On the measure most economists (as opposed to politicians, talking up the Home Team) use, PPP, we're 8th or so.....still very big and very prosperous, but not quite as big as we like to think.....
On the measure most economists (as opposed to politicians, talking up the Home Team) use, PPP, we're 8th or so.....still very big and very prosperous, but not quite as big as we like to think.....
Having bigger populations, economies and/or natural resources might have something to do with it.
"What we should do with our sovereignty" is not a valid question, that is what democracy is for. We should do whatever we please.
If we don't like what our politicians do we can kick the bastards out and get changes. How do we kick the bastards out in Brussels? If we want to change a law in Brussels how do we vote for that? We can't.
Sovereignty is an end-goal in itself not a staging post before "what next", what next is up to us. And is up to us every five years.
So you want to put us into a decade of economic uncertainty and likely contraction just so that you can repatriate some powers you have no idea how you'll use?
The Remain side are happy for a thousand faceless Eurocrats sipping Trappist beer on expenses to tell us we can no longer buy a fast-boiling kettle. A real vision of the sunlit uplands. (Uplands in receipt of Euro-handouts under the CAP, no doubt.)
As predicted, Mr Meeks has reached full Brind. Time to slap a "from a BSE campaign perspective" strapline on his articles.
Except about 3/4 of PBers are predicting Remain on Nojam, and even the Leavers in that are almost entirely predicting winning by the thinnest of margins.
Yes they are. That is in line with the large headline leads that phone polls have. The comfort zone is to go for poll types that were a bit less inaccurate than others...... But, as with the GE2015 polls we have some dubious weightings being used in the PHONE polls.
"What we should do with our sovereignty" is not a valid question, that is what democracy is for. We should do whatever we please.
If we don't like what our politicians do we can kick the bastards out and get changes. How do we kick the bastards out in Brussels? If we want to change a law in Brussels how do we vote for that? We can't.
Sovereignty is an end-goal in itself not a staging post before "what next", what next is up to us. And is up to us every five years.
So you want to put us into a decade of economic uncertainty and likely contraction just so that you can repatriate some powers you have no idea how you'll use?
The only "decade of uncertainty" is by voting to Remain - as its a question of when in that next decade the EU dies.
Maybe I'm odd, but I'm less concerned about what we do with regained sovereignty than I am in actually obtaining it. Why does there need to be an urgent need to prevent something in order to want that? Bottom line, it's our country and we should be able to be free to take decisions without reference to the eu. One of the things that gets people angriest about the eu is it involving g itself unnecessarily.
If I thought it was capable of stopping itself constantly interfering on little things I'd be more inclined to remain, as its that behaviour which shows the inability to reform, to stop endless power creep even to no purpose.
Let's say that Leave made it all about immigration.
The country votes to leave. The government negotiates membership of the EEA.
That negates Leave's position, but it's not something that they can control.
But it is something the Government (presumably seeking re-election) would be aware of...and might figure in negotiation.....
This 'LEAVE' is whatever the government says it will be' is is an abdication of responsibility - if you believe in something, campaign for it - assuming you can agree on what 'it' is......
Tory members were asked about inter constituency cooperation/expertise sharing last year by CCHQ.
I didn't expect this to be translated into merging associations. I'd anticipate a lot of resistance beyond informal links and generally being good neighbours.
I think the Tories would be bonkers to elect Gove as leader (and PM) post-Leave vote. A gift to Labour.
Boris or Priti would be much more likely to secure a majority in 2020.
I have a theory, in such an eventuality, that Gove would lead us out of the EU and then step down in 2019 for a new contest for GE2020.
I do think this is what Osborne/Gove meeting may well have been about, wonder if Osborne will direct all his supporters in the PCP (Yes they do exist) to back Gove should we Brexit. Clearly the main aim is to stop Johnson and Osborne is very obviously unviable in this scenario. The payback is that Gove supports Osborne in the event of Remain. It is a good deal for both men.
This 'LEAVE' is whatever the government says it will be' is is an abdication of responsibility - if you believe in something, campaign for it - assuming you can agree on what 'it' is......
Remain is also what the Gov't says it is.
Vote Leave seems to have the most sensible look of all 3 campaigns if you had to push me to choose one. A beating turns into a landslide if Grassroots Out is chosen as the official campaign.
If vote Brexit wins, how on earth will JLR sell into Germany, or BMW into Britain? What mechanism is the Leave campaign offering?
Back here in the real world, we all know that things will carry on much as now. It would be very difficult for govts to derail the current position. They can try, but it will be hard work, with no winners, and nobody gaining. There may have to be invoicing via S Ireland, or somesuch daft contortion. But it would soon be dropped.
How do I know? Look at any time there has been an embrgo on exports to a certain country, and followed aggressively. Stuff still gets through. You can see how easy it is to do, by simply checking on the amount of premium is charged in the country. Small isn't it?
The silliest question that Remainers ask: what will rep[lace the EU? Answer: nothing. But can't govts tip over all the existing arrangements? Almost certainly not.
To be clear, you're saying that because there has been some sanctions breaking in the past, then we'll be fine. Ok.
What is clear that however difficult govts make it to trade, the trade still takes place. Don't be overly worried about the clerking.
F1: Test 2: Test Harder begins today. And Sauber are bringing their 2016 car.
About 3 weeks until the first race in Oz. Just hope it's on Five Live, so I can listen to it on my ancient walkman in bed, rather than having to get up [I think the start's 5am, and getting up necessitates walking the dog, which means getting up even earlier...].
Maybe I'm odd, but I'm less concerned about what we do with regained sovereignty than I am in actually obtaining it. Why does there need to be an urgent need to prevent something in order to want that? Bottom line, it's our country and we should be able to be free to take decisions without reference to the eu. One of the things that gets people angriest about the eu is it involving g itself unnecessarily.
If I thought it was capable of stopping itself constantly interfering on little things I'd be more inclined to remain, as its that behaviour which shows the inability to reform, to stop endless power creep even to no purpose.
Leave are tip-toeing round one major issue. Do you trust Cameron? His track record isn't good on European promises. We negotiated hard for an extra rebate? A claim that fell to pieces when looked at by a committee of MPs. No ifs, no buts? Hmm ... immigration always a sore point.
I understand the Conservatives in Leave are reluctant to go dirty, but Cameron has no such qualms. He is 'majoring' on standing up for Britain when he is doing a fair impression of a jellyfish.
Follow it up with .. do you trust the French to do what's good for the UK? They and the Germans are in charge after all.
It will be called a smear but it will bring the facts it into focus and there's enough truth to hurt.
And they can do it safely in the knowledge that Jezza is the deadest of dead ducks anyway.
Mr Hyde, a well written piece but with a chunk of wishful thinking. However, Remain should win, and I've predicted 58 - 42.
The Remain side are happy for a thousand faceless Eurocrats sipping Trappist beer on expenses to tell us we can no longer buy a fast-boiling kettle. A real vision of the sunlit uplands. (Uplands in receipt of Euro-handouts under the CAP, no doubt.)
In the first two media news stories this morning, was the problem of migrants in our EU partner, France, and the migrant problem in our EU partner, Greece. The linking of immigration problems to the EU countries and a picture of political ineffectiveness in tackling this.
When I glance at my screen and watch real human beings.... misery in the EU today. Shackled to this?
Tory members were asked about inter constituency cooperation/expertise sharing last year by CCHQ.
I didn't expect this to be translated into merging associations. I'd anticipate a lot of resistance beyond informal links and generally being good neighbours.
Twice disgraced Mandelson sent out to bat for Remain on Today. No doubt protecting his EU pension, and the interests of his rich chums who stand to benefit financially from continued membership, through agricultural subsidies and benefits of one kind or another. I suspect he has little interest in the fate of the 'little people'.
Morning all. Apparently Jezza had a disastrous meeting with the PLP before appearing on national TV. Has he become entirely irrelevant to political debate in this country?
Maybe I'm odd, but I'm less concerned about what we do with regained sovereignty than I am in actually obtaining it. Why does there need to be an urgent need to prevent something in order to want that? Bottom line, it's our country and we should be able to be free to take decisions without reference to the eu. One of the things that gets people angriest about the eu is it involving g itself unnecessarily.
If I thought it was capable of stopping itself constantly interfering on little things I'd be more inclined to remain, as its that behaviour which shows the inability to reform, to stop endless power creep even to no purpose.
Same here.
Me too. But there are nervous swing voters out there who would vote Leave, if only they could be reassured.
Leave need to work out what that reassurance looks like.
Follow it up with .. do you trust the French to do what's good for the UK? They and the Germans are in charge after all.
Therein lies the problem for LEAVE.
If you can't trust the French when we are paying them ~£10bn, what are they going to be like when we stop?
I saw a comment earlier about BMW pressuring the German government to sign a deal. That's another problem. The German's don't sign the deal, the EU does.
How exactly does BMW pressure the French government to sign up, or the Greeks?
This is dreadful. Honestly, who'd want to be a lorry driver now? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35693882 "Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France." What an awful fate.
Why is asylum in France an awful fate, or are you taking the p?
Twice disgraced Mandelson sent out to bat for Remain on Today. No doubt protecting his EU pension, and the interests of his rich chums who stand to benefit financially from continued membership, through agricultural subsidies and benefits of one kind or another. I suspect he has little interest in the fate of the 'little people'.
Morning all. Apparently Jezza had a disastrous meeting with the PLP before appearing on national TV. Has he become entirely irrelevant to political debate in this country?
I fear you should LEAVE PB for the day, for to REMAIN might be notable for the amount of interesting comments aimed in your direction ....
Do you anticipate a lot of ball playing?
You might think PB has a fearful number of w*nkers onboard presently but I couldn't possibly comment !!
However it does appear that Cameron is quite happy to thrust his hand down the LEAVE Y fronts and squeeze the contents therein .... Ouch ....
Y-Fronts? You're showing your age a bit there Jack - we're all into boxers and hipsters these days. You'll be telling us next that you still wear those "sensible" button-up pyjama tops with sleeves and bottoms with cords around the waist. We know you're pushing 107 years of age, but you really do need to try and move with the times.
I tip my night cap to you young man.
Mrs JackW regularly attempts in vain to donate my double breasted and turn up suits to charity. However I counter on two fronts.
Firstly they always come back into fashion and have done so several times so far and secondly and undoubtedly the clincher is my offer to makeover my vintage look in direct proportion to her discarded footwear ....
It's a winner every time, a small and rare victory ....
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
Follow it up with .. do you trust the French to do what's good for the UK? They and the Germans are in charge after all.
Therein lies the problem for LEAVE.
If you can't trust the French when we are paying them ~£10bn, what are they going to be like when we stop?
I saw a comment earlier about BMW pressuring the German government to sign a deal. That's another problem. The German's don't sign the deal, the EU does.
How exactly does BMW pressure the French government to sign up, or the Greeks?
The likes of EDF will be very keen for a deal, and they are essentially run by the French Govt.
Twice disgraced Mandelson sent out to bat for Remain on Today. No doubt protecting his EU pension, and the interests of his rich chums who stand to benefit financially from continued membership, through agricultural subsidies and benefits of one kind or another. I suspect he has little interest in the fate of the 'little people'.
He first had to talk about the EU's migration problems and then had some soft questions.
"Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France."
What an awful fate.
They know that many, perhaps most, such claims would be turned down. Owen Bennett, writing in the New Statesman, encountered several who had had claims for asylum in the UK rejected, and had been deported, but still felt entitled to settle here.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
Thanks for the honesty Nick. I believe that this country can stand on its own two feet and do what's best for the people of this country. Perhaps I'm being a bit reckless but if it came to tariffs then so be it.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
Who funds the EU? ANS. 1. The germans 2. The UK Now if the 2nd big payee stops the 1st guy has an even bigger influence.
Maybe I'm odd, but I'm less concerned about what we do with regained sovereignty than I am in actually obtaining it. Why does there need to be an urgent need to prevent something in order to want that? Bottom line, it's our country and we should be able to be free to take decisions without reference to the eu. One of the things that gets people angriest about the eu is it involving g itself unnecessarily.
If I thought it was capable of stopping itself constantly interfering on little things I'd be more inclined to remain, as its that behaviour which shows the inability to reform, to stop endless power creep even to no purpose.
Same here.
Me too. But there are nervous swing voters out there who would vote Leave, if only they could be reassured.
Leave need to work out what that reassurance looks like.
Don't worry about what the next Mr Plato looks like. Worry about his bank balance.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
So we get tariffs. More people buy Nissans and Toyotas instead of VWs and BMWs. More people drink British ale and Scotch Whisky instead of French and Italian wine.
Totally O/T question: I'm planning to buy a house, which will eat my savings and cost an extra £150K, which with very helpful advice from Charles I've got a mortgage for despite my age. It seems sensible to insure my life while I'm paying it off, and I see there are "declining mortgage cover" policies - essentially we pay £50ish a month (or £300ish if we wanted to cover critical illness too), and if I croak they insurance pays off the rest of the mortgage.
What puzzles me is that it says we can cancel at any time. As the mortgage dwindles away, the amount they're covering will decline correspondingly. When it gets to say £50K, which my wife could probably scrape up or renegotiate, why wouldn't we just cancel the insurance? At the end of the deal, we'll be paying £50 a month for almost nothing - wouldn't everyone cancel then? Isn't this a problem for the insurers?
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
"Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France."
What an awful fate.
They know that many, perhaps most, such claims would be turned down. Owen Bennett, writing in the New Statesman, encountered several who had had claims for asylum in the UK rejected, and had been deported, but still felt entitled to settle here.
France is a lovely country to retire to as a UK national.
To be completely honest, though, from a migrant's perspective, France must be one of the worst European countries to settle in.
The banlieues are utterly awful, jobs hard very hard to come by, and discrimination (although subtle) still widespread. The UK must seem like el dorado in comparison.
Having said that it is a perfectly safe and stable refuge for genuine refugees who wish to shelter there until they can eventually return home.
"Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France."
What an awful fate.
Revealing info in that link:
' ◾Total camp population is disputed - Calais officials say it houses 3,700, while Help Refugees puts it at 5,497 ◾There are 205 women and 651 children (423 unaccompanied), says Help Refugees '
Which means that there are 4641 men there.
A 23:1 man : woman ratio.
Is that what you would expect for 'refugees'.
I wonder how many of the children are in fact 'children', especially the 423 unaccompanied.
Interesting-ish article, Alistair. Quite frankly it is for the Leave campaign, whichever one, to articulate their vision of the future.
For me, were I leave (and I am not a million miles away) it would be the "Braveheart" - or as you describe it "Leave means sorting it out later" argument that would be most compelling. If we want to be independent, let's be independent.
We can sort out everything afterwards.
From a 'LEAVERS' marketing point of view that conflicts too much with the much vaunted being the 5th largest economy in the world.
To expect the public to make the mental leap from being one of the world's mighty powerhouses to BRAVEHEART the plucky go-it-alone warrior is way beyond the capability of even the shrewdest advertiser.
"Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France."
What an awful fate.
Revealing info in that link:
' ◾Total camp population is disputed - Calais officials say it houses 3,700, while Help Refugees puts it at 5,497 ◾There are 205 women and 651 children (423 unaccompanied), says Help Refugees '
Which means that there are 4641 men there.
A 23:1 man : woman ratio.
Is that what you would expect for 'refugees'.
I wonder how many of the children are in fact 'children', especially the 423 unaccompanied.
Deep down, even the BBC knows they aren't genuine refugees.
Our A-list actors choose to ignore it - and the migrants choose to put up with them, and their shit productions of Hamlet - because they both get something out of it by doing so.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
If Vote Leave dominate and get the designation, and Leave.EU are sidelined, there will be "Leave splits" stories anyway because of the size of Farage's and Aaron Banks's ego, so the best thing for Vote Leave to do would be to just press on with their vision regardless.
I fear you should LEAVE PB for the day, for to REMAIN might be notable for the amount of interesting comments aimed in your direction ....
Do you anticipate a lot of ball playing?
You might think PB has a fearful number of w*nkers onboard presently but I couldn't possibly comment !!
However it does appear that Cameron is quite happy to thrust his hand down the LEAVE Y fronts and squeeze the contents therein .... Ouch ....
Y-Fronts? You're showing your age a bit there Jack - we're all into boxers and hipsters these days. You'll be telling us next that you still wear those "sensible" button-up pyjama tops with sleeves and bottoms with cords around the waist. We know you're pushing 107 years of age, but you really do need to try and move with the times.
Surely JackW takes tea at this time in his four poster in nightgown and nightcap, posting while his butler irons his newspaper?
My only recent breakfast in bed ventures have been whilst being ministered by health care professionals, one of whom undoubtedly aided my recovery by wearing black stockings .... and not over her head !! ....
My paternal grandfather used to have his newspapers ironed before breakfast. It was pretty common practice, not just for appearance but the quality of print on many broadsheets was variable. The "Scotsman" and "Sporting Life" were particular offenders.
All Mr Cameron’s fake scare stories about going bust, invasion by Putin and the end of cheap holidays pale by comparison with the misery Europe has invited on to our doorsteps.
Mass immigration reminds us of the other lies we have been told in the name of political union.
Like Tony Blair’s human rights laws designed to bring us in line with Europe, only to protect foreign criminals and deprive victims of justice...
My only recent breakfast in bed ventures have been whilst being ministered by health care professionals, one of whom undoubtedly aided my recovery by wearing black stockings .... and not over her head !! ....
No I am questioning whether 2 (out of 27) in completely different industries would be pushing for the same deal, which you didn't answer?
As long as there is broad agreement that a deal is needed, the details will be resolved. Germany or France or Italy will not be telling the UK to bugger off.
Totally O/T question: I'm planning to buy a house, which will eat my savings and cost an extra £150K, which with very helpful advice from Charles I've got a mortgage for despite my age. It seems sensible to insure my life while I'm paying it off, and I see there are "declining mortgage cover" policies - essentially we pay £50ish a month (or £300ish if we wanted to cover critical illness too), and if I croak they insurance pays off the rest of the mortgage.
What puzzles me is that it says we can cancel at any time. As the mortgage dwindles away, the amount they're covering will decline correspondingly. When it gets to say £50K, which my wife could probably scrape up or renegotiate, why wouldn't we just cancel the insurance? At the end of the deal, we'll be paying £50 a month for almost nothing - wouldn't everyone cancel then? Isn't this a problem for the insurers?
My only recent breakfast in bed ventures have been whilst being ministered by health care professionals, one of whom undoubtedly aided my recovery by wearing black stockings .... and not over her head !! ....
I think the comment that most of the general public doesn't really know what the EU is for is spot on, and therein lies the problem, and the answer for both Leave and Remain. One of the sides has to grab the public's attention with what the EU actually means to us as a nation and as a people. Vague terms such as sovereignty and threats of job losses or incoherent arguments about trade and immigration, and lots and lots of three letter acronyms don't enthuse or enlighten the public. Someone has to fashion a narrative about what their chosen result actually means. I don't believe that anyone who thinks about the EU at all wants the "status quo", and indeed, I don't believe that that is an option- a vote to remain would surely be a green light for the EU heavyweights to forge ahead with ever closer union-something that I'd suspect the vast majority of the British public really don't want.
All Mr Cameron’s fake scare stories about going bust, invasion by Putin and the end of cheap holidays pale by comparison with the misery Europe has invited on to our doorsteps. Mass immigration reminds us of the other lies we have been told in the name of political union. Like Tony Blair’s human rights laws designed to bring us in line with Europe, only to protect foreign criminals and deprive victims of justice...
For the first time this year, Jeremy Corbyn attended tonight’s Parliamentary Labour Party meeting (having angered colleagues by missing last week’s). But in the view of MPs, the wait was not worth it.
“If I gave a report like that to my Constituency Labour Party meeting, members would be justified in deselecting me,” a shadow minister told me. A former shadow cabinet member was even blunter: "Bloody terrible. Same message, worse strategy". Another commented: "Expectations were rock-bottom - and he fell below them".
For the first time this year, Jeremy Corbyn attended tonight’s Parliamentary Labour Party meeting (having angered colleagues by missing last week’s). But in the view of MPs, the wait was not worth it.
“If I gave a report like that to my Constituency Labour Party meeting, members would be justified in deselecting me,” a shadow minister told me. A former shadow cabinet member was even blunter: "Bloody terrible. Same message, worse strategy". Another commented: "Expectations were rock-bottom - and he fell below them".
OK I'll be honest I didn't read the header, I saw the title and sighed. Meeks is perfectly entitled to his view but after weeks of being undecided he theatrically announced himself to be a Remainer (shock horror) for the simple reason that he doesn't like a few on the Leave side.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Do please include redirecting the overseas aid budget towards the poorer EU countries. Phased in within 5 years half of it going direct to specific countries.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Do please include redirecting the overseas aid budget towards the poorer EU countries. Phased in within 5 years half of it going direct to specific countries.
Is anyone proposing that? The poorer Commonwealth countries are surely in more need.
A fair summary Mr Meeks, making points have been saying for weeks. To add to it the corollary of all that is that were Leave to win then the arguments about what next would only just begin.
Let's say that Leave made it all about immigration.
The country votes to leave. The government negotiates membership of the EEA.
That negates Leave's position, but it's not something that they can control.
But it is something the Government (presumably seeking re-election) would be aware of...and might figure in negotiation.....
This 'LEAVE' is whatever the government says it will be' is is an abdication of responsibility - if you believe in something, campaign for it - assuming you can agree on what 'it' is......
You may not have noticed, but UKIP and the Conservatives are different political parties?
They have different visions for the future.
There's a pretty strong argument for a general election post a Leave vote to seek guidance from the voters on the negotiation strategy, but I doubt that our politicians will go for that
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Do please include redirecting the overseas aid budget towards the poorer EU countries. Phased in within 5 years half of it going direct to specific countries.
Leaving the starving and impoverished elsewhere to just starve, when Europe is one of the richest nations in the world? I thought Leave were more interested in the Commonwealth which covers half of Africa.
Totally O/T question: I'm planning to buy a house, which will eat my savings and cost an extra £150K, which with very helpful advice from Charles I've got a mortgage for despite my age. It seems sensible to insure my life while I'm paying it off, and I see there are "declining mortgage cover" policies - essentially we pay £50ish a month (or £300ish if we wanted to cover critical illness too), and if I croak they insurance pays off the rest of the mortgage.
What puzzles me is that it says we can cancel at any time. As the mortgage dwindles away, the amount they're covering will decline correspondingly. When it gets to say £50K, which my wife could probably scrape up or renegotiate, why wouldn't we just cancel the insurance? At the end of the deal, we'll be paying £50 a month for almost nothing - wouldn't everyone cancel then? Isn't this a problem for the insurers?
Technically not advice, as I'm not regulated to give mortgage advice. All I did was point you in the direction of a couple of friendly brokers
On your insurance question: (a) not everyone can "scrape up" £50,000 towards the end of the term; and (b) the insurance company gets to keep the investment income in the meantime.
Generally speaking, self-insurance is always better if you can because it allows you to capture the insurer's profit margin and reduces near term cash outflows. As a thought, if you can afford £50K as self-insurance, have you run the pricing on £150K of life insurance rather than £200K?
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
Toys will be thrown out of prams, there will be some charades and stage managed strops, but within a year realpolitik will take over from emotion.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
If Vote Leave dominate and get the designation, and Leave.EU are sidelined, there will be "Leave splits" stories anyway because of the size of Farage's and Aaron Banks's ego, so the best thing for Vote Leave to do would be to just press on with their vision regardless.
I do genuinely wonder how the Electoral Commission can make a choice like this. There are two fundamentally different campaigns and the decision could have a major impact on the outcome of the vote. Surely it's better to split the money?
Individual make up is a massive factor, from what I gather on here most INNERS are corporatists or public sector, they feel comforted by rules, regulations, structure.
The more self reliant ie white van man, self employed, entrepreneurial lean towards OUT, they have confidence in their ability to stand on their own two feet. We loathe being told how to live our lives by the nanny state.
For the first time this year, Jeremy Corbyn attended tonight’s Parliamentary Labour Party meeting (having angered colleagues by missing last week’s). But in the view of MPs, the wait was not worth it.
“If I gave a report like that to my Constituency Labour Party meeting, members would be justified in deselecting me,” a shadow minister told me. A former shadow cabinet member was even blunter: "Bloody terrible. Same message, worse strategy". Another commented: "Expectations were rock-bottom - and he fell below them".
One to watch: "At the start of the meeting, general secretary Iain McNicol announced that Baroness Royall's investigation into allegations of anti-Semitism among Young Labour members had been widened to also include claims of intimidation and candidate misconduct in last weekend's NEC election."
All Mr Cameron’s fake scare stories about going bust, invasion by Putin and the end of cheap holidays pale by comparison with the misery Europe has invited on to our doorsteps. Mass immigration reminds us of the other lies we have been told in the name of political union. Like Tony Blair’s human rights laws designed to bring us in line with Europe, only to protect foreign criminals and deprive victims of justice...
You will not be surprised to hear that I dispute the entire basis of the OP.
The people that want to remain have one reason for doing so more or less, they either love the EU, like the EU, or are scared of what will happen if we leave the EU, which are are shades of the same story... plus a few who just don't to be associated with the kippers
The people that want to leave have a whole range of reasons why they would like to leave, from the hard-left view that it is a corporatist racket and would stop them privatising the railways, through traditionalist in both parties who want their country run by their own people, through libertarians like Hannan, Messrs Thompson, Tyndall and myself who want an open global trade view, through to kippers and immigration obsessives of various sorts.
It would suit Mr Meeks and Remain very nicely for Leave to adopt only one of those views and alienate all but the hardcore of the rest. If the official Leave view is to push the corporatist racket angle all the free marketeers will run for the hills (or stay at home), if the official view is free market, the lefties wont bother to vote, if its libertarian most of the kippers will sit on the sofa.
So nice attempt to drive a wedge into the Leave camp, but I am not buying it. Much better to keep all the plates spinning and let each of the leave campaigns sell it to a way that works for their own client group.
OK I'll be honest I didn't read the header, I saw the title and sighed. Meeks is perfectly entitled to his view but after weeks of being undecided he theatrically announced himself to be a Remainer (shock horror) for the simple reason that he doesn't like a few on the Leave side.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
PB LEAVE supporters might consider writing a thread leader ??
My biggest misgiving about LEAVE is the total lack of direction their "campaign" has. Voters haven't the faintest idea what's on offer and "just get out and to hell with the consequences" isn't likely to drive doubters into your camp. Voters tend to be risk averse and your "Mayflower" option isn't too enticing.
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Having seen a preview of that piece, I'm really looking forward to publication of that.
All Mr Cameron’s fake scare stories about going bust, invasion by Putin and the end of cheap holidays pale by comparison with the misery Europe has invited on to our doorsteps. Mass immigration reminds us of the other lies we have been told in the name of political union. Like Tony Blair’s human rights laws designed to bring us in line with Europe, only to protect foreign criminals and deprive victims of justice...
All Mr Cameron’s fake scare stories about going bust, invasion by Putin and the end of cheap holidays pale by comparison with the misery Europe has invited on to our doorsteps. Mass immigration reminds us of the other lies we have been told in the name of political union. Like Tony Blair’s human rights laws designed to bring us in line with Europe, only to protect foreign criminals and deprive victims of justice...
He exhibits the prerogative of the harlot down the ages. British judges have been ruling in accordance with the HRA. He needs new sights for his shotgun. Funny how journalists never go mad after 10 years of untrammelled hegemony...
Personally I want out come what may. but I'm aware that it's certainly a possibility that the EU will go into full panic mode if we do vote to leave.
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
I think that's what I'd say, yes. But my reading of the EU - and it's something I've generally been right about in recent years - is that they'll react like someone in a difficult marriage whose partner finally leaves. "No way are we going back to that."
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
I'm putting my next piece together, which will look at limited aspects of the practicalities of post-Leave negotiations.
Do please include redirecting the overseas aid budget towards the poorer EU countries. Phased in within 5 years half of it going direct to specific countries.
Leaving the starving and impoverished elsewhere to just starve, when Europe is one of the richest nations in the world? I thought Leave were more interested in the Commonwealth which covers half of Africa.
Blimey, now Europe is a nation.
Rumania is in Europe, so is Monaco, google the difference in wealth.
You need to lie down mate, you're going mad with hysteria.
On SINDYREF there has been much talk of 'The Swing to Yes' and how the (18 month, vs 4 for EUREF, or 3 once the lead LEAVE campaign is appointed) campaign shifted the vote.
An interesting analysis, taking a slightly longer view:
Opinion polls from 15 October 2012 (the Edinburgh agreement) until the end of 2013 show a support for Yes in the range 25% to 45%, No in 40% to 60%, and Don't Knows mostly sitting in 10% to 20%. The final result was that of all registered voters, 38% voted Yes, 47% No, and 15% did not vote.
Given that people would have had to break the law to reduce that did not vote figure (registered at two locations in Scotland like a huge chunk of the student population would be) I'm not sure what he point of the article is. Especially as it basically says "as long as you ignore the large late swing to yes here was no late large swing to yes."
Should be on the VP shortlist, personal opinion rather than based on any solid rumours.
But Trump needs to bring bigger state than Kansas to the party with his Veep pick...
It is not just VP, there are all the Cabinet jobs and ambassador posts that are in the gift of the new president, and Trump has no entourage from his home state, so all the top jobs are up for grabs. For this reason, we can expect more endorsements the closer Trump gets to the winning line.
A VP with a good home state is perhaps less important than we think. Sarah Palin and Alaska, for instance. Dick Cheney joked about delivering the state of Montana.
OK I'll be honest I didn't read the header, I saw the title and sighed. Meeks is perfectly entitled to his view but after weeks of being undecided he theatrically announced himself to be a Remainer (shock horror) for the simple reason that he doesn't like a few on the Leave side.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
PB LEAVE supporters might consider writing a thread leader ??
My biggest misgiving about LEAVE is the total lack of direction their "campaign" has. Voters haven't the faintest idea what's on offer and "just get out and to hell with the consequences" isn't likely to drive doubters into your camp. Voters tend to be risk averse and your "Mayflower" option isn't too enticing.
Wait - didn't we hear that about the disgraceful, floundering Conservative 2015 GE campaign ?
Looks like macro level national campaigning isn't en vogue.
Obviously I haven't bothered to read the actual detail of this thread - it's a bit too near to breakfast for too much eurofanatic vituperation, but the central thrust is undoubtedly true, the Leave campaign is a divided mess. Other than urge them to unite, there seems little that can be done. I think there's too much bitter resentment on the Leave.eu side, and too much control freakery on the Vote leave side. I think things may well rest with Boris. I think he's potentially the only one who can save the day.
If Vote Leave dominate and get the designation, and Leave.EU are sidelined, there will be "Leave splits" stories anyway because of the size of Farage's and Aaron Banks's ego, so the best thing for Vote Leave to do would be to just press on with their vision regardless.
I do genuinely wonder how the Electoral Commission can make a choice like this. There are two fundamentally different campaigns and the decision could have a major impact on the outcome of the vote. Surely it's better to split the money?
People such as Kate Hooey have a big decision to take. Alternatively she may be able to dictate terms to VOTE LEAVE. What other Labour politicians are in the Grassroots organisation? Also are Conservative MPs, Bone, Hollobone and Pursglove, really going to back an application? We will know in a matter of a few days.
OK I'll be honest I didn't read the header, I saw the title and sighed. Meeks is perfectly entitled to his view but after weeks of being undecided he theatrically announced himself to be a Remainer (shock horror) for the simple reason that he doesn't like a few on the Leave side.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
PB LEAVE supporters might consider writing a thread leader ??
My biggest misgiving about LEAVE is the total lack of direction their "campaign" has. Voters haven't the faintest idea what's on offer and "just get out and to hell with the consequences" isn't likely to drive doubters into your camp. Voters tend to be risk averse and your "Mayflower" option isn't too enticing.
I believe Isam has submitted several. There is a school of thought that submitting a thread of Leave would be as welcome as one on "LDs losing here" or waxing lyrical on trichological issues.
OK I'll be honest I didn't read the header, I saw the title and sighed. Meeks is perfectly entitled to his view but after weeks of being undecided he theatrically announced himself to be a Remainer (shock horror) for the simple reason that he doesn't like a few on the Leave side.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
PB LEAVE supporters might consider writing a thread leader ??
My biggest misgiving about LEAVE is the total lack of direction their "campaign" has. Voters haven't the faintest idea what's on offer and "just get out and to hell with the consequences" isn't likely to drive doubters into your camp. Voters tend to be risk averse and your "Mayflower" option isn't too enticing.
I'm not here to entice anybody, I was making a comparison. I want a brave new world, if it means a leap in the dark (it doesn't btw) then bring it on.
Life is about chances and opportunities, not kicking your heels and wondering.
Patrick Minford, who has written quite a bit on the economics of the UK/EU relationship over the last 20 years or so on why the Remain scare stories are just that.
A much overlooked point Patrick makes is how the existing arrangement distorts the structure of the economy in a negative way - something that would unwind post Brexit.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35685613
Let's say that Leave made it all about immigration.
The country votes to leave. The government negotiates membership of the EEA.
That negates Leave's position, but it's not something that they can control.
Surely it's better (and consistent with the underlying theme of freedom) not to make promises that you can't be sure you can keep.
A Lannister always keeps their promises
Hillary 615 delegates
Sanders 406
Sanders WINS Vermont (~ 87% of the vote)
Colorado;
Oklahoma TCTC.
Hillary sweeps the rest.
This 'LEAVE' is whatever the government says it will be' is is an abdication of responsibility - if you believe in something, campaign for it - assuming you can agree on what 'it' is......
I didn't expect this to be translated into merging associations. I'd anticipate a lot of resistance beyond informal links and generally being good neighbours.
Vote Leave seems to have the most sensible look of all 3 campaigns if you had to push me to choose one. A beating turns into a landslide if Grassroots Out is chosen as the official campaign.
F1: Test 2: Test Harder begins today. And Sauber are bringing their 2016 car.
About 3 weeks until the first race in Oz. Just hope it's on Five Live, so I can listen to it on my ancient walkman in bed, rather than having to get up [I think the start's 5am, and getting up necessitates walking the dog, which means getting up even earlier...].
I understand the Conservatives in Leave are reluctant to go dirty, but Cameron has no such qualms. He is 'majoring' on standing up for Britain when he is doing a fair impression of a jellyfish.
Follow it up with .. do you trust the French to do what's good for the UK? They and the Germans are in charge after all.
It will be called a smear but it will bring the facts it into focus and there's enough truth to hurt.
And they can do it safely in the knowledge that Jezza is the deadest of dead ducks anyway.
Mr Hyde, a well written piece but with a chunk of wishful thinking. However, Remain should win, and I've predicted 58 - 42.
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29563108/colorado-gop-blundered-2016-presidential-caucus
When I glance at my screen and watch real human beings.... misery in the EU today. Shackled to this?
Apparently Jezza had a disastrous meeting with the PLP before appearing on national TV.
Has he become entirely irrelevant to political debate in this country?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35693882
"Most have refused the offer [to be relocated to official camps] fearing they'll be forced to claim asylum in France."
What an awful fate.
Leave need to work out what that reassurance looks like.
If you can't trust the French when we are paying them ~£10bn, what are they going to be like when we stop?
I saw a comment earlier about BMW pressuring the German government to sign a deal. That's another problem. The German's don't sign the deal, the EU does.
How exactly does BMW pressure the French government to sign up, or the Greeks?
Survation found only 4 voters who liked what Peter Mandelson had to say about the EU
https://t.co/0YVMFypNqs https://t.co/Zb77htClAt
Mrs JackW regularly attempts in vain to donate my double breasted and turn up suits to charity. However I counter on two fronts.
Firstly they always come back into fashion and have done so several times so far and secondly and undoubtedly the clincher is my offer to makeover my vintage look in direct proportion to her discarded footwear ....
It's a winner every time, a small and rare victory ....
What about the converse? If some of the EU countries decided to be awkward and to veto the sort of sensible free trade deal that Leave supporters generally think would be on offer, so we ended up with damaging tariffs - it only takes one bloody-minded government to sink it - would Remain supporters feel it had been worthwhile anyway?
ANS. 1. The germans 2. The UK
Now if the 2nd big payee stops the 1st guy has an even bigger influence.
What puzzles me is that it says we can cancel at any time. As the mortgage dwindles away, the amount they're covering will decline correspondingly. When it gets to say £50K, which my wife could probably scrape up or renegotiate, why wouldn't we just cancel the insurance? At the end of the deal, we'll be paying £50 a month for almost nothing - wouldn't everyone cancel then? Isn't this a problem for the insurers?
Why not redirect billions from the overseas budget to them?
To be completely honest, though, from a migrant's perspective, France must be one of the worst European countries to settle in.
The banlieues are utterly awful, jobs hard very hard to come by, and discrimination (although subtle) still widespread. The UK must seem like el dorado in comparison.
Having said that it is a perfectly safe and stable refuge for genuine refugees who wish to shelter there until they can eventually return home.
But they are not genuine refugees.
' ◾Total camp population is disputed - Calais officials say it houses 3,700, while Help Refugees puts it at 5,497
◾There are 205 women and 651 children (423 unaccompanied), says Help Refugees '
Which means that there are 4641 men there.
A 23:1 man : woman ratio.
Is that what you would expect for 'refugees'.
I wonder how many of the children are in fact 'children', especially the 423 unaccompanied.
https://www.facebook.com/SecretaryKrisKobach/photos/a.58555532343.81864.58550347343/10153346614707344/?type=3&theater
Should be on the VP shortlist, personal opinion rather than based on any solid rumours.
To expect the public to make the mental leap from being one of the world's mighty powerhouses to BRAVEHEART the plucky go-it-alone warrior is way beyond the capability of even the shrewdest advertiser.
Our A-list actors choose to ignore it - and the migrants choose to put up with them, and their shit productions of Hamlet - because they both get something out of it by doing so.
My paternal grandfather used to have his newspapers ironed before breakfast. It was pretty common practice, not just for appearance but the quality of print on many broadsheets was variable. The "Scotsman" and "Sporting Life" were particular offenders.
(Signing off for now)
Sadly not .... and then I was discharged !! ....
YouGov found Peter Mandelson had a net rating of -45 among voters as a political asset
https://t.co/3Bzvljh53H https://t.co/dbk4kYgFkz
People who like Peter Mandelson tend to think they're "more sophisticated than most people" https://t.co/NfJMtGD34g https://t.co/IQEeDY6Gxm
Vague terms such as sovereignty and threats of job losses or incoherent arguments about trade and immigration, and lots and lots of three letter acronyms don't enthuse or enlighten the public. Someone has to fashion a narrative about what their chosen result actually means.
I don't believe that anyone who thinks about the EU at all wants the "status quo", and indeed, I don't believe that that is an option- a vote to remain would surely be a green light for the EU heavyweights to forge ahead with ever closer union-something that I'd suspect the vast majority of the British public really don't want.
Exclusive new opinion poll from @Survation in today's Scottish Daily Mail https://t.co/WVYSswNw87
Osborne also gets two barrels from Kavanagh.
I suppose what I'm asking is whether I should feel guilty, or fear some legal comeback, if we did cancel in the final year.
My view is that turnout will be very low and the side whose voters are most motivated will prevail. The best possible result for the country is OUT, it will finally send a message to our rotten, fetid establishment and it's obsequious toadies.
Lets just get out and to hell with the consequences, the people who sailed on the Mayflower weren't hoping to find Las Vegas, but they just KNEW it had to be better.
To add to it the corollary of all that is that were Leave to win then the arguments about what next would only just begin.
.@jeremycorbyn asked on #TheAgenda if he would share a platform with David Cameron on the EU. Answer: 'No.'
https://t.co/1Jh79qqxXL
Video clip
They have different visions for the future.
There's a pretty strong argument for a general election post a Leave vote to seek guidance from the voters on the negotiation strategy, but I doubt that our politicians will go for that
On your insurance question: (a) not everyone can "scrape up" £50,000 towards the end of the term; and (b) the insurance company gets to keep the investment income in the meantime.
Generally speaking, self-insurance is always better if you can because it allows you to capture the insurer's profit margin and reduces near term cash outflows. As a thought, if you can afford £50K as self-insurance, have you run the pricing on £150K of life insurance rather than £200K?
It always does.
The more self reliant ie white van man, self employed, entrepreneurial lean towards OUT, they have confidence in their ability to stand on their own two feet. We loathe being told how to live our lives by the nanny state.
GO is looking like the big loser from the EU referendum.
The people that want to remain have one reason for doing so more or less, they either love the EU, like the EU, or are scared of what will happen if we leave the EU, which are are shades of the same story... plus a few who just don't to be associated with the kippers
The people that want to leave have a whole range of reasons why they would like to leave, from the hard-left view that it is a corporatist racket and would stop them privatising the railways, through traditionalist in both parties who want their country run by their own people, through libertarians like Hannan, Messrs Thompson, Tyndall and myself who want an open global trade view, through to kippers and immigration obsessives of various sorts.
It would suit Mr Meeks and Remain very nicely for Leave to adopt only one of those views and alienate all but the hardcore of the rest. If the official Leave view is to push the corporatist racket angle all the free marketeers will run for the hills (or stay at home), if the official view is free market, the lefties wont bother to vote, if its libertarian most of the kippers will sit on the sofa.
So nice attempt to drive a wedge into the Leave camp, but I am not buying it. Much better to keep all the plates spinning and let each of the leave campaigns sell it to a way that works for their own client group.
My biggest misgiving about LEAVE is the total lack of direction their "campaign" has. Voters haven't the faintest idea what's on offer and "just get out and to hell with the consequences" isn't likely to drive doubters into your camp. Voters tend to be risk averse and your "Mayflower" option isn't too enticing.
Self inflicted.
He exhibits the prerogative of the harlot down the ages.
British judges have been ruling in accordance with the HRA. He needs new sights for his shotgun. Funny how journalists never go mad after 10 years of untrammelled hegemony...
Rumania is in Europe, so is Monaco, google the difference in wealth.
You need to lie down mate, you're going mad with hysteria.
A VP with a good home state is perhaps less important than we think. Sarah Palin and Alaska, for instance. Dick Cheney joked about delivering the state of Montana.
Looks like macro level national campaigning isn't en vogue.
Life is about chances and opportunities, not kicking your heels and wondering.
A much overlooked point Patrick makes is how the existing arrangement distorts the structure of the economy in a negative way - something that would unwind post Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/brexit-scares-over-jobs-and-investment-are-simple-fallacies/