BTW, I spoke to someone today who was utterly convinced that Grassroot Out would get the nod from the EC.
The whole business of the EC nominating lead campaigns is pretty unedifying and not really very democratic. But I'm not sure if there's a realistic alternative.
BTW, I spoke to someone today who was utterly convinced that Grassroot Out would get the nod from the EC.
On what grounds?
Richard - Daniel Hodson flagged this report to me last night. It contains exhaustive analysis on what the situation would be for different industries post Brexit.
I reckon UKIP might save Corbyn's bacon this time.
In 2012 UKIP were polling around 3%, this time I can see them polling early/mid teens.
They could end up taking more votes from the Tories and giving Lab net gains.
You can see the Tories suffering a lot of damage at the hands of UKIP given Cameron's new-found Europhilia, though the same may happen to Labour as a result of the farcical position of having a moderately sceptic leader who has to make a pro-European case.
The other thing is that if it's a bad night for the Tories and a bad night for Labour it's a fairly safe bet which one of those events will lead the media narrative.
In May I will be registering my disgust at Dave's europhillia by voting Lib Dem.
Does not compute!
I feel guilty for shafting the Lib Dems in government. Is my way of saying sorry and thanks for your hard work in Government.
Your guilt on election night was obvious, expressed as it was in extensive bouts of giggling at the demise of yet another ex-Cabinet Minister. I particularly remember your wailing and gnashing of teeth as Vince Cable went DOWN.......
My pain was eased because I had backed the Tories there at 6/1 and wasn't expecting to collect.
Despite votes parachuted in from Bedford IIRC!
That was one of the reasons I backed The Tories. I thought if he needed Mike's vote he must be in trouble because of the mansion tax.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
Where do you stand on having to submit to an activist ECJ that has a track record for ignoring the letter of the law and interpreting what they feel is the spirit of the law, in the context of being political appointees selected for their solid pro-EU credentials and working for a court with a founding principle of promoting ever closer union
As Gove said in his statement: ‘The whole point about the European Court of Justice is that it stands above the nation states.’
• Allow police to access all web browsing records in specific crime investigations, beyond the illegal websites and communications services specified in the original draft bill.
• Extend the use of state remote computer hacking from the security services to the police in cases involving a “threat to life” or missing persons. This can include cases involving “damage to somebody’s mental health”, but will be restricted to use by the National Crime Agency and a small number of major police forces.
The expansion of police powers to access web browsing history as part of their investigations follows pressure from the police, and the use of these powers does not need the “double-lock” ministerial authorisation.
I am sure if I look back a month or two I will find some of the usual Cameroon cheerleaders telling me it would all be right becaue of the double-lock... well apparently not.
Something we agree on, though I really need to read the bill. I've only read commentary on it so far.
BTW, I spoke to someone today who was utterly convinced that Grassroot Out would get the nod from the EC.
On what grounds?
Richard - Daniel Hodson flagged this report to me last night. It contains exhaustive analysis on what the situation would be for different industries post Brexit.
'Anything which impinges directly upon sovereignty I will resist'
OK so how about the European Arrest Warrant and the other elements of a common judicial and criminal justice system Theresa May has signed us (back) up to?
What could be more central to sovereignty than that?
I think he'll struggle. I had a visit from a hopeful Lib Dem who-during a five minute sales pitch-didn't mention the referendum once. He asked if he might get my vote and I said that despite always having voted Labour this time I'd be voting Lib Dem. He said he was getting plenty of those and he was reasonably optimistic
BTW, I spoke to someone today who was utterly convinced that Grassroot Out would get the nod from the EC.
The whole business of the EC nominating lead campaigns is pretty unedifying and not really very democratic. But I'm not sure if there's a realistic alternative.
The government not to give any money or support to anyone?
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
BTW, I spoke to someone today who was utterly convinced that Grassroot Out would get the nod from the EC.
On what grounds?
Richard - Daniel Hodson flagged this report to me last night. It contains exhaustive analysis on what the situation would be for different industries post Brexit.
Slightly mischievous thread... Corbyn needs a good May 2nd, but it's far from clear that this is a reasonable definition of it, although I'm sure that there will be plenty within the PLP who will try and ensure this is the benchmark for the media narrative.
Yes, that's a reasonable point (the median independent expectation seems to be a loss of 200 seats), and there is a corollary - if Labour doesn't do well, it won't put Corbyn at risk. The starting point of Mike and PLP critics is that the first duty of political parties is to win. The position of most Labour members is different: that we need to have a party with an approach that we think attractive, as otherwise the game isn't worth the candle, and then do as well as we can, in the knowledge that it may be difficult.
So the primary test is, "Is Corbyn successfully changing the party's position on, for instance, austerity?" - the answer to which is yes. A secondary test is then "And how do we maximise support for it?" - the answer to which is obviously not "Constantly brief the press that you think it's rubbish". So the habitual public critics risk getting the blame for any setbacks.
There is no point in being a political party if you are not striving to do everything within your power to win popular support in order to implement the policies you think are for the best.
Anything else is just political onanism.
You can live in a bubble only talking to people who agree with you and will reinforce your own beliefs - but that isn't being a viable political party.
Corbyn has to demonstrate that he can deliver electoral victories. He simply has to.
Interestingly, cyclefree used a pretty close paraphrasing of Mandelson's quote as an argument for Leave the other day, so presumably he doesn't think that one was wrong, as such.
Peston however insists on bringing two cameras, one to film the minister, the other to film himself. Apparently Pesto wants a camera on himself at all times so plenty of shots of him looking inquisitive can be edited into the package. This means double the number of camera crew, causing a headache for press officers.
Slightly mischievous thread... Corbyn needs a good May 2nd, but it's far from clear that this is a reasonable definition of it, although I'm sure that there will be plenty within the PLP who will try and ensure this is the benchmark for the media narrative.
Yes, that's a reasonable point (the median independent expectation seems to be a loss of 200 seats), and there is a corollary - if Labour doesn't do well, it won't put Corbyn at risk. The starting point of Mike and PLP critics is that the first duty of political parties is to win. The position of most Labour members is different: that we need to have a party with an approach that we think attractive, as otherwise the game isn't worth the candle, and then do as well as we can, in the knowledge that it may be difficult.
So the primary test is, "Is Corbyn successfully changing the party's position on, for instance, austerity?" - the answer to which is yes. A secondary test is then "And how do we maximise support for it?" - the answer to which is obviously not "Constantly brief the press that you think it's rubbish". So the habitual public critics risk getting the blame for any setbacks.
But the views of Labour members (and indeed members of any Party) are irrelevant to the wider electorate. "Party members" are viewed as obsessive political anoraks on a par with god-botherers and unsolicited telephone callers. Labour has forgotten the lessons of the 1980s - it now has to learn them again.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
Where do you stand on having to submit to an activist ECJ that has a track record for ignoring the letter of the law and interpreting what they feel is the spirit of the law, in the context of being political appointees selected for their solid pro-EU credentials and working for a court with a founding principle of promoting ever closer union
As Gove said in his statement: ‘The whole point about the European Court of Justice is that it stands above the nation states.’
It is a conundrum. Had to do a bit of turbo-googling.
From what I understand the ECJ is often called upon to define areas where the politics is insufficiently clear. To "fill in the gaps" as one article put it. But to take your point, yes the ECJ is thereby defining law when applications are made to it, and the law it is defining is to promote the EU treaties which of course are written in the main (barring eg. the Social Compact) to promote ECU.
So it is a conundrum. On balance? It seems overbearing and overly influential and I don't like its rulings being applicable to all EU member states.
But it is a small corner of our EU membership and an integral part of the single market. So, I can live with it.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
Slightly mischievous thread... Corbyn needs a good May 2nd, but it's far from clear that this is a reasonable definition of it, although I'm sure that there will be plenty within the PLP who will try and ensure this is the benchmark for the media narrative.
Yes, that's a reasonable point (the median independent expectation seems to be a loss of 200 seats), and there is a corollary - if Labour doesn't do well, it won't put Corbyn at risk. The starting point of Mike and PLP critics is that the first duty of political parties is to win. The position of most Labour members is different: that we need to have a party with an approach that we think attractive, as otherwise the game isn't worth the candle, and then do as well as we can, in the knowledge that it may be difficult.
So the primary test is, "Is Corbyn successfully changing the party's position on, for instance, austerity?" - the answer to which is yes. A secondary test is then "And how do we maximise support for it?" - the answer to which is obviously not "Constantly brief the press that you think it's rubbish". So the habitual public critics risk getting the blame for any setbacks.
There is no point in being a political party if you are not striving to do everything within your power to win popular support in order to implement the policies you think are for the best.
Anything else is just political onanism.
You can live in a bubble only talking to people who agree with you and will reinforce your own beliefs - but that isn't being a viable political party.
Corbyn has to demonstrate that he can deliver electoral victories. He simply has to.
I think Nick's characterisation of the Labour membership position here isn't really correct: it suits the right flank of the PLP to paint this as ideological purity vs electoral realism, but then to take the further step of insisting that the membership agrees with this polarisation. With some polling-based justification, many Corbyn supporters believe that the policies they espouse are actually popular with the electorate and will enhance rather than reduce Labour's electability cf the 2015 GE.
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
I think Nick's characterisation of the Labour membership position here isn't really correct: it suits the right flank of the PLP to paint this as ideological purity vs electoral realism, but then to take the further step of insisting that the membership agrees with this polarisation. With some polling-based justification, many Corbyn supporters believe that the policies they espouse are actually popular with the electorate and will enhance rather than reduce Labour's electability cf the 2015 GE.
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
It doesn't really suit the Labour right to argue that it's ideological purity vs electoral realism because that implies that the left are proposing an ideologically correct solution when in fact the Labour right should be arguing that the Labour left have taken a trip to la-la-land.
The inability of the Labour right to provide an intellectual justification for their position is the real cause of Labour's troubles. The story is not one of strength of the left but of weakness of the right.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
I took no pleasure in calling Mark Reckless a traitorous pig dog.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
“Last year, during the Arab revolutions, the EU missed a historic opportunity to begin weaving together the two sides of the Mediterranean.” Sutherland is also quoted as arguing that opposition to greater globalisation is "morally indefensible".
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 think this is rather unfair. 'Leave.EU' is generally the same people who've been advocating EU withdrawal all along and have the scars to show for it. I don't find it surprising they're not falling over with joy to be led by Vote Leave, many of whom are rather late to the party. If Vote Leave do get the designation I would be very disappointed to see Farage sidelined; he is a formidable debater and cannot be faulted on his knowledge of the EU.
Slightly mischievous thread... Corbyn needs a good May 2nd, but it's far from clear that this is a reasonable definition of it, although I'm sure that there will be plenty within the PLP who will try and ensure this is the benchmark for the media narrative.
Yes, that's a reasonable point (the median independent expectation seems to be a loss of 200 seats), and there is a corollary - if Labour doesn't do well, it won't put Corbyn at risk. The starting point of Mike and PLP critics is that the first duty of political parties is to win. The position of most Labour members is different: that we need to have a party with an approach that we think attractive, as otherwise the game isn't worth the candle, and then do as well as we can, in the knowledge that it may be difficult.
So the primary test is, "Is Corbyn successfully changing the party's position on, for instance, austerity?" - the answer to which is yes. A secondary test is then "And how do we maximise support for it?" - the answer to which is obviously not "Constantly brief the press that you think it's rubbish". So the habitual public critics risk getting the blame for any setbacks.
But the views of Labour members (and indeed members of any Party) are irrelevant to the wider electorate. "Party members" are viewed as obsessive political anoraks on a par with god-botherers and unsolicited telephone callers. Labour has forgotten the lessons of the 1980s - it now has to learn them again.
Let them enjoy at least one more thumping defeat to let it sink in. For the sake of the country.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
Name calling is one thing, but if someone is being dishonest then they deserved to be called out. For example Cameron is dishonest, as per the post downthread:
A SENIOR military figure has sunk David Cameron’s claims that belonging to the EU is essential to British security.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who previously commanded HMS Fearless, has said that it is “Nato (and Nato alone) [which] provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.”
He compared the successful “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces in the First Gulf War 25 years ago in a Nato run campaign, compared to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EU inspired intervention in Libya in 2011.
I think Nick's characterisation of the Labour membership position here isn't really correct: it suits the right flank of the PLP to paint this as ideological purity vs electoral realism, but then to take the further step of insisting that the membership agrees with this polarisation. With some polling-based justification, many Corbyn supporters believe that the policies they espouse are actually popular with the electorate and will enhance rather than reduce Labour's electability cf the 2015 GE.
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
It doesn't really suit the Labour right to argue that it's ideological purity vs electoral realism because that implies that the left are proposing an ideologically correct solution when in fact the Labour right should be arguing that the Labour left have taken a trip to la-la-land.
The inability of the Labour right to provide an intellectual justification for their position is the real cause of Labour's troubles. The story is not one of strength of the left but of weakness of the right.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it, and I kind of agree with you, except the justification of the Labour right's position has never really been intellectual, has it?
Arguably in the current lexicon, "ideologically" is used as a synonym for "extreme" or whatever the adjective derived from "la la land" would be. The Labour right and the Tory whigs rely on the implication that ideology is for dangerous lunatics while all right thinking people accept that privatisation, rolling back the state and globalising is just good common sense. The "Third Way" was accepting this view but doing it while being "nice".
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
Specious nonsense. You frequently post about those you disagree with politically in far worse terms. In this post you've just described other posters as intellectually vacuous -is that not an insult? Surely if you followed your own guidance, you should be saying something along the lines of - 'such insults are understandable but stem from an incomplete reading of the issues in my opinion'. The fact is you're as condemining as you want to be about others but behave like a shocked and dissaproving maiden aunt when other people do the same about your pet causes. I wish you'd stop it; it's wholly disingenuous and most tiresome.
I think Nick's characterisation of the Labour membership position here isn't really correct: it suits the right flank of the PLP to paint this as ideological purity vs electoral realism, but then to take the further step of insisting that the membership agrees with this polarisation. With some polling-based justification, many Corbyn supporters believe that the policies they espouse are actually popular with the electorate and will enhance rather than reduce Labour's electability cf the 2015 GE.
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
It doesn't really suit the Labour right to argue that it's ideological purity vs electoral realism because that implies that the left are proposing an ideologically correct solution when in fact the Labour right should be arguing that the Labour left have taken a trip to la-la-land.
The inability of the Labour right to provide an intellectual justification for their position is the real cause of Labour's troubles. The story is not one of strength of the left but of weakness of the right.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it, and I kind of agree with you, except the justification of the Labour right's position has never really been intellectual, has it?
Arguably in the current lexicon, "ideologically" is used as a synonym for "extreme" or whatever the adjective derived from "la la land" would be. The Labour right and the Tory whigs rely on the implication that ideology is for dangerous lunatics while all right thinking people accept that privatisation, rolling back the state and globalising is just good common sense. The "Third Way" was accepting this view but doing it while being "nice".
What I am wondering is which bit of the Labour left programme is going to be retained by the eventual resurgent right to sugar the pill. Last time around, the Labour right adopted the identity politics so popular on the Labour left in the 1980s as a way of persuading the left that they were decent progressive people while adopting free market economics.
This time around I wonder whether it might be the isolationist and "ethical" foreign policy that is used as bait to keep the left on board.
Does anyone here think the Cameron-Remain line that "negotiations following a vote for Brexit could take 10 years, not two" is going to persuade anyone to vote Remain?
If after a Leave victory Cameron can't lead a government capable of concluding the negotiations within two years, he should be replaced by someone who can.
That's an obvious point to make. I wonder what happens if a pro-Leave cabinet member makes it. Would they be undermining the government or simply campaigning to Leave? Them having to say that the best person to lead the negotiations would be David Cameron puts them in an awkward position. It's as if the Remainers are daring them to make the point.
Or Farage could make it. Maybe he has. Or a Tory who's not in the cabinet could make it. And isn't there supposed to be a Leader of the Opposition and stuff? Whoops, he supports the government in the referendum. Well some other leading figure in the Labour party then.
Or someone could find the right moment to leave the cabinet. Make not getting the papers into a resigning issue, maybe? Have any of the Leavers in the cabinet got any cojones?
They're treating the referendum as if it were an internal Tory party affair. Oh we love our leader so much, stab stab. If Cameron thinks Brexit would be disastrous whereas in fact it would actually be best for the country and staying in the EU would be disastrous, then he's a shit prime minister. Can some Leavers have the courage of their convictions, please.
C'mon, let's have a bigger split in the Tory party!
Saw Labour canvassers for the 2 time in 13 years. At least their latest leaflet for the Council election is literate, no spelling or grammatical errors. Wished I had told the would be councillor what I thought of Jezza being an asset to Tories, LDs et al.
Bless. My long passed 'aunt' (actually a removed cousin) was a Liberal/LD activist for many years and took no greater pleasure than in pointing out the grammatical and spelling errors in other parties' leaflets.
I looked in vain for the don't mock my efforts because I suffer from dyslexia statement. The new labour leaflet was thin on detail yet I couldn't find a photo of Jezza.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
Name calling is one thing, but if someone is being dishonest then they deserved to be called out. For example Cameron is dishonest, as per the post downthread:
A SENIOR military figure has sunk David Cameron’s claims that belonging to the EU is essential to British security.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who previously commanded HMS Fearless, has said that it is “Nato (and Nato alone) [which] provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.”
He compared the successful “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces in the First Gulf War 25 years ago in a Nato run campaign, compared to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EU inspired intervention in Libya in 2011.
Nobody outside the USA deserves to be "called out". It's bad enough insulting them without attacking the English language at the same time.
(No problem with describing the dishonest as "dishonest", though.)
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
It is a conundrum. Had to do a bit of turbo-googling.
From what I understand the ECJ is often called upon to define areas where the politics is insufficiently clear. To "fill in the gaps" as one article put it. But to take your point, yes the ECJ is thereby defining law when applications are made to it, and the law it is defining is to promote the EU treaties which of course are written in the main (barring eg. the Social Compact) to promote ECU.
So it is a conundrum. On balance? It seems overbearing and overly influential and I don't like its rulings being applicable to all EU member states.
But it is a small corner of our EU membership and an integral part of the single market. So, I can live with it.
I look at it the other way. The single market would be completely inoperable without a supra national body who can make sure each country plays by the rules. If you want a single market you need the CJE.
Most of the "ever closer union" stuff is made up of them trying hard to make sure that the single market works and that it is not being undermined by the politicians of the country concerned by indirect means.
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
A SENIOR military figure has sunk David Cameron’s claims that belonging to the EU is essential to British security.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who previously commanded HMS Fearless, has said that it is “Nato (and Nato alone) [which] provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.”
He compared the successful “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces in the First Gulf War 25 years ago in a Nato run campaign, compared to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EU inspired intervention in Libya in 2011.
More government bullshit rumbled. tsk.
Having met Chris Parry I have to say he is an astounding person. Able to give a well argued view on all manor of world affairs in a logical and understandable way without any influence from his personal beliefs. His analysis of how the world will develop in the stressful times ahead has so far proven to be uncannily accurate regarding the areas I have heard him discuss.
Does anyone here think the Cameron-Remain line that "negotiations following a vote for Brexit could take 10 years, not two" is going to persuade anyone to vote Remain?
If after a Leave victory Cameron can't lead a government capable of concluding the negotiations within two years, he should be replaced by someone who can.
That's an obvious point to make. I wonder what happens if a pro-Leave cabinet member makes it. Would they be undermining the government or simply campaigning to Leave? Them having to say that the best person to lead the negotiations would be David Cameron puts them in an awkward position. It's as if the Remainers are daring them to make the point.
Or Farage could make it. Maybe he has. Or a Tory who's not in the cabinet could make it. And isn't there supposed to be a Leader of the Opposition and stuff? Whoops, he supports the government in the referendum. Well some other leading figure in the Labour party then.
Or someone could find the right moment to leave the cabinet. Make not getting the papers into a resigning issue, maybe? Have any of the Leavers in the cabinet got any cojones?
They're treating the referendum as if it were an internal Tory party affair. Oh we love our leader so much, stab stab. If Cameron thinks Brexit would be disastrous whereas in fact it would actually be best for the country and staying in the EU would be disastrous, then he's a shit prime minister.
C'mon, let's have a bigger split in the Tory party please!
I may have just the thread for you coming up in the next few days.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
It is a conundrum. Had to do a bit of turbo-googling.
From what I understand the ECJ is often called upon to define areas where the politics is insufficiently clear. To "fill in the gaps" as one article put it. But to take your point, yes the ECJ is thereby defining law when applications are made to it, and the law it is defining is to promote the EU treaties which of course are written in the main (barring eg. the Social Compact) to promote ECU.
So it is a conundrum. On balance? It seems overbearing and overly influential and I don't like its rulings being applicable to all EU member states.
But it is a small corner of our EU membership and an integral part of the single market. So, I can live with it.
I look at it the other way. The single market would be completely inoperable without a supra national body who can make sure each country plays by the rules. If you want a single market you need the CJE.
Most of the "ever closer union" stuff is made up of them trying hard to make sure that the single market works and that it is not being undermined by the politicians of the country concerned by indirect means.
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
I think Nick's characterisation of the Labour membership position here isn't really correct: it suits the right flank of the PLP to paint this as ideological purity vs electoral realism, but then to take the further step of insisting that the membership agrees with this polarisation. With some polling-based justification, many Corbyn supporters believe that the policies they espouse are actually popular with the electorate and will enhance rather than reduce Labour's electability cf the 2015 GE.
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
It doesn't really suit the Labour right to argue that it's ideological purity vs electoral realism because that implies that the left are proposing an ideologically correct solution when in fact the Labour right should be arguing that the Labour left have taken a trip to la-la-land.
The inability of the Labour right to provide an intellectual justification for their position is the real cause of Labour's troubles. The story is not one of strength of the left but of weakness of the right.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it, and I kind of agree with you, except the justification of the Labour right's position has never really been intellectual, has it?
Arguably in the current lexicon, "ideologically" is used as a synonym for "extreme" or whatever the adjective derived from "la la land" would be. The Labour right and the Tory whigs rely on the implication that ideology is for dangerous lunatics while all right thinking people accept that privatisation, rolling back the state and globalising is just good common sense. The "Third Way" was accepting this view but doing it while being "nice".
I think all Tories accept that privatisation, rolling back the state and globalising is just good common sense.
The third way was Blair making Labour electable by accepting Tory common sense. Tories continuing to believe their own principles isn't third way or Blairism.
And should we ignore those who were vociferously pro-European, and are anti-now?
Once wrong, always wrong? Or should we applaud their change of heart? And does that work both ways?
I think we should listen to both sides, and in particular try to understand why they are taking the views they take. Certainly that's what I do.
And, of course, not throw around ludicrous insults of 'dishonesty', 'Europhilia', 'treachery', 'careeerism', 'stooges of Osborne', etc etc. Such insults simply demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of those making them.
But it's so much more fun to describe one's opponents as traitors. Quislings, morons, whores, turnips, cretins etc.
OK, that's enough about the divers Leave campaigns.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
What I am wondering is which bit of the Labour left programme is going to be retained by the eventual resurgent right to sugar the pill. Last time around, the Labour right adopted the identity politics so popular on the Labour left in the 1980s as a way of persuading the left that they were decent progressive people while adopting free market economics.
This time around I wonder whether it might be the isolationist and "ethical" foreign policy that is used as bait to keep the left on board.
I don’t think it can be put back together this time. The two outcomes I can see are that the PLP finds a way to depose Corbyn in favour of someone like a Jarvis, leading to a mass resignation the Corbynite members (I imagine a significant majority of all currently active members). That Momentum party probably goes the same way as UKIP, except without the media oxygen. Its only chance of not being slaughtered under FPTP would be if it can take 40+ MPs with it, which is a tall order. The other possibility is some form of hung Parliament scenario, for example following a Leave vote where “in the interest of economic stability” the right of the Labour party prop up the Cameron faction while the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party teams up with UKIP. Once again it’s a Labour split but this time it’s probably the right who leave, joining the remnant of the Tory party. Probably leaves you with a fairly nationalist left wing party, a “centrist” Liberal party and a nationalist traditional conservative party on the right.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
It is a conundrum. Had to do a bit of turbo-googling.
From what I understand the ECJ is often called upon to define areas where the politics is insufficiently clear. To "fill in the gaps" as one article put it. But to take your point, yes the ECJ is thereby defining law when applications are made to it, and the law it is defining is to promote the EU treaties which of course are written in the main (barring eg. the Social Compact) to promote ECU.
So it is a conundrum. On balance? It seems overbearing and overly influential and I don't like its rulings being applicable to all EU member states.
But it is a small corner of our EU membership and an integral part of the single market. So, I can live with it.
I look at it the other way. The single market would be completely inoperable without a supra national body who can make sure each country plays by the rules. If you want a single market you need the CJE.
Most of the "ever closer union" stuff is made up of them trying hard to make sure that the single market works and that it is not being undermined by the politicians of the country concerned by indirect means.
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
Not convinced personally. We should be able to negotiate on good faith and then have any deal agreed implemented in good faith. If we are negotiating with a party that has no intention of upholding their end of the agreement then there's a big problem
Though my problem with the EU is not when it is breaking down barriers but when it erects new ones. Barriers may be down between Germans and Italians but the bulk of the world's economy and trade is outside of the EU. The EU is adamant about having barriers up against the majority of the world's trade and that is its biggest flaw. Plus meddling on issues like social policies that have nothing to do with international trade.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
'And those of us who are grandmothers are excited about the prospect of our grandchildren being able to live, work and study in countries across Europe.'
Lock up your granddaughters.
I'm not sure I'd be too excited about my children's prospects in the Europe of 2026, after the consequences of The Great Migration.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
A City co-conspirator gets in touch claiming Downing Street are soliciting for another pro-EU letter, this time signed by a group of businesswomen and female celebrities.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
Specious nonsense. You frequently post about those you disagree with politically in far worse terms. In this post you've just described other posters as intellectually vacuous -is that not an insult? Surely if you followed your own guidance, you should be saying something along the lines of - 'such insults are understandable but stem from an incomplete reading of the issues in my opinion'.
Not at all. I make a distinction between sensible people whose views I may disagree with, and people who throw ludicrous insults around, for example those who absurdly accuse me of lying (quite why I would have any motivation to lie on politicalbetting.com is never clear!)
Specious nonsense. You frequently post about those you disagree with politically in far worse terms. In this post you've just described other posters as intellectually vacuous -is that not an insult? Surely if you followed your own guidance, you should be saying something along the lines of - 'such insults are understandable but stem from an incomplete reading of the issues in my opinion'.
Not at all. I make a distinction between sensible people whose views I may disagree with, and people who throw ludicrous insults around, for example those who absurdly accuse me of lying (quite why I would have any motivation to lie on politicalbetting.com is never clear!)
Because you're an agent of influence for the Bilderberg Group?
• Allow police to access all web browsing records in specific crime investigations, beyond the illegal websites and communications services specified in the original draft bill.
• Extend the use of state remote computer hacking from the security services to the police in cases involving a “threat to life” or missing persons. This can include cases involving “damage to somebody’s mental health”, but will be restricted to use by the National Crime Agency and a small number of major police forces.
The expansion of police powers to access web browsing history as part of their investigations follows pressure from the police, and the use of these powers does not need the “double-lock” ministerial authorisation.
I am sure if I look back a month or two I will find some of the usual Cameroon cheerleaders telling me it would all be right becaue of the double-lock... well apparently not.
Those companies and organisations whose products and services facilitate criminal and terrorist activity should cooperate fully with police and intelligence services.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
Not a very strong argument. The market is but given we give far more to the EU than it gives back to us after taking a major cut the regional grants and university support are terrible suggestions. If we left the EU we could not onky take on all those grants but we would have billions more leftover to either reduce the deficit or increase grants to universities etc from the difference in our contributions.
What I am wondering is which bit of the Labour left programme is going to be retained by the eventual resurgent right to sugar the pill. Last time around, the Labour right adopted the identity politics so popular on the Labour left in the 1980s as a way of persuading the left that they were decent progressive people while adopting free market economics.
This time around I wonder whether it might be the isolationist and "ethical" foreign policy that is used as bait to keep the left on board.
I don’t think it can be put back together this time. The two outcomes I can see are that the PLP finds a way to depose Corbyn in favour of someone like a Jarvis, leading to a mass resignation the Corbynite members (I imagine a significant majority of all currently active members). That Momentum party probably goes the same way as UKIP, except without the media oxygen. Its only chance of not being slaughtered under FPTP would be if it can take 40+ MPs with it, which is a tall order. The other possibility is some form of hung Parliament scenario, for example following a Leave vote where “in the interest of economic stability” the right of the Labour party prop up the Cameron faction while the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party teams up with UKIP. Once again it’s a Labour split but this time it’s probably the right who leave, joining the remnant of the Tory party. Probably leaves you with a fairly nationalist left wing party, a “centrist” Liberal party and a nationalist traditional conservative party on the right.
Although it's true that majority of Labour members are Corbynite this is not true of active members in my experience. My CLP has more than doubled in size over the past year but very few of the new members have done anything apart (I assume) from vote for Corbyn. They don't attend meetings, contribute money or campaign. The active membership remains pretty moderate, and Momentum candidates were defeated by a humiliating margin when they stood against existing officers for the AGM.
Specious nonsense. You frequently post about those you disagree with politically in far worse terms. In this post you've just described other posters as intellectually vacuous -is that not an insult? Surely if you followed your own guidance, you should be saying something along the lines of - 'such insults are understandable but stem from an incomplete reading of the issues in my opinion'.
Not at all. I make a distinction between sensible people whose views I may disagree with, and people who throw ludicrous insults around, for example those who absurdly accuse me of lying (quite why I would have any motivation to lie on politicalbetting.com is never clear!)
Because you're an agent of influence for the Bilderberg Group?
EU grants are never a strong argument, though, as we're only getting back a proportion of our own money.
Yes, it's a silly argument. Not only are we getting back only a proportion of our own money, but we are having to spend it on programmes which might not all be our top priorities.
To get a fair assessment, you need to net off the gross contribution we put into the EU against a proportion (not 100%) of what is returned in EU grants. I'm not sure what proportion would be reasonable, maybe 70% or something like that as a rule of thumb.
I use crowdscores. I have a suggestion - when you load up a match you get the score at the top, would it be possible to add a summary of who scored the goals and when. I really don't like scrolling through the boneheaded comments.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
Mr Parris has no political nous anymore. He's the most dreadful snob. He wrote a memorable piece about having to buy silver ingots by the briefcase full as his gold supplier had run short of stock.
And I used to really like him. He can barely churn out a column nowadays without mentioning being gay either.
Matthew Parris was saying that Cameron should crush 'Leaver' MPs, assuming we vote 'Remain', constituency parties are just the next step. It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to be ham-strung by being shackled to a corpse?
'Entirely correct. Anyone who played a key role in encouraging Euro entry making these warnings who does the same now with a straight face and no apology or acknowledgement they were wrong last time should be ignored.'
Indeed. Which probably also encompasses some of the louder Remainers on this board.
Not me, guv.
Let me tell you where I am.. (!)
Anything which impinges directly upon sovereignty I will resist. The Euro, ECU, the Fiscal Compact, SSM/SRM, where what I determine as our core decision-making, impinging on the political mandate given to the government by the British people, is compromised or diluted.
Now I have of course drawn my own red line at what I think is de trop.
I don't think mutually-agreed trade rules that, for example, favour Portugese, and disadvantage UK basket-weavers crosses it. Neither do I mind signing up to a set of regulations for eg. the financial services industry where we have had our say and have arrived at a compromise. Such is a trade agreement...you win some, you lose some.
Now, that is my version of red lines on sovereignty and I fully understand if others' are closer to home, so to speak.
So do you believe the right of the ECJ to overule UK court decisions dies not cross a red line?
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
It would also allow us to sign free trade deals for goods and services with a bunch of mid-sized Asian and LatAm countries where the EU is only interested in goods trade.
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Can't read the article but suspect he has a point. The public are generally not interested in political niceties and go for centrist moderates. Ideologues on either side turn people off.
'It would also allow us to sign free trade deals for goods and services with a bunch of mid-sized Asian and LatAm countries where the EU is only interested in goods trade.'
Comments
@TOPPING @Cyclefree @rcs1000
http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
As Gove said in his statement: ‘The whole point about the European Court of Justice is that it stands above the nation states.’
Something we agree on, though I really need to read the bill. I've only read commentary on it so far.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079179-china-set-to-surpass-its-climate-targets-as-renewables-soar/
Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUN http://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
OK so how about the European Arrest Warrant and the other elements of a common judicial and criminal justice system Theresa May has signed us (back) up to?
What could be more central to sovereignty than that?
(also on the website)
Anything else is just political onanism.
You can live in a bubble only talking to people who agree with you and will reinforce your own beliefs - but that isn't being a viable political party.
Corbyn has to demonstrate that he can deliver electoral victories. He simply has to.
http://order-order.com/2016/03/01/pestons-downing-street-movie-set/
Damn it, I said I wasn't cynical about these things....
From what I understand the ECJ is often called upon to define areas where the politics is insufficiently clear. To "fill in the gaps" as one article put it. But to take your point, yes the ECJ is thereby defining law when applications are made to it, and the law it is defining is to promote the EU treaties which of course are written in the main (barring eg. the Social Compact) to promote ECU.
So it is a conundrum. On balance? It seems overbearing and overly influential and I don't like its rulings being applicable to all EU member states.
But it is a small corner of our EU membership and an integral part of the single market. So, I can live with it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
It's about changing the party to present an agenda that's both distinctive and electable. Of course the correct test of that is an actual election, so there's no free pass for Corbyn if he fails repeatedly. Looking at the results last time these seats were contest, the minimum is probably to lead the Tories on vote share; as others have pointed out though, Wales (in particular) and the by-elections may be more readily interpretable.
The inability of the Labour right to provide an intellectual justification for their position is the real cause of Labour's troubles. The story is not one of strength of the left but of weakness of the right.
Honest.
A SENIOR military figure has sunk David Cameron’s claims that belonging to the EU is essential to British security.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who previously commanded HMS Fearless, has said that it is “Nato (and Nato alone) [which] provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.”
He compared the successful “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces in the First Gulf War 25 years ago in a Nato run campaign, compared to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EU inspired intervention in Libya in 2011.
Arguably in the current lexicon, "ideologically" is used as a synonym for "extreme" or whatever the adjective derived from "la la land" would be. The Labour right and the Tory whigs rely on the implication that ideology is for dangerous lunatics while all right thinking people accept that privatisation, rolling back the state and globalising is just good common sense. The "Third Way" was accepting this view but doing it while being "nice".
Plus Fine Gael
And GATT and WTO. Hebtoo has never had to take responsibility for his actions and opions.
This time around I wonder whether it might be the isolationist and "ethical" foreign policy that is used as bait to keep the left on board.
If after a Leave victory Cameron can't lead a government capable of concluding the negotiations within two years, he should be replaced by someone who can.
That's an obvious point to make. I wonder what happens if a pro-Leave cabinet member makes it. Would they be undermining the government or simply campaigning to Leave? Them having to say that the best person to lead the negotiations would be David Cameron puts them in an awkward position. It's as if the Remainers are daring them to make the point.
Or Farage could make it. Maybe he has. Or a Tory who's not in the cabinet could make it. And isn't there supposed to be a Leader of the Opposition and stuff? Whoops, he supports the government in the referendum. Well some other leading figure in the Labour party then.
Or someone could find the right moment to leave the cabinet. Make not getting the papers into a resigning issue, maybe? Have any of the Leavers in the cabinet got any cojones?
They're treating the referendum as if it were an internal Tory party affair. Oh we love our leader so much, stab stab. If Cameron thinks Brexit would be disastrous whereas in fact it would actually be best for the country and staying in the EU would be disastrous, then he's a shit prime minister. Can some Leavers have the courage of their convictions, please.
C'mon, let's have a bigger split in the Tory party!
(No problem with describing the dishonest as "dishonest", though.)
Most of the "ever closer union" stuff is made up of them trying hard to make sure that the single market works and that it is not being undermined by the politicians of the country concerned by indirect means.
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
Having met Chris Parry I have to say he is an astounding person. Able to give a well argued view on all manor of world affairs in a logical and understandable way without any influence from his personal beliefs. His analysis of how the world will develop in the stressful times ahead has so far proven to be uncannily accurate regarding the areas I have heard him discuss.
Top man.
The third way was Blair making Labour electable by accepting Tory common sense. Tories continuing to believe their own principles isn't third way or Blairism.
http://order-order.com/2016/03/01/another-stunt-spoiled-downing-street-soliciting-pro-eu-womens-letter/
According to John McTernan, Cameron needs to crush his party members.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12179382/David-Cameron-needs-to-crush-his-party-members-or-risk-Labours-fate.html
Karren Brady and Emma Thompson top of the list?
Though my problem with the EU is not when it is breaking down barriers but when it erects new ones. Barriers may be down between Germans and Italians but the bulk of the world's economy and trade is outside of the EU. The EU is adamant about having barriers up against the majority of the world's trade and that is its biggest flaw. Plus meddling on issues like social policies that have nothing to do with international trade.
Lock up your granddaughters.
I'm not sure I'd be too excited about my children's prospects in the Europe of 2026, after the consequences of The Great Migration.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/03/could-polls-be-wrong-london
McTernan equates the more radical conservativsm of the tory grassroots with what Corbyn is peddling.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/01/eu-referendum-mandelson-heywood-vote-leave-chair-of-talking-absolute-rubbish-politics-live?page=with:block-56d5aefce4b0a243d1782347#block-56d5aefce4b0a243d1782347
In services and capital, but not in goods. There's more or less a free market in goods between the EU and Switzerland.
That like suggesting Anderson could be selected for the England squad for his talents as an opening batsman.
Popcorn
Those companies and organisations whose products and services facilitate criminal and terrorist activity should cooperate fully with police and intelligence services.
Yes - more blatant dishonesty
#Scotus hears argument in major abortion case tomorrow. See our 5 facts about abortion https://t.co/tjYg74qgRt https://t.co/nTgQK3gEnS
Some fascinating stuff here
.....er......
....that's it......
lists!
I must remember to submit my invoice.
They're going to be seriously pissed off if they make it to Germany, and don't get the house and job that Merkel promised them.
To get a fair assessment, you need to net off the gross contribution we put into the EU against a proportion (not 100%) of what is returned in EU grants. I'm not sure what proportion would be reasonable, maybe 70% or something like that as a rule of thumb.
Crowdscores, as many of you already know, is the way forward. And here's the silly promotional video to prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWWAGE6WOzI
In 2005, 39 per cent of our exports in financial services, pensions and insurance went to the EU, but this has now fallen to 33 per cent. By contrast, the figure for the US stands at 31 per cent, meaning that our American cousins are the largest single national destination for UK exports in financial services.
http://www.cityam.com/235556/the-city-has-nothing-to-fear-and-much-to-gain-from-brexit
It's looking more and more that all the parties could do with a re-alignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCEamUarOSI
And I used to really like him. He can barely churn out a column nowadays without mentioning being gay either.
see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35698998
Yes