I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
Given that Boris wants to leave now, I am sure he will have no problem with offering a further vote down the line, when there is an even greater chance of getting an OUT.
Thinking about it, his path to the premiership is now pretty clear. Osborne will be the Centrist, Cameroon Establishment choice. May, Hammond and Javid and the rest have blown it. But Osborne is unpopular in the country, and a REMAINIAN.
There will have to be a LEAVER on the ballot. The party is split down the middle and will tolerate nothing else.
So it's Bojo versus Osborne. And the Tory members decide. And they are heavily eurosceptic. And Bojo is popular in the country, and a proven winner.
No Boris wants to be leader now. He'll happily go native and let Remain stand if it's him going to the EU conferences etc
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
A cornerstone of the Leave argument seems to be: I wouldn't have started from there.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Boris or Gove? I would be genuinely shocked if Boris went up against the PM. He cannot debate. Boris has never played in the politics Champions League up to now. He has fought and won two election campaigns against Ken Livingstone for a relatively inconsequential job and has studiously avoided in-depth TV interviews, debates and press conferences since he became mayor. Going up against Cameron over an issue as important as EU membership would be a huge step up for him.
In terms of leadership electiom, Tory Leave supporters would be stupid to vote for Boris just because he backed Leave. What matters is how they will deal with EU in future. They should only vote for someone who guarantees a further referendum if/when the Eurozone federalises.
Given that Boris wants to leave now, I am sure he will have no problem with offering a further vote down the line, when there is an even greater chance of getting an OUT.
Thinking about it, his path to the premiership is now pretty clear. Osborne will be the Centrist, Cameroon Establishment choice. May, Hammond and Javid and the rest have blown it. But Osborne is unpopular in the country, and a REMAINIAN.
There will have to be a LEAVER on the ballot. The party is split down the middle and will tolerate nothing else.
So it's Bojo versus Osborne. And the Tory members decide. And they are heavily eurosceptic. And Bojo is popular in the country, and a proven winner.
No Boris wants to be leader now. He'll happily go native and let Remain stand if it's him going to the EU conferences etc
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
Step forward Gove.
It's not going to be Gove. And Gove knows it. He's not prime ministerial, not popular in the country (I like his style, personally). He'd be an excellent Home Sec or Foreign Sec in a Boris Cabinet.
If you think Boris won't go native (you're giving him for faith than I would) and we could have a second referendum then do you understand my convoluted train of thought on why the threat of a second referendum means this deal would be honoured under a sceptical PM.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
A cornerstone of the Leave argument seems to be: I wouldn't have started from there.
It's a cornerstone of the Eurorealist Remain argument too. Here is not a great starting point at all but it is where we are.
'but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron'
Oh pull the other one Richard. We all know he asked for virtually nothing because he wasn't interested in getting anything, just in cobbling together a few 'wins' he thought he could quickly sell to what he & his chums considered a bored and ignorant electorate.
And we know this because the Remain camp have briefed to that effect for months. There has been no effort to hide the fact that the 'renegotiation' process was a sham.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
Some of the worst things have been done by people with good intentions.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Character, curiosity, courage and common-sense: those are what I go for.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people. The right will hate him for it, of course. Dave looks like being unpopular whatever, but if Boris succeeds him and leads the Brexit negotiations he will be loathed too for his "betrayal". But then it would be the same whoever is PM at the time. Tory Leave is going to be very different to UKIP Leave. And UKIP, thankfully, will be nowhere near the negotiating table.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
I take it UKIP Leave is the one advocated by Nigel Farage. The one in which EEA membership has been categorically ruled out.
You can take what you like, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave, you're making things up.
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
Some of the worst things have been done by people with good intentions.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Character, curiosity, courage and common-sense: those are what I go for.
All of those are subjective, I don't know anybody who doesn't think they have common sense. My point about intelligent people is as a rule they're lazy because things come easily to them.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
I take it UKIP Leave is the one advocated by Nigel Farage. The one in which EEA membership has been categorically ruled out.
You can take what you like, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave, you're making things up.
Ruling out joining the EEA is the leave scenario that UKIP offers. It is UKIP Leave.
Now, I bow to no-one in my admiration for her, but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron.
"The Best Quotes From Margaret Thatcher's 'Statecraft':"
"What we should grasp, however, from the lessons of European history is that, first, there is nothing necessarily benevolent about programmes of European integration; second, the desire to achieve grand utopian plans often poses a grave threat to freedom; and third, European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."
"The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially, though the timing, occasion and full consequences are all necessarily still unclear."
"If the Europeans truly wish to improve their NATO contribution they can show it simply enough. They can establish professional armed forces, like those of the UK. And they can acquire more advanced technology. Indeed, unless that happens soon the gulf between the European and US capabilities will yawn so wide that it will not be possible to share the same battlefield. Alas, I do not think that sharing battlefields with our American friends - but rather disputing global primacy with them - is what European defence plans are truly about."
"(A unified) 'Europe' is the result of plans. It is, in fact, a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt."
"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."
"(I)t is highly questionable whether when 'Europe speaks with one voice', as we are so often told it is doing, anyone is really listening. Europe's reputation as a serious player in international affairs is unenviable. It is a feeble giant who desperate attempts to be taken seriously are largely risible. It has a weak currency and a sluggish inflexible economy, still much reliant on hidden protectionism. It has a shrinking, ageing, population and, with the exception of Britain, rather unimpressive armed forces and, not excepting Britain, muddled diplomacy."
"Countries trade with each other - or to be more precise people buy and sell from each other across frontiers - because that is the way to advance their interests. We do not need to beg people to trade with us - as long as we have something that people want, of a quality they expect and at a price they are prepared to pay."
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Boris or Gove? I would be genuinely shocked if Boris went up against the PM. He cannot debate. Boris has never played in the politics Champions League up to now. He has fought and won two election campaigns against Ken Livingstone for a relatively inconsequential job and has studiously avoided in-depth TV interviews, debates and press conferences since he became mayor. Going up against Cameron over an issue as important as EU membership would be a huge step up for him.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
He is untested at the top level. So far he has only played in the county championship. We will learn a lot more about him and his abilities over the next four months. Is he Graham Hick or Joe Root?
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
No. There is a default external tariff that would apply if we left without a trade deal. To not have the default tariff applied would require unanimity.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
Indeed. But, people who have given every impression up till now that they favour withdrawal, in the absence of major reform, need to come up with a convincing explanation of why they've changed their minds. The articles written by Sajid Javid and Robert Halfon were simply abject.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
I take it UKIP Leave is the one advocated by Nigel Farage. The one in which EEA membership has been categorically ruled out.
You can take what you like, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave, you're making things up.
Ruling out joining the EEA is the leave scenario that UKIP offers. It is UKIP Leave.
Ukip don't offer a scenario, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave. You can say there is all day, it still won't be true. Ask Carswell then ask his party leader.
Maybe this would not have worked. Who knows? But not even asking and giving yourself a ludicrously short time to achieve it is pretty feeble. How long did it take Thatcher to get her rebate? Six years. And she was prepared to be unpopular at every EU summit until eventually she got something worthwhile.
Ruthlessness and focus and determination: Cameron has them when needed. Usually aimed at the opposition here. I don't get the impression that he has used those skills within the EU. I could be wrong, of course. I can only go by the results.
Maggie got her rebate because she had a veto. Now, I bow to no-one in my admiration for her, but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron.
As for waiting longer, Cameron had already got a hell of a lot of stick - from exactly the same people who are now criticising him - for not instantly calling a referendum in 2010, let alone in 2015. We need to get this running sore lanced. Delaying things would simply mean nothing happened, and in the meantime our EU friends could simply ignore our concerns completely.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
The only reason this sore needs lancing now is because Cameron - for internal party reasons - imposed such a deadline and even with another 18 months to go went early. Plus he focused on migrant benefits: an economically insignificant sum which could be resolved by tweaking the UK's welfare system and while also giving the impression to the rest of Europe that the only thing the UK cared about was not paying money to some children in other countries.
Thatcher was focused and determined and did detail. I don't think even Cameron's greatest admirer would say the last of him and detail, mind-numbingly boring detail, is what is needed in EU negotiations. Believe me. I've been there.
Of course the Single Rule book for financial services in the EU is something that London has fought very hard for and is no doubt equally anxious to retain. It is the basis of the Single Passport because it means that any provider of financial services anywhere in the Single Market is being supervised by its home regulator to the same standards (at least in theory) and can therefore be trusted to sell those products anywhere in the Single Market. Opting out of that and losing that benefit is the last thing that London wants.
In my opinion this is getting mixed up with a different form of regulation which allows the ECB to determine market conditions, solvency conditions and security within the EZ. In exactly the same way as the BoE and the Prudential Authority does in this country. Once again there is not actually a problem here, at least on the surface.
The UK's concern is that the right to set market conditions within the ECB will be used to undermine the Single Passport and restrict our access. That is the area of risk. There are 2 potential solutions. Firstly, we could challenge such regulations in the CJE on the basis that they undermine the Single Market. And secondly Cameron has now got us a chance to say wait a minute, you need to look at this again before the court case.
Those who think that the EU is all an evil conspiracy which works tirelessly to do us down will of course argue that neither of these remedies will ever do us any good but in seeking to uphold the single market we will be the good guys and in with a shout.
If we leave the EU we have no brake and no right to challenge before the CJE although we would probably have the right to make representations if someone else brought a case. For me, financial services are a marginal argument for remaining in although I fully accept that there is enough uncertainty to make it possible to argue either way.
Edit, I should have said that the other concern was that the ECB may seek to impose extra-territoriality to its regulations, effectively applying them to London as well. That is open to the same 2 challenges but also remains a risk.
I see all the principled MPs are coming out of the woodwork.
She joins the illustrious ranks of Alan Mak, Robert Halfon, Sajid Javid, Mark Pritchard, and Philip Hammond.
There is a difference is there not between a eurosceptic and BOO?
.
On the other hand these spineless careerists have forever tarnished their careers, and - in the case of Javid - now have no chance of being leader.
Osborne is in trouble, too.
I think the leadership will now come down to Osborne versus Boris, and Boris will win in the wider party, because of his opposition to Cameron's "deal".
Anyone Eurosceptic that votes Boris due to their scepticism will be sorely disappointed.
When Boris barely backed Out while jockeying for position can there be any doubt whatsoever that if he became PM he'd "go native"?
I'd be fine with a Boris Out deal as it would look very like the EEA. There is no way he will do anything to compromise free movement of goods, services and capital, so he will take a hit on free movement of people.
On the ballot paper it won't say Tory Leave or Ukip Leave. There is no such thing.
The negotiations for Brexit will be undertaken by a Tory government, probably led by Boris Johnson.
Yes, so what is Ukip leave?
Some people are just making up stories, its pathetic.
I take it UKIP Leave is the one advocated by Nigel Farage. The one in which EEA membership has been categorically ruled out.
You can take what you like, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave, you're making things up.
Ruling out joining the EEA is the leave scenario that UKIP offers. It is UKIP Leave.
Ukip don't offer a scenario, there is no such thing as Ukip Leave. You can say there is all day, it still won't be true. Ask Carswell then ask his party leader.
Oh, I agree that Carswell is much more likely to support Tory Leave than UKIP Leave when the time comes. Why Carswell is still in UKIP is a total mystery.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
No I don't think so. Cameron vetoed a deal years ago remember and they immediately signed a text without us. Now that meant it didn't apply to us, but we couldn't veto them going ahead without us. Lisbon included (deliberately) many ways for the EZ to integrate without us having a veto.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Boris or Gove? I would be genuinely shocked if Boris went up against the PM. He cannot debate. Boris has never played in the politics Champions League up to now. He has fought and won two election campaigns against Ken Livingstone for a relatively inconsequential job and has studiously avoided in-depth TV interviews, debates and press conferences since he became mayor. Going up against Cameron over an issue as important as EU membership would be a huge step up for him.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Gove is far more formidable than Boris, he has the intellectual firepower, and the eye for detail, recent experience at justice on EU laws, and the experience of several difficult government positions against powerful lobbies. Cameron might be a little shy of giving him both barrels as well because he is/was part of the inner circle, and knows where the bodies are buried... Johnson not so much.
Boris will ruffle his hair a bit, utter a few well chosen bon-mots, a quote or two from the Greats and utterly miss the goal. Gove will squint piercingly at you, instantly spot the flaw in your argument, cut through it and tear you a new one, all whilst being unfailingly polite.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Of course the Single Rule book for financial services in the EU is something that London has fought very hard for and is no doubt equally anxious to retain. It is the basis of the Single Passport because it means that any provider of financial services anywhere in the Single Market is being supervised by its home regulator to the same standards (at least in theory) and can therefore be trusted to sell those products anywhere in the Single Market. Opting out of that and losing that benefit is the last thing that London wants.
In my opinion this is getting mixed up with a different form of regulation which allows the ECB to determine market conditions, solvency conditions and security within the EZ. In exactly the same way as the BoE and the Prudential Authority does in this country. Once again there is not actually a problem here, at least on the surface.
The UK's concern is that the right to set market conditions within the ECB will be used to undermine the Single Passport and restrict our access. That is the area of risk. There are 2 potential solutions. Firstly, we could challenge such regulations in the CJE on the basis that they undermine the Single Market. And secondly Cameron has now got us a chance to say wait a minute, you need to look at this again before the court case.
Those who think that the EU is all an evil conspiracy which works tirelessly to do us down will of course argue that neither of these remedies will ever do us any good but in seeking to uphold the single market we will be the good guys and in with a shout.
If we leave the EU we have no brake and no right to challenge before the CJE although we would probably have the right to make representations if someone else brought a case. For me, financial services are a marginal argument for remaining in although I fully accept that there is enough uncertainty to make it possible to argue either way.
Edit, I should have said that the other concern was that the ECB may seek to impose extra-territoriality to its regulations, effectively applying them to London as well. That is open to the same 2 challenges but also remains a risk.
The issue isn't so much restricting access, as regulations which require parts of the financial infrastructure to be shifted to a eurozone country and/or which apply market wide taxes that disproportionately hit the UK
I have come to the conclusion, quite seriously, that the average intelligence of pb europhiles is about 15-20 points lower than the eurosceptics. A noticeable difference.
It's odd. Out there in real world the sceptics tend to be less educated: the poor and the working classes. Not here.
Intelligence and education aren't the same thing, I know plenty of privately educated dunces, it just so happened the old man had a few quid.
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
A cornerstone of the Leave argument seems to be: I wouldn't have started from there.
Nope that is the cornerstone of the Remain argument as continually advocated by Richard N. In defence of Cameron. He has been using it all afternoon on here blaming Brown for Cameron's failure to get a better deal.
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
No. There is a default external tariff that would apply if we left without a trade deal. To not have the default tariff applied would require unanimity.
So, that potentially throws them into conflict with each other.
The free trade versus tariff groups.
Just like all the Eurozone shenanigans they will at each other like rats in a sack trying to meet a deadline.
As an aside, people keep saying that we would need to convince 27 nations of a desire to continue with free trade.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
Unfortunately not. As I mentioned earlier today it is a strange quirk of the EU that they need unanimity to agree Brexit terms but trade issues with an external partner are by QMV.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Nigel Farage vs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looks like a good starting point.
'but it is simply nonsense to say it was to do with a difference of determination between her and Cameron'
Oh pull the other one Richard. We all know he asked for virtually nothing because he wasn't interested in getting anything, just in cobbling together a few 'wins' he thought he could quickly sell to what he & his chums considered a bored and ignorant electorate.
And we know this because the Remain camp have briefed to that effect for months. There has been no effort to hide the fact that the 'renegotiation' process was a sham.
Indeed. It's all happened precisely as Carswell predicted, when he defected.
"According to his comments at the press conference, Douglas’ mind was not made up in a Damascene moment, but rather through a series of different events. Several times he referred to advisers from Number 10 telling him they would seek “the bare minimum” of EU renegotiation to convince people to vote In....
In summary, he charged that a) the Prime Minister was not intent on real EU renegotiation, b) the “bare minimum” strategy was evidence of intent to not hold a meaningful referendum"
This is what I mean by the stupidity of pb europhiles. They expect us to believe this crap, this screed of lies, when the basic known facts prove that they are talking bollocks. It's ludicrous.
I solemnly propose that Nabavi, Meeks and Scott P be banned from pb for the duration of the campaign. Their tedious, witless inanities are driving me nuts. It's like watching a stage play produced by ten year olds.
Conversely, reading your posts on this subject is like enduring a Nairobi traffic jam. They last seemingly for days on a track filled with potholes and don't go anywhere.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Bo
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Gove is far more formidable than Boris, he has the intellectual firepower, and the eye for detail, recent experience at justice on EU laws, and the experience of several difficult government positions against powerful lobbies. Cameron might be a little shy of giving him both barrels as well because he is/was part of the inner circle, and knows where the bodies are buried... Johnson not so much.
I agree Gove might be a much better debater than Johnson, so a good choice for LEAVE, if there are TV euroref debates.
I disagree when it comes to the leadership. Gove just hasn't got *it* (check his ratings). Boris has.
""No, I'm constitutionally incapable of it. There's a special extra quality you need that is indefinable, and I know I don't have it. There's an equanimity, an impermeability and a courage that you need. There are some things in life you know it's better not to try." - Gove on his leadership chances.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
No I don't think so. Cameron vetoed a deal years ago remember and they immediately signed a text without us. Now that meant it didn't apply to us, but we couldn't veto them going ahead without us. Lisbon included (deliberately) many ways for the EZ to integrate without us having a veto.
At the risk of looking like a total nerd that is a bit of an oversimplification. Lisbon allowed the EZ and in particular the ECB to take various steps to integrate their economic policies but the quid pro quo is that these are not EU institutions in the full sense and do not have the right to use EU resources. This is where we got into the fight about using EU money to bail out Greece where we got given the indemnity.
There will come a point, and soon, when this is not enough and the EZ will want to fully integrate the ECB and indeed the Euro into the EU. That will need serious treaty change and we have a veto to prevent that. If we are ever to get the double majority protection it is going to be then, not in the negotiations that Cameron had.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Bo
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Gove is far more formidable than Boris, he has the intellectual firepower, and the eye for detail, recent experience at justice on EU laws, and the experience of several difficult government positions against powerful lobbies. Cameron might be a little shy of giving him both barrels as well because he is/was part of the inner circle, and knows where the bodies are buried... Johnson not so much.
I agree Gove might be a much better debater than Johnson, so a good choice for LEAVE, if there are TV euroref debates.
I disagree when it comes to the leadership. Gove just hasn't got *it* (check his ratings). Boris has.
Gove's ratings are low because he's done challenging work in challenging departments. Boris has not. I'd vote Gove over Boris any day and would expect him to do a much better job.
When you change jobs the ratings can change very, very quickly.
Of course the Single Rule book for financial services in the EU is something that London has fought very hard for and is no doubt equally anxious to retain. It is the basis of the Single Passport because it means that any provider of financial services anywhere in the Single Market is being supervised by its home regulator to the same standards (at least in theory) and can therefore be trusted to sell those products anywhere in the Single Market. Opting out of that and losing that benefit is the last thing that London wants.
In my opinion this is getting mixed up with a different form of regulation which allows the ECB to determine market conditions, solvency conditions and security within the EZ. In exactly the same way as the BoE and the Prudential Authority does in this country. Once again there is not actually a problem here, at least on the surface.
The UK's concern is that the right to set market conditions within the ECB will be used to undermine the Single Passport and restrict our access. That is the area of risk. There are 2 potential solutions. Firstly, we could challenge such regulations in the CJE on the basis that they undermine the Single Market. And secondly Cameron has now got us a chance to say wait a minute, you need to look at this again before the court case.
Those who think that the EU is all an evil conspiracy which works tirelessly to do us down will of course argue that neither of these remedies will ever do us any good but in seeking to uphold the single market we will be the good guys and in with a shout.
If we leave the EU we have no brake and no right to challenge before the CJE although we would probably have the right to make representations if someone else brought a case. For me, financial services are a marginal argument for remaining in although I fully accept that there is enough uncertainty to make it possible to argue either way.
Edit, I should have said that the other concern was that the ECB may seek to impose extra-territoriality to its regulations, effectively applying them to London as well. That is open to the same 2 challenges but also remains a risk.
The issue isn't so much restricting access, as regulations which require parts of the financial infrastructure to be shifted to a eurozone country and/or which apply market wide taxes that disproportionately hit the UK
The first part is the same thing. The second part is the extra-territoriality point.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Nigel Farage vs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looks like a good starting point.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
No I don't think so. Cameron vetoed a deal years ago remember and they immediately signed a text without us. Now that meant it didn't apply to us, but we couldn't veto them going ahead without us. Lisbon included (deliberately) many ways for the EZ to integrate without us having a veto.
It also contains self-amending clauses meaning they don't even need a new treaty for most stuff, which circumvents referendum etc in many countries. (Art 48. TEU)
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
It's a good question, and the answer is that it's not entirely clear. But, if you think about it, it cannot both be true that we could veto further EZ integration and that we cannot stop them ganging up against us even after this agreement. So, when you say 'something solid in return', you are implicitly saying that our promise to them is watertight and enforceable, but their promise to us is worthless. That doesn't make sense.
I see it differently. To me, this is the deal you are asking for. It's partly legal, and partly political, as is often the case in the EU. It's basically cementing and formalising our position as a kind of associate member - that's a big step forward.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
No I don't think so. Cameron vetoed a deal years ago remember and they immediately signed a text without us. Now that meant it didn't apply to us, but we couldn't veto them going ahead without us. Lisbon included (deliberately) many ways for the EZ to integrate without us having a veto.
At the risk of looking like a total nerd that is a bit of an oversimplification. Lisbon allowed the EZ and in particular the ECB to take various steps to integrate their economic policies but the quid pro quo is that these are not EU institutions in the full sense and do not have the right to use EU resources. This is where we got into the fight about using EU money to bail out Greece where we got given the indemnity.
There will come a point, and soon, when this is not enough and the EZ will want to fully integrate the ECB and indeed the Euro into the EU. That will need serious treaty change and we have a veto to prevent that. If we are ever to get the double majority protection it is going to be then, not in the negotiations that Cameron had.
Agreed. But until they're ready to reach that rubicon we have no veto. They're not going to reach that point quick enough to be relevant for this referendum either.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Bo
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Gove is far more formidable than Boris, he has the intellectual firepower, and the eye for detail, recent experience at justice on EU laws, and the experience of several difficult government positions against powerful lobbies. Cameron might be a little shy of giving him both barrels as well because he is/was part of the inner circle, and knows where the bodies are buried... Johnson not so much.
I agree Gove might be a much better debater than Johnson, so a good choice for LEAVE, if there are TV euroref debates.
I disagree when it comes to the leadership. Gove just hasn't got *it* (check his ratings). Boris has.
""No, I'm constitutionally incapable of it. There's a special extra quality you need that is indefinable, and I know I don't have it. There's an equanimity, an impermeability and a courage that you need. There are some things in life you know it's better not to try." - Gove on his leadership chances.
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
No I don't think so. Cameron vetoed a deal years ago remember and they immediately signed a text without us. Now that meant it didn't apply to us, but we couldn't veto them going ahead without us. Lisbon included (deliberately) many ways for the EZ to integrate without us having a veto.
At the risk of looking like a total nerd that is a bit of an oversimplification. Lisbon allowed the EZ and in particular the ECB to take various steps to integrate their economic policies but the quid pro quo is that these are not EU institutions in the full sense and do not have the right to use EU resources. This is where we got into the fight about using EU money to bail out Greece where we got given the indemnity.
There will come a point, and soon, when this is not enough and the EZ will want to fully integrate the ECB and indeed the Euro into the EU. That will need serious treaty change and we have a veto to prevent that. If we are ever to get the double majority protection it is going to be then, not in the negotiations that Cameron had.
Agreed. But until they're ready to reach that rubicon we have no veto. They're not going to reach that point quick enough to be relevant for this referendum either.
I know. But that is probably why Cameron did not fight for it. Without the threat of a veto he had absolutely no chance of getting it.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Nigel Farage vs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looks like a good starting point.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Nigel Farage vs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looks like a good starting point.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
Genuine question: did we not have the ability to stop further EZ integration? Is that not equivalent to a veto? Could that not have been deployed to make it clear that we wanted something solid in return?
It's a good question, and the answer is that it's not entirely clear. But, if you think about it, it cannot both be true that we could veto further EZ integration and that we cannot stop them ganging up against us even after this agreement. So, when you say 'something solid in return', you are implicitly saying that our promise to them is watertight and enforceable, but their promise to us is worthless. That doesn't make sense.
I see it differently. To me, this is the deal you are asking for. It's partly legal, and partly political, as is often the case in the EU. It's basically cementing and formalising our position as a kind of associate member - that's a big step forward.
My understanding is that we cannot stop them from integrating but we can stop them from using EU institutions to do it. This really doesn't suit either side.
'It's basically cementing and formalising our position as a kind of associate member'
Ever more slippery terminology being deployed now.
A restatement of the status quo is now a 'big step forward'. The status quo being renamed 'associate membership' is a 'big step forward' as well presumably.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
Nigel Farage vs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looks like a good starting point.
A starting point for what?
WWE of course.
Well it might as well be reading the nonsense on here.
My understanding is that we cannot stop them from integrating but we can stop them from using EU institutions to do it. This really doesn't suit either side.
The deal explicitly covers discrimination in agreements outside the EU institutions. That was the point which jumped out of the page when the first draft was published, and was why I said the deal was better than I expected.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
My understanding is that we cannot stop them from integrating but we can stop them from using EU institutions to do it. This really doesn't suit either side.
The deal explicitly covers discrimination in agreements outside the EU institutions. That was the point which jumped out of the page when the first draft was published, and was why I said the deal was better than I expected.
Yes, but only to the point that we can raise this as an issue without going to the mattresses courts about it. To stop it we would ultimately need to litigate which is the position now.
My understanding is that we cannot stop them from integrating but we can stop them from using EU institutions to do it. This really doesn't suit either side.
The deal explicitly covers discrimination in agreements outside the EU institutions. That was the point which jumped out of the page when the first draft was published, and was why I said the deal was better than I expected.
And in exchange we are allowing them to integrate within EU institutions. And the no discrimination clause has a pretty huge exemption for anything that can be considered "objective reasons". And it does not cover them passing laws which disproportionately hurt us, as long as its not explicitly different treatment of UK and Eurozone companies.
If we had no hope of getting proper protection for our very important financial industry, then why bother? Just be honest about it.
The fig leaf is an insult.
It's not a fig leaf, it's an improvement. Slightly better than I was expecting, in fact.
But then, I have realistic expectations.
If YOU had realistic expectations, why didn't David "the deal" Cameron?
"Fundamental and far reaching reform of the EU" - that was his expectation. He told us.
You have to accept that Cameron is either an idiot or a liar. Or both.
He said if he didn't get the deal he wanted he didn't rule out backing LEAVE
So he is implicitly saying that the deal he got will prevent migrant camps in Kent, North Korea attacking us, a Paris style attack in the UK, the city of London crumbling etc etc, as are the cabinet ministers who parrot his line
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Bo
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Gove is far more formidable than Boris, he has the intellectual firepower, and the eye for detail, recent experience at justice on EU laws, and the experience of several difficult government positions against powerful lobbies. Cameron might be a little shy of giving him both barrels as well because he is/was part of the inner circle, and knows where the bodies are buried... Johnson not so much.
I agree Gove might be a much better debater than Johnson, so a good choice for LEAVE, if there are TV euroref debates.
I disagree when it comes to the leadership. Gove just hasn't got *it* (check his ratings). Boris has.
""No, I'm constitutionally incapable of it. There's a special extra quality you need that is indefinable, and I know I don't have it. There's an equanimity, an impermeability and a courage that you need. There are some things in life you know it's better not to try." - Gove on his leadership chances.
Whilst I think Remain will win (and have consistently thought that right through the campaign) it's worth noting that the current polling is simple the average of the graph's term. I don't think it indicates much beyond that.
Yes, but only to the point that we can raise this as an issue without going to the mattresses courts about it. To stop it we would ultimately need to litigate which is the position now.
My understanding is that we cannot stop them from integrating but we can stop them from using EU institutions to do it. This really doesn't suit either side.
The deal explicitly covers discrimination in agreements outside the EU institutions. That was the point which jumped out of the page when the first draft was published, and was why I said the deal was better than I expected.
Problem is it not discrimination to introduce rules across all members which regulate or interfere with markets or institutions that only one country actually really cares about.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Yes, but only to the point that we can raise this as an issue without going to the mattresses courts about it. To stop it we would ultimately need to litigate which is the position now.
Yes, but only to the point that we can raise this as an issue without going to the mattresses courts about it. To stop it we would ultimately need to litigate which is the position now.
Well, that would be true of any deal.
Shame that the court in question is the federalist ECJ.
Yes - we've been through this. There are get out clauses the size of the Andromeda Galaxy in this supposed deal on protecting financial services. It's meaningless as a result.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Phew. I've talked one of my friends back round to Leave again. Two more to go.
This is hard work.
It might need a bit more than your 2 friends to be fair. Political persuasion is a futile exercise, people agree with you in order to get rid of you, ask anybody who's knocked doors.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Labour may be a stupid party, but unlike Labour the Remain side is serious about winning. They would not let Corbyn near a debate.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
it was on the EU Constitution. When the French and Dutch voted it down, it came back renamed as the Lisbon Treaty (tho it was exactly the same) and the Labour wankers used this as an excuse NOT to offer a vote.
The history of betrayal of the British people, by their governments, on the question of Europe, is long and richly storied. Cameron is handsomely extending this vivid tradition.
Another thing for voters to bear in mind.
As soon as Labour take office again, we'll get another giant spunk of EU integration (circumventing the chocolate fireguard of a referendum lock) whether we want it or not.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
it was on the EU Constitution. When the French and Dutch voted it down, it came back renamed as the Lisbon Treaty (tho it was exactly the same) and the Labour wankers used this as an excuse NOT to offer a vote.
The history of betrayal of the British people, by their governments, on the question of Europe, is long and richly storied. Cameron is handsomely extending this vivid tradition.
At least he's giving you a say unlike Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown.
Of course it could be that those who have money - effete liberals are betting on remain whilst those who don't have money or who haven't thought about it (WWC man etc) don't bet.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
it was on the EU Constitution. When the French and Dutch voted it down, it came back renamed as the Lisbon Treaty (tho it was exactly the same) and the Labour wankers used this as an excuse NOT to offer a vote.
The history of betrayal of the British people, by their governments, on the question of Europe, is long and richly storied. Cameron is handsomely extending this vivid tradition.
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
Out of interest, has Boris done a TV interview since coming our for Leave? He has done a couple of interviews for friendly newspapers, but I haven't seen him anywhere near anything that smacks of difficult or challenging yet. But I could have missed it. If not, so far it looks like the same Boris script as usual.
The actual campaign hasn't started yet. It begins in April, I believe.
I read somewhere at the weekend that Cameron was considering changing his mind, and doing one TV debate - probably with Boris, in June. That WOULD be fun.
I'm not sure who would win. Boris is charismatic, but he's not great at debates. The bumbling stuff doesn't work in that format. On the other hand if he got into David's face, and made the PM pink and angry...
Wasn't it Boris or Gove? I would be genuinely shocked if Boris went up against the PM. He cannot debate. Boris has never played in the politics Champions League up to now. He has fought and won two election campaigns against Ken Livingstone for a relatively inconsequential job and has studiously avoided in-depth TV interviews, debates and press conferences since he became mayor. Going up against Cameron over an issue as important as EU membership would be a huge step up for him.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
He is untested at the top level. So far he has only played in the county championship. We will learn a lot more about him and his abilities over the next four months. Is he Graham Hick or Joe Root?
Yep. He might f8ck up. He is untested as you say.
But this is his moment. At least he knows it. If he performs well, and also gets LEAVE over 40%, I think he will be the next prime minister.
Foreign Office Minister, David Lidington has to be one of the most arrogant Minister's in the government.
For those interested, Boris Johnson made a speech in Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland this morning, alongside Theresa Villiers. I saw it on SKY but no idea if it was shown on BBC.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, ......
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
it was on the EU Constitution. When the French and Dutch voted it down, it came back renamed as the Lisbon Treaty (tho it was exactly the same) and the Labour wankers used this as an excuse NOT to offer a vote.
The history of betrayal of the British people, by their governments, on the question of Europe, is long and richly storied. Cameron is handsomely extending this vivid tradition.
Another thing for voters to bear in mind. As soon as Labour take office again, we'll get another giant spunk of EU integration (circumventing the chocolate fireguard of a referendum lock) whether we want it or not. Only safe way to guard against that is to Leave.
In retrospect, that particular craven performance should have been seen as a good signal for how pathetic and dishonest the renegotiation effort would prove to be.
And to be fair, some posters did flag that up - while others (I wonder who?) engaged in various tortuous and unconvincing explanations for why it wasn't a U-turn at all.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
In retrospect, that particular craven performance should have been seen as a good signal for how pathetic and dishonest the renegotiation effort would prove to be.
And to be fair, some posters did flag that up - while others (I wonder who?) engaged in various tortuous and unconvincing explanations for why it wasn't a U-turn at all.
I agree a TV debate would be quite a test for him. It's not his natural arena. But that doesn't mean Boris is a bad, or junior league politician. He clearly isn't; he is very smart (brighter than Cameron by all accounts), very articulate (when he wants to be), and extremely ruthless and ambitious.
He's just a different kind of politician. Not like Blair or Cameron. Pretty sui generis, in fact.
Framing a debate is going to be tricky, as there are different balances from different viewpoints.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
Nick, why are you obsessed with making it party political? You seem incapable of arriving at a decision without first checking who said what.
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
The whole thing started as an internal spat in the Conservative Party; as you say, nothing to do with anyone else. However, instead of dealing with it internally Cameron has made it a national issue, so although it will be very difficult to find anyone halfway sensible in any other party for Leave, those of us who want nothing to do with the Tories internal wars need to be motivated to vote.
Nonsense. Labour pledged a referendum in 2005 and then reneged on that. More than just the Tories wanted a say and it went to the country and the country voted for the referendum by a majority.
That's interesting, I didn't know Labour pledged a referendum in 2005, I wonder what was the thinking behind it and why they reneged.
That said, Black Swans are migrating around this time of year. Heading for Europe.
I think the migration of 1m Syrians and another million Africans claiming to be Syrians just might have a bigger impact than a few black birds. It remains Leave's best chance.
Uh, that was my subtle, wry and metaphorical meaning. Perhaps too subtle. Or too metaphorical. Or too wry.
Sorry, I must be dragging down the average of these very clever Leavers enormously.
Strictly speaking, black swan events are supposed to be near-unpredictable whereas another migrant tide is nigh-on a certainty. The reaction to that tide is a bit more unpredictable though.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
Thanks, I refuse to take sides when it comes to pointing out manifesto lies/pledges. On one hand Cameron pledges to get immigration down to tens of thousands then when it rises pb tories say that's a good thing.
This PB Tory always said the pledge to reduce immigration was a bad thing and that the rise in immigration is a good thing - and most importantly a side effect of a good thing, that we have a good economy despite Europe's malaise. Since I'm not Cameron there's absolutely no hypocrisy there.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?
Comments
Intelligence is irrelevant in just about every scenario, integrity and good intentions are far more important. Prisons are full of intelligent people.
To get a second referendum we'd need a leader who is backing Leave because of his principles despite his career not one doing so to further his career despite his beliefs.
Step forward Gove.
Oh pull the other one Richard. We all know he asked for virtually nothing because he wasn't interested in getting anything, just in cobbling together a few 'wins' he thought he could quickly sell to what he & his chums considered a bored and ignorant electorate.
And we know this because the Remain camp have briefed to that effect for months. There has been no effort to hide the fact that the 'renegotiation' process was a sham.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Character, curiosity, courage and common-sense: those are what I go for.
Doesn't it also follow that those who would want to impose tariffs would need to convince the other 26 within the EU?
Intelligence in isolation is not a virtue.
http://margaretthatcher.tv/The_Best_Quotes.html
"The Best Quotes From Margaret Thatcher's 'Statecraft':"
"What we should grasp, however, from the lessons of European history is that, first, there is nothing necessarily benevolent about programmes of European integration; second, the desire to achieve grand utopian plans often poses a grave threat to freedom; and third, European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."
"The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially, though the timing, occasion and full consequences are all necessarily still unclear."
"If the Europeans truly wish to improve their NATO contribution they can show it simply enough. They can establish professional armed forces, like those of the UK. And they can acquire more advanced technology. Indeed, unless that happens soon the gulf between the European and US capabilities will yawn so wide that it will not be possible to share the same battlefield. Alas, I do not think that sharing battlefields with our American friends - but rather disputing global primacy with them - is what European defence plans are truly about."
"(A unified) 'Europe' is the result of plans. It is, in fact, a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt."
"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."
"(I)t is highly questionable whether when 'Europe speaks with one voice', as we are so often told it is doing, anyone is really listening. Europe's reputation as a serious player in international affairs is unenviable. It is a feeble giant who desperate attempts to be taken seriously are largely risible. It has a weak currency and a sluggish inflexible economy, still much reliant on hidden protectionism. It has a shrinking, ageing, population and, with the exception of Britain, rather unimpressive armed forces and, not excepting Britain, muddled diplomacy."
"Countries trade with each other - or to be more precise people buy and sell from each other across frontiers - because that is the way to advance their interests. We do not need to beg people to trade with us - as long as we have something that people want, of a quality they expect and at a price they are prepared to pay."
The only reason this sore needs lancing now is because Cameron - for internal party reasons - imposed such a deadline and even with another 18 months to go went early. Plus he focused on migrant benefits: an economically insignificant sum which could be resolved by tweaking the UK's welfare system and while also giving the impression to the rest of Europe that the only thing the UK cared about was not paying money to some children in other countries.
Thatcher was focused and determined and did detail. I don't think even Cameron's greatest admirer would say the last of him and detail, mind-numbingly boring detail, is what is needed in EU negotiations. Believe me. I've been there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/28/mervyn-king-the-eurozone-is-doomed/
By the way, so are Aston Villa (where King is a Director).
In my opinion this is getting mixed up with a different form of regulation which allows the ECB to determine market conditions, solvency conditions and security within the EZ. In exactly the same way as the BoE and the Prudential Authority does in this country. Once again there is not actually a problem here, at least on the surface.
The UK's concern is that the right to set market conditions within the ECB will be used to undermine the Single Passport and restrict our access. That is the area of risk. There are 2 potential solutions. Firstly, we could challenge such regulations in the CJE on the basis that they undermine the Single Market. And secondly Cameron has now got us a chance to say wait a minute, you need to look at this again before the court case.
Those who think that the EU is all an evil conspiracy which works tirelessly to do us down will of course argue that neither of these remedies will ever do us any good but in seeking to uphold the single market we will be the good guys and in with a shout.
If we leave the EU we have no brake and no right to challenge before the CJE although we would probably have the right to make representations if someone else brought a case. For me, financial services are a marginal argument for remaining in although I fully accept that there is enough uncertainty to make it possible to argue either way.
Edit, I should have said that the other concern was that the ECB may seek to impose extra-territoriality to its regulations, effectively applying them to London as well. That is open to the same 2 challenges but also remains a risk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35688401
Straight out of Father Ted's fictional world into real life.
http://morningconsult.com/2016/02/donald-trump-marco-rubio-super-tuesday-polling/
Morning Consult National polling:
Trump 44
Rubio 14
Cruz 15
Carson 9
Kasich 5
Someone else 4
DK 8
Clinton 51
Sanders 35
SE 6
DK 9
Boris will ruffle his hair a bit, utter a few well chosen bon-mots, a quote or two from the Greats and utterly miss the goal. Gove will squint piercingly at you, instantly spot the flaw in your argument, cut through it and tear you a new one, all whilst being unfailingly polite.
Reading your posts I imagine quite a lot of things are a mystery to you. I'd like to contact both Ukip Leave and Tory Leave if you have their details please.
The free trade versus tariff groups.
Just like all the Eurozone shenanigans they will at each other like rats in a sack trying to meet a deadline.
- Gove on his leadership chances.
There will come a point, and soon, when this is not enough and the EZ will want to fully integrate the ECB and indeed the Euro into the EU. That will need serious treaty change and we have a veto to prevent that. If we are ever to get the double majority protection it is going to be then, not in the negotiations that Cameron had.
When you change jobs the ratings can change very, very quickly.
On the one hand, we clearly need to have equality of Remain and Leave. On the other hand, we need to involve Labour as well (and in Scotland the SNP) - this is not just because they're the main opposition, but because Remain will be stuffed if it's seen as purely an internal Tory argument and Labour voters mostly sit it out. Does that mean Corbyn, or Alan Johnson?
So we could see something like Cameron vs Gove and A. Johnson vs Farage, but lots of other combinations are conceivable.
I see it differently. To me, this is the deal you are asking for. It's partly legal, and partly political, as is often the case in the EU. It's basically cementing and formalising our position as a kind of associate member - that's a big step forward.
And they wonder why they are losing...
It has nothing to do with SNP, UKIP or any other party.
Could Hildog lose NY to Trump?
http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-could-lose-to-trump-in-democratic-new-york/
Ever more slippery terminology being deployed now.
A restatement of the status quo is now a 'big step forward'. The status quo being renamed 'associate membership' is a 'big step forward' as well presumably.
Black is white etc.
Morning Consult national:
Trump 44 +2
Cruz 15 +1
Rubio 14 -5
Carson 9 0
Kasich 5 0
http://morningconsult.com/2016/02/donald-trump-marco-rubio-super-tuesday-polling/
Looks a lot like today's CNN poll.
mattressescourts about it. To stop it we would ultimately need to litigate which is the position now.So he is implicitly saying that the deal he got will prevent migrant camps in Kent, North Korea attacking us, a Paris style attack in the UK, the city of London crumbling etc etc, as are the cabinet ministers who parrot his line
Are you the greatest love machine to come out of Russia ?
Suffolk and Nassau county 2012 results:
Obama 51, 53
Romney 47, 46
They are the richest counties in N.Y. outside of Manhattan, so I'm not surprised that a N.Y. billionaire beats Hillary in those areas.
Yes - we've been through this. There are get out clauses the size of the Andromeda Galaxy in this supposed deal on protecting financial services. It's meaningless as a result.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/29/enter-the-politicalbetting-eu-referendum-competition-to-win-a-250-free-bet-at-william-hill/
TMI
This is hard work.
As soon as Labour take office again, we'll get another giant spunk of EU integration (circumventing the chocolate fireguard of a referendum lock) whether we want it or not.
Only safe way to guard against that is to Leave.
For those interested, Boris Johnson made a speech in Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland this morning, alongside Theresa Villiers. I saw it on SKY but no idea if it was shown on BBC.
We shouldn't forget Cameron's 'cast iron' guarantee to have a referendum on Lisbon either....which soon crumbled to dust.
http://order-order.com/2009/11/01/cameron-flashback-i-will-give-this-cast-iron-guarantee/
In retrospect, that particular craven performance should have been seen as a good signal for
how pathetic and dishonest the renegotiation effort would prove to be.
And to be fair, some posters did flag that up - while others (I wonder who?) engaged in various tortuous and unconvincing explanations for why it wasn't a U-turn at all.
Alternatively, a different black swan might be someone who sweeps in and galvanises the EURef debate by their charisma, transforming the drama and dooming the Remainders to be forever disunited with their true (if well-disguised) love.
End of.
If you disagree with Farage over something does that make you wrong? Why can PB Tories not have the right to disagree with Cameron?