seen at that point.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
I expect him to.
I do not expect him to lie on a matter such as this. Which is why I would welcome a move to oust him post the referendum, him and Osborne. Does Osborne remind anyone of "Blackadder"?
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
I expect him to.
I know your opinion of Cameron was already very low. I am coming round to your point of view.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
Because we could negotiate FTAs with other markets like say China. Because we would save ourselves £17bn a year Because 90% of our legislation would be passed by UK politicians we can throw out
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
Who gives a feck about AV. The sovereign future of the UK? That's different. You don't lie about that. You really really don't, not if you are the prime minister. I hope he leaves office in disgrace. I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has
Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market. ly weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.
But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.
It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
Because we will be free to (a) negotiate our own deals with third parties and (b) innovate around EU regulations to the extent that we want
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
I know, he won the general election warning against the economic risks of changing the status quo, when everyone was calling him a loser.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
Mourinho played to win. And then he came a cropper when he lost the dressing room.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
Who gives a feck about AV. The sovereign future of the UK? That's different. You don't lie about that. You really really don't, not if you are the prime minister. I hope he leaves office in disgrace. I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Owen Patterson on DP has just pitched another incoherent Out position. He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50. He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts. So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.
It is called negotiation tactics. Are you unfamiliar with that? Controlling the clock - even when it starts - is a good practice.
Sounds bog standard. The reality is that once there is a Leave vote the government would need to negotiate in the best interests of the UK on that vote. Entirely coherent, Article 50 is a mere technicality not the end goal.
The government couldn't even negotiate in the best interests of the UK this time! It thought it was arguing in the best interests of the Tory Party, which now looks doubtful. Its even looking like it might not have been in the bests interests of Cameron All in all a bit of a clusterf*ck.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Sorry to hear about your brother in law.
If the cars and bikes are of the classic variety I can point you to an auction house to sell them through.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
Who gives a feck about AV. The sovereign future of the UK? That's different. You don't lie about that. You really really don't, not if you are the prime minister. I hope he leaves office in disgrace. I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.
So what is the lie?
Cast Iron Dave ? Mr 10's of Thousands ? Hard to know where to start, but the refugee camps in Kent, dismissed as idiotic by the French before he had even closed his mouth would be a good start.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
I agree. Politicians play to win, not to be gallant losers.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Under the laws of intestacy, the parents will inherit, which may cause heavy tax liabilities further down the line, even if they immediately give their inheritance away.
A deed of variation would be possible, as long as the parents are of sound mind.
Anyone may apply for Letters of Administration of the estate.
To me it sounds complex, and I would definitely seek legal advice before doing anything, including making any application.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
Indeed probably the lion's share of things he has said on this topic since the 'deal' was announced have been either entirely untrue or deeply misleading.
Which can be thought of as 'playing hard to win' but it's quite easy to overdo it and become a non-credible figure. He is certainly taking huge risks with his future reputation - though I am not sure he cares much about that.
So far after 218 entries, the predictions are Turnout 63.1% and LEAVE 46.09%.
People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.
In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy! Hypocrite.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
Who gives a feck about AV. T
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Stop being so stupid. It's boring.
This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:
"I've got basically what I wanted"
Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:
1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws 3. Curbing the Working Time Directive 4. Securing changes before the referendum 5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places and 6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU
He failed in 1 2 3 4 5 and 6
And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".
He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.
Quite so, but if you're trying to persuade people to buy chicken shit, you have to go all out to persuade them it's chicken salad.
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.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.
Who gives a feck about AV. T
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Stop being so stupid. It's boring.
This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:
"I've got basically what I wanted"
Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:
1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws 3. Curbing the Working Time Directive 4. Securing changes before the referendum 5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places and 6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU
He failed in 1 2 3 4 5 and 6
And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".
He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.
You're voting to Remain aren't you ?
What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.
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!
Hypocrite.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
I agree. Politicians play to win, not to be gallant losers.
So you think it's OK for prime ministers to lie to their voters, on matters of fundamental importance? Really??
I never thought the day would come when I would have to set the moral tone, and raise the moral standards of politicalbetting.com, but there we are.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
So far after 218 entries, the predictions are Turnout 63.1% and LEAVE 46.09%.
People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.
In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.
Turnout will be nearer 50 than 66.1 IMHO - maybe even below it.
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.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.
Who gives a feck about AV. T
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Stop being so stupid. It's boring.
This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:
"I've got basically what I wanted"
Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:
1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws 3. Curbing the Working Time Directive 4. Securing changes before the referendum 5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places and 6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU
He failed in 1 2 3 4 5 and 6
And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".
He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.
You're voting to Remain aren't you ?
What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.
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.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.
Who gives a feck about AV. T
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Stop being so stupid. It's boring.
This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:
"I've got basically what I wanted"
Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:
1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws 3. Curbing the Working Time Directive 4. Securing changes before the referendum 5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places and 6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU
He failed in 1 2 3 4 5 and 6
And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".
He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.
You're voting to Remain aren't you ?
What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.
Now who is resorting to insults?
I'm using facts and abductive reasoning. Not insults.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
Not on pb they aren't.
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
I love how David Cameron's talents are being bigged up by posters who were far less complimentary about him pre May 2015.
Indeed, To have said then that Dave had the talent to get a tory majority then would have invited nothing but scorn and derision.
He didn't.
Ed Miliband did.
Just as Corbyn will get a Conservative landslide in 2020 pretty much irrespective of who is in No10. PB Tories will no doubt claim that will be down to the skill of Osbrown/Gove/Johnsone rather than admit the truth, this this time Labour have an even less electable leader than last time.
So far after 218 entries, the predictions are Turnout 63.1% and LEAVE 46.09%.
People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.
In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.
How many of those entries misread the question and are estimating remain and leave? In other words, do the numbers change markedly if you exclude all entries where turnout and leave add up to 100 per cent (or 99 per cent to allow for duff mental arithmetic)?
With hindsight, it might have been better to ask about turnout before leave/remain.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Just remember - the legal side is only part of it.
The rest will be collecting the deceased assets - getting the death certificate and passing it on to Banks, contract suppliers, etc. etc. - so make sure to bear that in mind.
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.
Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.
Who gives a feck about AV. T
So what is the lie?
The DEAL, dumbkopf.
Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
Stop being so stupid. It's boring.
This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:
"I've got basically what I wanted"
Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. T.
You're voting to Remain aren't you ?
What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.
lol. Ten minutes ago you were accusing me of insults, and ad hominem. I shall refrain from returning fire. Because I could be quite effectively cruel.
Never stopped you before.
It's been a while since you insulted me. I think you once compared me to having all the intelligence of a speculum removed from Gordon Brown's anus.
I feel left out. I only get insulted by the thickos on PB these days.
You think Cameron is a liar and you're still voting Remain. I think we can draw our own conclusions from that.
Relevantly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/eurozone-slides-back-into-deflation/ Deflation is seriously nasty. If it takes hold of the EZ then it's time to start caching weapons, and buying tinned soup...... I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.
"I expect REMAIN to win in June" also, but my little guesstimate of a spreadsheet is guessing a small LEAVE win so I have gone with that model as an earlier model guessed that Corbyn would win (I only had 14/1). Sean also agree that the numerous car crashes inside the EU will eventually force us out.
Maybe the first rule is not to believe in any entity that cannot agree to cut down from 2 HQs to 1? Usually a bad sign in a company to have 2 HQs.
I quite agree. I therefore don't believe in the Leave campaign!
One of the most frustrating things about being on the remain side is having to talk less about the reform you want to see, in favour of justifying our membership in the first place. I don't know why Cameron didn't go hard on the Strasbourg issue; it would have been popular and would have been a clear sign of the EU actually putting its own house in order for a change. But he never seemed to show any interest.
By the way I've predicted Leave of 35.9% - I think it'll be much higher, well into the forties. But in this competition there are far fewer entries in the thirties, so it's a prediction to put me in clearer space. Be careful of reading the "PB Average" as a result!
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
It might have been good to tell the other EU leaders what we wanted, rather than asking them what they were prepared to accept.... and not tell them that you were not prepared to leave before you start, that would have been good as well. Anyone might think he was always expecting, or even wanted, to comes back with a bit of flimflam with that sort of approach.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
It might have been good to tell the other EU leaders what we wanted, rather than asking them what they were prepared to accept.... and not tell them that you were not prepared to leave before you start, that would have been good as well. Anyone might think he was always expecting, or even wanted, to comes back with a bit of flimflam with that sort of approach.
I think everyone now accepts that Cam's renegociation was an utter waste of time. The referendum is basically leave vs what we had before.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has
Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighisadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintaintus quo as dishonest. ative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
Because we will be free to (a) negotiate our own deals with third parties and (b) innovate around EU regulations to the extent that we want
I get the whole we would still be able to buy BMW thing, but do you think we could negotiate a better deal alone, say, with China, than we could as part of the EU?
Now, I have no idea what our current trade deal with China is, nor if we have been severely disadvantaged by the terms we have agreed to as part of the EU. Perhaps you do?
As for b) the old "innovate around EU regulations" doesn't surely help when you are trying to sell a good or service into the EU. Because you can innovate as much as you like but if the EU has a regulation about your product, you either conform, or you don't sell it.
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.
So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.
I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.
Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.
David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.
Not on pb they aren't.
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects. My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work. My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Hope I'm not talking out of turn, but don't be bounced into taking this job. Believe me, your commitment could extend years into the future. There is no pressure to get things started for a while yet, and acting in the immediate aftermath of a unexpected tragedy is probably not wise.
Discuss matters, by all means, but I would give no commitments to anyone without first obtaining, proper, paid-for, legal advice. Are you certain the deceased had no children?
'I think everyone now accepts that Cam's renegociation was an utter waste of time'
The whole approach is an attempt to orchestrate a re-run of 1975 -
Fig-leaf of a deal that changes nothing of any importance
Attempt to paint opponents as 'extreme','marginalised','ugly'
Attempt to line up the whole establishment in favour of 'Remain'
Lots of lies and scare stories - actually I think the current campaign is rather worse than 1975 for this, on the Remain side. There were still people trying to make a positive case then. There aren't now.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
Hah. Would that be the ICE TWINS which sold a million copies, is translated into 24 languages, including Albanian, Estonian and Taiwanese Chinese, and is being made into a movie? That one? How silly of Hollywood not to listen to the members of the "Mayfield book club".
The same goes for Cameron. There comes a time when the weight of opinion is so heavy the opinion of a few smelly Sussex geriatrics is irrelevant.
The weight of opinion is that Cameron lied.
You're confusing weight and volume. And everyone knows that empty vessels make most noise.
Relevantly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/eurozone-slides-back-into-deflation/ Deflation is seriously nasty. If it takes hold of the EZ then it's time to start caching weapons, and buying tinned soup...... I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.
"I expect REMAIN to win in June" also, but my little guesstimate of a spreadsheet is guessing a small LEAVE win so I have gone with that model as an earlier model guessed that Corbyn would win (I only had 14/1). Sean also agree that the numerous car crashes inside the EU will eventually force us out.
Maybe the first rule is not to believe in any entity that cannot agree to cut down from 2 HQs to 1? Usually a bad sign in a company to have 2 HQs.
I quite agree. I therefore don't believe in the Leave campaign!
One of the most frustrating things about being on the remain side is having to talk less about the reform you want to see, in favour of justifying our membership in the first place. I don't know why Cameron didn't go hard on the Strasbourg issue; it would have been popular and would have been a clear sign of the EU actually putting its own house in order for a change. But he never seemed to show any interest.
By the way I've predicted Leave of 35.9% - I think it'll be much higher, well into the forties. But in this competition there are far fewer entries in the thirties, so it's a prediction to put me in clearer space. Be careful of reading the "PB Average" as a result!
You mean you are also playing to win, like Cameron?
I've gone totally off Dave - and, I think, Ozzy too. I used to think they were on my side and basically motivated to to do the right thing. The EU nonsense has pulled any remaining wool from my eyes. Dave's gone all Establishment. There is no worse crime. I'm praying that Donald Trump and PM Bojo (of a totally independent UK) will be running the western world soon. The current Establishment have demonstrated that they're aren't up to it and need to be purged for a while. Get them to remember who they really work for.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
It might have been good to tell the other EU leaders what we wanted, rather than asking them what they were prepared to accept.... and not tell them that you were not prepared to leave before you start, that would have been good as well. Anyone might think he was always expecting, or even wanted, to comes back with a bit of flimflam with that sort of approach.
I think everyone now accepts that Cam's renegociation was an utter waste of time. The referendum is basically leave vs what we had before.
Has anyone told Richard N. ?
The referendum is basically leave vs what we had before. some unknown euro future.
The Eurocrats have made no secret that they are holding back certainly controversial policies until after the referendum. If they are federalist or adverse to UK interests, it's going to be interesting to watch the "undecided" spin their way out of it.
Comments
Deflation is back (minus 0.2%) despite negative rates and EUR60bn per month being hurled at the economy.
They'll soon be imprisoning you for not spending money on this wretched failure of an enterprise.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cnn-23911
That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.
So if you impose import tariffs, you may get retribution given in the form of export tariffs which will make UK manufacture uncompetitive...
Beggar my neighbour politics...like in the 1930s.. That worked well didn't it?
Owen Patterson is always incoherent..
Not good either way, but atrocious if it's cash.
Perhaps - but on the question of welfare gains I was thinking in rather broader terms than the experiences of one small company.
So for example if we dial back a few decades, what were the most important aspects of the various GATT and WTO trade rounds? The tariff reductions or other items?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade
BREAKING: (BIG) Trump near 50% in new National @CNN/ORC poll.
Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%, Kasich 6%.
"Power to the people"
Adjusting for deflation sounds weird, though.
It's almost as if trying to have one currency for umpteen totally different countries is a stupid idea...
Trump may "win" the delegates, but the GOP still gets to choose, or at least to heavily manipulate, who those delegates actually are. For the most part they will be establishment insiders, "pledged" to Trump, but perhaps only for one ballot...
This, apparently, is the SAFER option....
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
Sean also agree that the numerous car crashes inside the EU will eventually force us out.
Maybe the first rule is not to believe in any entity that cannot agree to cut down from 2 HQs to 1? Usually a bad sign in a company to have 2 HQs.
» show previous quotes
Aw, love you too.
My reason for deciding for now to vote Remain is largely because the bulk of the Leavers are monomaniacs trading off an irrational dislike of foreigners.
I can see why that would appeal to Scottish Nationalists though.
Could have just saved yourself a lot of pixels and shouted " Rayciiissssstttttttt"
I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.
The Leave case would be the same as that for Scottish independence i.e. that being in control of your own destiny is better on the whole than being richer but subservient. The additional case might be that the ability to trade is not the sole measure of human or a country's happiness. The decision is not purely an economic one.
To be honest, based on what I have read, the economic arguments on either side are much of a muchness. There is not much to choose between them. They are not - at least for me - the trump card. Whether in or out I think Britain will thrive. It's what kind of a Britain it will be that is the issue. And it will be different in the different scenarios in ways which may mean more or less to different groups. That's why the vision of Britain which the In / Out groups has is so important.
It is a very fine morning. Spring is wonderful. We should - really - be outside not stuck in front of our computers.
That is not a credible position.
Trump 1.3
Rube 5.3
Next Prest
HC 1.65
DT 3.9
Rube 14
Because we would save ourselves £17bn a year
Because 90% of our legislation would be passed by UK politicians we can throw out
No bad for a start.
David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.
It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.
http://pollyvote.com/en/
He's sticking to what works for him
According to Bertie Ahern, who knows a thing or two about horse-trading in Irish politics, there won't be a government agreed until after Easter.
My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects.
My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work.
My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?
It's hardly a new thing. Not that that excuses it, of course.
Not quite in Blair's league either yet, though the PM is making a spirited late dash to overhaul his hero in this regard.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/29/proof-unite-vetted-nec-vote/
https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141
It looks like the next test of Trump's political skills will be whether he can prevent a third candidate from within the GOP.
It thought it was arguing in the best interests of the Tory Party, which now looks doubtful.
Its even looking like it might not have been in the bests interests of Cameron
All in all a bit of a clusterf*ck.
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
Poor Sean, always wrong.
If the cars and bikes are of the classic variety I can point you to an auction house to sell them through.
Mr 10's of Thousands ?
Hard to know where to start, but the refugee camps in Kent, dismissed as idiotic by the French before he had even closed his mouth would be a good start.
A deed of variation would be possible, as long as the parents are of sound mind.
Anyone may apply for Letters of Administration of the estate.
To me it sounds complex, and I would definitely seek legal advice before doing anything, including making any application.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
https://www.gov.uk/wills-probate-inheritance/applying-for-a-grant-of-representation
Indeed probably the lion's share of things he has said on this topic since the 'deal' was announced have been either entirely untrue or deeply misleading.
Which can be thought of as 'playing hard to win' but it's quite easy to overdo it and become a non-credible figure. He is certainly taking huge risks with his future reputation - though I am not sure he cares much about that.
People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.
In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.
You're voting to Remain aren't you ?
What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.
I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Is one of your key performance objectives this year keeping the UK inside the EU?:
Campaigns are hardly encouraging that.
"Vote for the sh1t deal we already have" vs "TBC"
"Come to Dave's, Dave's, Dave's for all your used car chicken shit salad needs, just see our ad in Yellow Pages The Guardian, you know it makes sense"
Indeed, To have said then that Dave had the talent to get a tory majority then would have invited nothing but scorn and derision.
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
I can't imagine why. Perhaps encouraging (near) universal literacy was a mistake eh?
Ed Miliband did.
Just as Corbyn will get a Conservative landslide in 2020 pretty much irrespective of who is in No10. PB Tories will no doubt claim that will be down to the skill of Osbrown/Gove/Johnsone rather than admit the truth, this this time Labour have an even less electable leader than last time.
With hindsight, it might have been better to ask about turnout before leave/remain.
The rest will be collecting the deceased assets - getting the death certificate and passing it on to Banks, contract suppliers, etc. etc. - so make sure to bear that in mind.
It's been a while since you insulted me. I think you once compared me to having all the intelligence of a speculum removed from Gordon Brown's anus.
I feel left out. I only get insulted by the thickos on PB these days.
You think Cameron is a liar and you're still voting Remain. I think we can draw our own conclusions from that.
One of the most frustrating things about being on the remain side is having to talk less about the reform you want to see, in favour of justifying our membership in the first place. I don't know why Cameron didn't go hard on the Strasbourg issue; it would have been popular and would have been a clear sign of the EU actually putting its own house in order for a change. But he never seemed to show any interest.
By the way I've predicted Leave of 35.9% - I think it'll be much higher, well into the forties. But in this competition there are far fewer entries in the thirties, so it's a prediction to put me in clearer space. Be careful of reading the "PB Average" as a result!
Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%
It's all over folks
Now, I have no idea what our current trade deal with China is, nor if we have been severely disadvantaged by the terms we have agreed to as part of the EU. Perhaps you do?
As for b) the old "innovate around EU regulations" doesn't surely help when you are trying to sell a good or service into the EU. Because you can innovate as much as you like but if the EU has a regulation about your product, you either conform, or you don't sell it.
@DavidCoburnUKip: SNP gone native launching Remain campaign in London. Forgotten Scotland . SNP London based jolly
Believe me, your commitment could extend years into the future. There is no pressure to get things started for a while yet, and acting in the immediate aftermath of a unexpected tragedy is probably not wise.
Discuss matters, by all means, but I would give no commitments to anyone without first obtaining, proper, paid-for, legal advice. Are you certain the deceased had no children?
Sessions and Christie were two great endorsements though, Sessions in particular gives Cruz supporters the green light to switch to Trump.
The whole approach is an attempt to orchestrate a re-run of 1975 -
Fig-leaf of a deal that changes nothing of any importance
Attempt to paint opponents as 'extreme','marginalised','ugly'
Attempt to line up the whole establishment in favour of 'Remain'
Lots of lies and scare stories - actually I think the current campaign is rather worse than 1975 for this, on the Remain side. There were still people trying to make a positive case then. There aren't now.
The referendum is basically leave vs what we had before. some unknown euro future.
The Eurocrats have made no secret that they are holding back certainly controversial policies until after the referendum. If they are federalist or adverse to UK interests, it's going to be interesting to watch the "undecided" spin their way out of it.