"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
Thats because the EU wants to be a single country and thus free movement can't be questioned within that... but if we were country outside the EU like Canada then its a different matter.
On Switzerland, I don't see much screw turning at all. Only protests have been cancelling of a student exchange program and some R&D funding. Its hardly threatening Swiss economy.
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
It wouldn't. We would negotiate a trade deal. That's the whole point: the WTO route - which some in the Leave side have explicitly touted, as a slippery way of countering the uncertainty issue - is a non-option, and can be ruled out.
Surely what can be ruled out is the notion that if we went independent and went to a points system on immigration, we would be punished on trade as a consequence.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
Alistair you conveniently overlook the fact that across the EU the rules of free movement for the Schengen countries are being broken and ignored. If the EU cannot stick to these rules, how long a life will they have or is it just another area of european law where countries just ignore it?
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
But it (EEA membership) makes essentially no meaningful difference to anybody nor will it make any difference to all the single mothers trying to be given a house with garden that Nigel Farage has suddenly found some sympathy with. It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines. Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
Couldn't you agree EEA membership under Article 50 with understanding that you will continue to negotiate a more permanent position as a simple QMV trade deal later??
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
If it was clear that it was merely a transitional arrangement, I don't see why they would be more frustrated with 18 months negotiation into EEA and then perhaps four more years to get a bilateral would be worse than 11 years with San Marino.
The WTO 'option' is an absolutely worst case outcome. Under it, the UK would be subject to modest tariffs on various products. UK exports might suffer a bit, although modest currency depreciation could offset much of that.
The point of mentioning the WTO situation is to counter the absurd claims people on the Remain side make about UK trade with the EU somehow ceasing the day after Brexit, nothing more. It is to show that even the worst case is not a catastrophe, even if it is not ideal.
The better options are either UK rejoining EFTA or a bespoke UK-EU free trade agreement. The former is easier than the latter, but the latter is a perfectly viable option within a sensible time scale.
Ben Carson sees 'no path forward' but isn't formally dropping out yet...
I suppose we should thank him for his selfless public service for the democratic process, even though his legacy in politics will have a half-life somewhat less than Hydrogen-7.....
I still believe its going to be Labour voters that win this for Leave, most are meh about the EU, it just doesn't get them as excited as it does the Tories. A big chunk will either not bother to vote or take the opportunity to kick Cameron's arse. Unlike the Labour party plenty have big immigration concerns, barbed wire fences will get the WWC voting, that's for sure.
I wouldn't discount it but I think dislike of UKIP will motivate a good few particularly once the unions get campaigning, The much-vaunted UKIP breakthrough in Labour heartlands has never really materialised and if anything has receded - got absolutely nowhere in Oldham by-election despite much ramping that it would be close. ....
We will see in the locals whether what you believe is true. These locals will play out against a backdrop of immigration being a more dominant issue than in most previous elections. The conditions are therefore more favourable for UKIP, but their internal warfare may hamper the gains.
We will indeed I was just pointing out that since last May they seem to have been losing ground, particularly in Labour seats.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
I think your last word sums up many Leavers. I can see us out of the EU and for instance in the EEA/EFTA, but I am under no illusion it would make any difference to the vast majority of us. It may be a bit better for some reason or other but equally it may be a bit worse. So what really is the point of it all. Leavers are busy with a great pantomime of self justification of years of protest.
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
It wouldn't. We would negotiate a trade deal. That's the whole point: the WTO route - which some in the Leave side have explicitly touted, as a slippery way of countering the uncertainty issue - is a non-option, and can be ruled out.
Surely what can be ruled out is the notion that if we went independent and went to a points system on immigration, we would be punished on trade as a consequence.
Is Belgium being punished because it has brought in border checks with France? Are all those closures of borders last year between EU countries leading to tariff increases as punishments? Is Macedonia getting hit with tariffs becuase it has vast new fences and a closed border at times with Greece?
er no. Free movement of people within the EU or its neighbours is for the birds.
The better options are either UK rejoining EFTA or a bespoke UK-EU free trade agreement. The former is easier than the latter, but the latter is a perfectly viable option within a sensible time scale.
Agreed, although it would send a shiver down (what passes for) the spine of the EU. Because it would turn the clock back to, oh, about 1973? And who knows which other countries might decide that returning to a European Economic Community would suit them fine and dandy.
The entire base case of remain it seems to me, is that Leavers can't have the penny and the bun.
In other words, it is impossible to have tariff-less trade in goods and services AND an independent country of our own where we call all the shots, including our own rules immigration.
It seems to me that Andrew Neill interview blew remain's base case to pieces. We CAN have what we want. And so we should vote to get it.
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
But it (EEA membership) makes essentially no meaningful difference to anybody nor will it make any difference to all the single mothers trying to be given a house with garden that Nigel Farage has suddenly found some sympathy with. It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines. Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
It makes a huge difference. It removes the vast majority of EU legislation that we are subject to. It removes us from the oversight of the ECJ and it saves us a huge amount of money.
In immediate terms it means we can start to manage our farming and fisheries for the benefit of the UK not the rest of the EU. It allows us to decide issues such as VAT or ourselves. It allows us to have our own energy policy, our own transport policy and our own voice on large numbers of important international bodies.
You have no answer to these points and so keep coming back to the issue of immigration as your only response. It is fatuous and pointless.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
What's wrong with dreaming? The idea of gay marriage becoming legal was just a dream a few years ago.
On the day when Remain/Govt brought out from Osborne's Treasury the great dossier that would zap all arguments and impress all and sundry, we close the day mocking the stupid errors in this "dodgy dossier".
Can we all agree that this day is a win for LEAVE?
I think leave have had a few good days but everyone is talking to themsselves while turning the public off. Will start to be interesting by May and the debates, if agreed, will have quite an influence. However leave won't get away with an incoherant plan indefinately and they have two months to get their act (s) together
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
Couldn't you agree EEA membership under Article 50 with understanding that you will continue to negotiate a more permanent position as a simple QMV trade deal later??
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
If it was clear that it was merely a transitional arrangement, I don't see why they would be more frustrated with 18 months negotiation into EEA and then perhaps four more years to get a bilateral would be worse than 11 years with San Marino.
Whether or not we decide to leave the EEA at a later date is not what this debate is about. That will be up to future Government's and future electorates to decide. Personally I would not want to leave the EEA but it is not an issue at the moment. Nor would it be under the Article 50 negotiations if we had decided on EEA membership.
Although not too much should be put in those figures - the fact that the number of republicans in several states voting is now higher than the democrats should give the GOP some hope (if it wasn't for the fact that many are voting for the wrong candidate)
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
It wouldn't. We would negotiate a trade deal. That's the whole point: the WTO route - which some in the Leave side have explicitly touted, as a slippery way of countering the uncertainty issue - is a non-option, and can be ruled out.
Surely what can be ruled out is the notion that if we went independent and went to a points system on immigration, we would be punished on trade as a consequence.
Is Belgium being punished because it has brought in border checks with France? Are all those closures of borders last year between EU countries leading to tariff increases as punishments? Is Macedonia getting hit with tariffs becuase it has vast new fences and a closed border at times with Greece?
er no. Free movement of people within the EU or its neighbours is for the birds.
I assume there is no freedom of movement deal with Turkey, and yet the number of tariffs slapped on Turkey as a result is precisely zero.
"Any [trade] deal can be blocked by any one of the member states of the EU, which each have competing priorities in any such negotiations."
Is this actually true? I don't think it is. Trade is an EU competence and no country has a veto.
So Leave are giving up before the referendum on excluding freedom of movement from the deal? There are a lot of kippers who would be most unhappy to hear that.
What the .... are you on about, Mr. Meeks. I was talking about trade deals and whether any one EU country can block them. Where are you coming from with this Freedom of Movement stuff? Let me try again.
I thought Trade was an EU competence and therefore no country has a veto. If I am wrong on this can someone let me know and, preferably point me at the relevant section of the Treaty.
Let me try again. At what point do you propose to negotiate about freedom of movement and using what incentive to get the EU to agree?
Who in the EU actually cares about maintaining free movement that much?? Germany and France won't, as long as there are administratively easy business visas. Eastern Europe will care more but mainly about protecting existing citizens already here. Some worry about depopulation like the Baltics. And Eastern Europe will be most concerned with maintaining good UK relations as we are Western power actually backing up the rapid reaction taskforce against Russia.
OK... There's no arguing with someone who thinks that. The fact that even limited restrictions on freedom of movement in negotiations to date has been a red line and that the EU is currently turning the screws on Switzerland over its refusal to accept what every other European country has accepted, however, suggests you are dreaming.
I think your last word sums up many Leavers. I can see us out of the EU and for instance in the EEA/EFTA, but I am under no illusion it would make any difference to the vast majority of us. It may be a bit better for some reason or other but equally it may be a bit worse. So what really is the point of it all. Leavers are busy with a great pantomime of self justification of years of protest.
Only because you clearly don't understand either the EU or the EEA. Willful ignorance like yours is very unattractive.
I'm sick of the EU referendum already, I've got far more urgent things to worry about closer to home. I'm voting out, as I'm English, and that's enough to see me through anything.
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
But it (EEA membership) makes essentially no meaningful difference to anybody nor will it make any difference to all the single mothers trying to be given a house with garden that Nigel Farage has suddenly found some sympathy with. It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines. Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
It makes a huge difference. It removes the vast majority of EU legislation that we are subject to. It removes us from the oversight of the ECJ and it saves us a huge amount of money.
In immediate terms it means we can start to manage our farming and fisheries for the benefit of the UK not the rest of the EU. It allows us to decide issues such as VAT or ourselves. It allows us to have our own energy policy, our own transport policy and our own voice on large numbers of important international bodies.
You have no answer to these points and so keep coming back to the issue of immigration as your only response. It is fatuous and pointless.
It makes no meaningful difference to anyone about anything. The great bogyman of Farage's and his BNPlite followers - the only real motive and motivator for the leavers now - immigration and free movement are unchanged.
It will all get implemented anyway - not least by Labour.
Although not too much should be put in those figures - the fact that the number of republicans in several states voting is now higher than the democrats should give the GOP some hope (if it wasn't for the fact that many are voting for the wrong candidate)
The most interesting was Virginia, up 110% for the Republicans. There was a strong anti-Trump vote from D.C., however Trump still won.
But I still expect that Trump will lose Virginia easily in the GE.
Your point was utterly destroyed by Neill. Utterly. Throughout the entire European continent there exists not a single tariff. In or out. From Iceland to Turkey.
Given this is the situation, why would the EU want to pick on us, its friend and ally?
It wouldn't. We would negotiate a trade deal. That's the whole point: the WTO route - which some in the Leave side have explicitly touted, as a slippery way of countering the uncertainty issue - is a non-option, and can be ruled out.
Surely what can be ruled out is the notion that if we went independent and went to a points system on immigration, we would be punished on trade as a consequence.
Is Belgium being punished because it has brought in border checks with France? Are all those closures of borders last year between EU countries leading to tariff increases as punishments? Is Macedonia getting hit with tariffs becuase it has vast new fences and a closed border at times with Greece?
er no. Free movement of people within the EU or its neighbours is for the birds.
I am afraid you are not really understanding this. Free Movement does not preclude border checks. Border checks are only supposed to be removed under Schengen rules which are an additional agreement over and above free movement.
Belgium would only be in breach of the principle of free movement if they used the border checks to prevent innocent EU citizens from travelling from one country to another. There is nothing to stop them using them to arrest criminals or illegal migrants.
Indeed all Belgium has done is adopt a position comparable with any non Schengen EU member - such as the UK.
Macedonia is also a red herring as they are not an EU member.
Hmm, trade is a competency that lies completely with the EU structure so I would be surprised if any country had a veto. If they did then Alastair's 8 years would be more like 80!
I would agree, except that I think all the EU countries have to ratify it, don't they? I imagine they have a treaty obligation to do so, however.
Perhaps the uncertainty relates to any aspects of the agreement which go beyond trade, which may be a grey area.
Couldn't you agree EEA membership under Article 50 with understanding that you will continue to negotiate a more permanent position as a simple QMV trade deal later??
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
If it was clear that it was merely a transitional arrangement, I don't see why they would be more frustrated with 18 months negotiation into EEA and then perhaps four more years to get a bilateral would be worse than 11 years with San Marino.
Whether or not we decide to leave the EEA at a later date is not what this debate is about. That will be up to future Government's and future electorates to decide. Personally I would not want to leave the EEA but it is not an issue at the moment. Nor would it be under the Article 50 negotiations if we had decided on EEA membership.
I think final destination matters and should be part of debate. I think its important we won't be subjected to single rulebook in finance and other new EU law. I also think we need to control immigration to restore working class's faith in politics. But I would be comfortable if EEA was the immediate exit plan. We could then sign free trade deals and restructure agriculture before deciding whether to go further.
Well we could. We can certainly decide that our Article 50 position is we wish to join EFTA and continue as members of the EEA. We can negotiate with the EU on that basis. But if we are going that route (which of course is the one I advocate) then I suspect that there will be little appetite to then start renegotiating a different deal straight afterwards.
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
But it (EEA membership) makes essentially no meaningful difference to anybody nor will it make any difference to all the single mothers trying to be given a house with garden that Nigel Farage has suddenly found some sympathy with. It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines. Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
It makes a huge difference. It removes the vast majority of EU legislation that we are subject to. It removes us from the oversight of the ECJ and it saves us a huge amount of money.
In immediate terms it means we can start to manage our farming and fisheries for the benefit of the UK not the rest of the EU. It allows us to decide issues such as VAT or ourselves. It allows us to have our own energy policy, our own transport policy and our own voice on large numbers of important international bodies.
You have no answer to these points and so keep coming back to the issue of immigration as your only response. It is fatuous and pointless.
It makes no meaningful difference to anyone about anything. The great bogyman of Farage's and his BNPlite followers - the only real motive and motivator for the leavers now - immigration and free movement are unchanged.
It will all get implemented anyway - not least by Labour.
For some reason I am starting to get a bit nervous about my Trump position.
I'm out since the week before Iowa.
But I can plainly see a very troubled few days ahead for Trump:
If polls show close races he will probably lose. (he underperforms) If its a caucus he will probably lose. (Kansas, Kentucky, Maine) If it's in the west he will probably lose. (Kansas, Lousiana) Carson's out and that favours Cruz. There is the Fox debate that Trump will lose. Trump's enemies will never surrender.
By Sunday Trump might be in a bad shape and Cruz might triumph.
For some reason I am starting to get a bit nervous about my Trump position.
I'm out since the week before Iowa.
But I can plainly see a very troubled few days ahead for Trump:
If polls show close races he will probably lose. (he underperforms) If its a caucus he will probably lose. (Kansas, Kentucky, Maine) If it's in the west he will probably lose. (Kansas, Lousiana) Carson's out and that favours Cruz. There is the Fox debate that Trump will lose. Trump's enemies will never surrender.
By Sunday Trump might be in a bad shape and Cruz might triumph.
For some reason I am starting to get a bit nervous about my Trump position.
I'm out since the week before Iowa.
But I can plainly see a very troubled few days ahead for Trump:
If polls show close races he will probably lose. (he underperforms) If its a caucus he will probably lose. (Kansas, Kentucky, Maine) If it's in the west he will probably lose. (Kansas, Lousiana) Carson's out and that favours Cruz. There is the Fox debate that Trump will lose. Trump's enemies will never surrender.
By Sunday Trump might be in a bad shape and Cruz might triumph.
I do hope so.
Why?
Cruz has almost all Trump's shortcomings and none of his strengths.
Some simple facts:
1) Clinton is the Democratic nominee unless she is arrested. This is becoming more likely, but it is not likely at this point.
2) As the remaining GOP candidates are toxic to swing voters and the economy appears in good shape to most Americans, this is an election she really should win, although I think it could be very close.
3) That does not mean she will make a good President. Indeed, with due respect to her admirers (@foxinsoxuk) she has repeatedly demonstrated over 40 years that she has neither administrative ability, common courtesy or personal integrity. This will make her a very bad president.
4) Therefore, there is value in a GOP win with a different nominee in 2020. That could also be true, although less likely, with Trump given his age. But it would have to be someone in early middle age, with an economically dry track record and somebody against whom Hilary cannot use gender as a weapon.
5) Therefore, as matters stand there is value in Nikki Haley being President in 2021.
If that does happen though, she'll likely have a truly desperate inheritance.
Technically Carson has said he has 'no path to the nomination' and will not attend the next debate although he has not formally withdrawn and will allow a grassroots movement to continue, though it amounts to the same thing.
'I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit,' it said.
'Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America. I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's primary results. 'However, this grassroots movement on behalf of "We the People" will continue. 'Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations. 'We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation. 'I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America. 'Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.
'I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.'
For some reason I am starting to get a bit nervous about my Trump position.
I'm out since the week before Iowa.
But I can plainly see a very troubled few days ahead for Trump:
If polls show close races he will probably lose. (he underperforms) If its a caucus he will probably lose. (Kansas, Kentucky, Maine) If it's in the west he will probably lose. (Kansas, Lousiana) Carson's out and that favours Cruz. There is the Fox debate that Trump will lose. Trump's enemies will never surrender.
By Sunday Trump might be in a bad shape and Cruz might triumph.
I do hope so.
Why?
Cruz has almost all Trump's shortcomings and none of his strengths.
Some simple facts:
1) Clinton is the Democratic nominee unless she is arrested. This is becoming more likely, but it is not likely at this point.
2) As the remaining GOP candidates are toxic to swing voters and the economy appears in good shape to most Americans, this is an election she really should win, although I think it could be very close.
3) That does not mean she will make a good President. Indeed, with due respect to her admirers (@foxinsoxuk) she has repeatedly demonstrated over 40 years that she has neither administrative ability, common courtesy or personal integrity. This will make her a very bad president.
4) Therefore, there is value in a GOP win with a different nominee in 2020. That could also be true, although less likely, with Trump given his age. But it would have to be someone in early middle age, with an economically dry track record and somebody against whom Hilary cannot use gender as a weapon.
5) Therefore, as matters stand there is value in Nikki Haley being President in 2021.
If that does happen though, she'll likely have a truly desperate inheritance.
Just the way my book is shaped, nothing more than that really.
Technically Carson has said he has 'no path to the nomination' and will not attend the next debate although he has not formally withdrawn and will allow a grassroots movement to continue, though it amounts to the same thing.
'I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit,' it said.
'Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America. I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's primary results. 'However, this grassroots movement on behalf of "We the People" will continue. 'Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations. 'We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation. 'I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America. 'Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.
'I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.'
Is George Osborne making any effort to support the IN cause, I haven't noticed any great commitment?
If George wants to put himself forward for Leader he will not want to appear as a standard bearer for Remain. He will want to be able to say that he fixed the deficit and will have money to spend.
If you're long Trump and short Cruz, just back Cruz- he's at ~ 20-1 whereas Trump is 1-3.
Thats a massive difference to green up on Cruz with.
I'm vasty longer Cruz than Trump, I'm not worried about an outright winner - if there is one I am good on either Trump or Cruz.
My worry is a brokered convention. Rubio pig headedly staying in and just stopping Trump getting 50%+1 before the convention.
The events of yesterday and today show that Rubio won't win any major state that is winner take all apart from Utah. It's Cruz that now is the danger for Trump along with Kasich in Ohio, Cruz sweeping most of the western states plus a couple of close ones in the east is a real possibility.
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
cough & bollocks ... we've been outplayed and outclassed. Who could have guessed that?
8:34AM You can get odds of 7/2 on West Ham winning tonight - unbeaten in the PL at home since August and having the chance to stop Spurs going top of the PL in their last home derby against us...
Payet playing this time and our 3rd game since Thursday.
"If Britain were to vote to leave the EU, it would be only the third country to do so after Algeria and Greenland, and neither of those cases is comparable, so the negotiations would be breaking new ground."
Algeria to the best of my knowledge has never been part of the EU Mr Meeks!
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Romney won't manage to do a thing, the man who barely beat Santorum and run an embarrassing campaign doesn't have the stature, he's the poster boy of an out of touch establishment.
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Suits Trump fine I would have thought, as Romney fought a dismal campaign in 2012. Wouldn't say it was a spectacular Super Tuesday for Trump, but he did enough to solidify his position further as the front runner. Yes, I expect plenty of dirty tricks from the Republican establishment, but they're fast running out of time.
"If Britain were to vote to leave the EU, it would be only the third country to do so after Algeria and Greenland, and neither of those cases is comparable, so the negotiations would be breaking new ground."
Algeria to the best of my knowledge has never been part of the EU Mr Meeks!
Not while it was the EU, no. It was part of the ECSC in the early days before it became independent from France.
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Suits Trump fine I would have thought, as Romney fought a dismal campaign in 2012. Wouldn't say it was a spectacular Super Tuesday for Trump, but he did enough to solidify his position further as the front runner. Yes, I expect plenty of dirty tricks from the Republican establishment, but they're fast running out of time.
It will not stop Trump getting the nomination but I expect Clinton HQ will be setting the DVD recorder tomorrow and giving his remarks a lot of airplay in swing states in the summer!
Technically Carson has said he has 'no path to the nomination' and will not attend the next debate although he has not formally withdrawn and will allow a grassroots movement to continue, though it amounts to the same thing.
'I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit,' it said.
'Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America. I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's primary results. 'However, this grassroots movement on behalf of "We the People" will continue. 'Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations. 'We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation. 'I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America. 'Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.
'I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.'
"If Britain were to vote to leave the EU, it would be only the third country to do so after Algeria and Greenland, and neither of those cases is comparable, so the negotiations would be breaking new ground."
Algeria to the best of my knowledge has never been part of the EU Mr Meeks!
Not while it was the EU, no. It was part of the ECSC in the early days before it became independent from France.
That was in 1958, way before the EU came into being with Maastricht!
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Romney won't manage to do a thing, the man who barely beat Santorum and run an embarrassing campaign doesn't have the stature, he's the poster boy of an out of touch establishment.
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Romney won't manage to do a thing, the man who barely beat Santorum and run an embarrassing campaign doesn't have the stature, he's the poster boy of an out of touch establishment.
He will manage to give ammunition to Hillary
Enough Democrats have said unflattering things about Hillary. It cuts both ways!
i remember that, yet I'd also forgotten it. Quite a brilliant letter.
Possibly his most passionate piece of writing ever. It also has a glorious typo -
"And you've fucking stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it."
I think he meant to refer to Jesus with a beard. Unless it was a typo by the Guardian - which would round off the whole thing with a glorious symmetry
Romney to deliver speech denouncing Trump tomorrow
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination. Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Romney won't manage to do a thing, the man who barely beat Santorum and run an embarrassing campaign doesn't have the stature, he's the poster boy of an out of touch establishment.
He will manage to give ammunition to Hillary
Enough Democrats have said unflattering things about Hillary. It cuts both ways!
The absolute death rate is likely to rise over the coming 20 to 30 years across the Western world as the post-WW2 baby boomers begin to die off, and colder winters / potential food shortages going into the 2030 grand solar minimum are not going to help either. After the improvement in 2010, mortality rates have stopped improving - I don't think we should have begun yet to see the impact on the absolute death rate from the baby boomers starting to die off.......whcih in turn raises questions about the performance of the NHS over the past 6 years of this government.
Funnily enough cold weather last winter was blamed for the high number of deaths in 2015, particularly in January and February of last year, yet the global warmists in the government were telling us using their fallacious made up data that it was one of the warmest winters ever. Talk about joined up government!
This I believe is the point Richard N. has been making. the EFTA/EEA route should be the easiest one to agree with the EU. Personally I think there will be little serious opposition to that although others differ on that. But once you move beyond that into FTA negotiations outside of EFTA I think things will get a lot more difficult and unpredictable.
Basically I think if we go into the referendum saying our preferred option is EFTA/EEA then the impact on the markets will be negligible and the fear factor will be effectively countered. Trying to pretend there is absolute certainty of a quick easy route outside of EFTA is I think dishonest.
Yes, I think that is fair, and, as you say, it would largely remove the short-term economic uncertainty as well as being fine (in economic terms) longer-term.
But it (EEA membership) makes essentially no meaningful difference to anybody nor will it make any difference to all the single mothers trying to be given a house with garden that Nigel Farage has suddenly found some sympathy with. It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines. Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
It makes a huge difference. It removes the vast majority of EU legislation that we are subject to. It removes us from the oversight of the ECJ and it saves us a huge amount of money.
In immediate terms it means we can start to manage our farming and fisheries for the benefit of the UK not the rest of the EU. It allows us to decide issues such as VAT or ourselves. It allows us to have our own energy policy, our own transport policy and our own voice on large numbers of important international bodies.
You have no answer to these points and so keep coming back to the issue of immigration as your only response. It is fatuous and pointless.
It makes no meaningful difference to anyone about anything. The great bogyman of Farage's and his BNPlite followers - the only real motive and motivator for the leavers now - immigration and free movement are unchanged.
It will all get implemented anyway - not least by Labour.
Again. Your Willful ignorance is very immature.
There is nothing wilful.
There is no meaningful difference - not least to the free movement issue - if we follow the Norway EEA EFTA route.
Comments
On Switzerland, I don't see much screw turning at all. Only protests have been cancelling of a student exchange program and some R&D funding. Its hardly threatening Swiss economy.
It certainly will not make any difference to any immigration from India China America Australia Pakistan Saudi Arabia Nigeria Turkey Russia Philippines.
Just what are leave on about at the end of the day?
The WTO 'option' is an absolutely worst case outcome. Under it, the UK would be subject to modest tariffs on various products. UK exports might suffer a bit, although modest currency depreciation could offset much of that.
The point of mentioning the WTO situation is to counter the absurd claims people on the Remain side make about UK trade with the EU somehow ceasing the day after Brexit, nothing more. It is to show that even the worst case is not a catastrophe, even if it is not ideal.
The better options are either UK rejoining EFTA or a bespoke UK-EU free trade agreement. The former is easier than the latter, but the latter is a perfectly viable option within a sensible time scale.
Robert Costa @costareports 38m38 minutes ago
CARSON will not formally suspend today, but bid is over. Will make speech Friday at CPAC: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-
Robert Costa @costareports 40m40 minutes ago
SCOOP: BEN CARSON will tell supporters today that he does not see “path forward,” will not attend Thursday debate http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html …
Bad for Trump, good for Cruz.
Republican candidate Ben Carson drops out #USElections2016 http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-03-02/us-election-2016-trump-and-clinton-push-ahead-on-super-tuesday/ …
Carson gives up.
I can see us out of the EU and for instance in the EEA/EFTA, but I am under no illusion it would make any difference to the vast majority of us. It may be a bit better for some reason or other but equally it may be a bit worse. So what really is the point of it all. Leavers are busy with a great pantomime of self justification of years of protest.
er no. Free movement of people within the EU or its neighbours is for the birds.
In other words, it is impossible to have tariff-less trade in goods and services AND an independent country of our own where we call all the shots, including our own rules immigration.
It seems to me that Andrew Neill interview blew remain's base case to pieces. We CAN have what we want. And so we should vote to get it.
In immediate terms it means we can start to manage our farming and fisheries for the benefit of the UK not the rest of the EU. It allows us to decide issues such as VAT or ourselves. It allows us to have our own energy policy, our own transport policy and our own voice on large numbers of important international bodies.
You have no answer to these points and so keep coming back to the issue of immigration as your only response. It is fatuous and pointless.
Might be enough for Cruz to beat Trump in most close races.
It seems he took the offer.
Countries outside the EU single market such as the US and Canada have seen their trade with the EU grow much faster than us inside it.
Switzerland, where it seems the screws are being turned, exports five times more per head than the UK.
It will all get implemented anyway - not least by Labour.
What a stupid argument
There was a strong anti-Trump vote from D.C., however Trump still won.
But I still expect that Trump will lose Virginia easily in the GE.
'We do not have a past we want to bury, we do not have a past we are ashamed of' says @TonyParsonsUK.
Belgium would only be in breach of the principle of free movement if they used the border checks to prevent innocent EU citizens from travelling from one country to another. There is nothing to stop them using them to arrest criminals or illegal migrants.
Indeed all Belgium has done is adopt a position comparable with any non Schengen EU member - such as the UK.
Macedonia is also a red herring as they are not an EU member.
But I can plainly see a very troubled few days ahead for Trump:
If polls show close races he will probably lose. (he underperforms)
If its a caucus he will probably lose. (Kansas, Kentucky, Maine)
If it's in the west he will probably lose. (Kansas, Lousiana)
Carson's out and that favours Cruz.
There is the Fox debate that Trump will lose.
Trump's enemies will never surrender.
By Sunday Trump might be in a bad shape and Cruz might triumph.
Michigan: Trump +19%
Florida: Trump +20%
North Carolina: Trump +10%
Illinois: Trump +15%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Thats a massive difference to green up on Cruz with.
Cruz has almost all Trump's shortcomings and none of his strengths.
Some simple facts:
1) Clinton is the Democratic nominee unless she is arrested. This is becoming more likely, but it is not likely at this point.
2) As the remaining GOP candidates are toxic to swing voters and the economy appears in good shape to most Americans, this is an election she really should win, although I think it could be very close.
3) That does not mean she will make a good President. Indeed, with due respect to her admirers (@foxinsoxuk) she has repeatedly demonstrated over 40 years that she has neither administrative ability, common courtesy or personal integrity. This will make her a very bad president.
4) Therefore, there is value in a GOP win with a different nominee in 2020. That could also be true, although less likely, with Trump given his age. But it would have to be someone in early middle age, with an economically dry track record and somebody against whom Hilary cannot use gender as a weapon.
5) Therefore, as matters stand there is value in Nikki Haley being President in 2021.
If that does happen though, she'll likely have a truly desperate inheritance.
Trump 46%
Cruz 33%
Rubio 16%
Kasich 4%
Carson 1%
'I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit,' it said.
'Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America. I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's primary results.
'However, this grassroots movement on behalf of "We the People" will continue.
'Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.
'We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation.
'I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America.
'Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.
'I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3473541/Ben-Carson-quits-Republican-race-White-House-dismal-Super-Tuesday-results.html#ixzz41mMWJfmM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I also suspect that Kasich is going to win Ohio now.
In individual states where Trump leads by less than 10 over Cruz, Cruz is going to win them probably.
More seriously, now all options from here are so terrible that may be the only thing worth celebrating in the whole ghastly mess.
My worry is a brokered convention. Rubio pig headedly staying in and just stopping Trump getting 50%+1 before the convention.
It's Cruz that now is the danger for Trump along with Kasich in Ohio, Cruz sweeping most of the western states plus a couple of close ones in the east is a real possibility.
Utterly terrifying I said !
'With Trump’s convincing victories on Tuesday, the single biggest day of voting in the Republican race, Romney was motivated to make a more formal case against him in hopes of keeping him from coalescing more support, according to a Republican source familiar with Romney’s plans.
The battle inside the GOP is so fluid that Romney’s circle of advisers are not in agreement about how to respond to Trump’s rise towards the nomination.
Word of Romney’s speech came as the Republican Party wrestled Wednesday with whether to rally behind Trump or pursue a bloody fight to take him down, with no clear alternative to replace him.
Paired with an emerging Democratic playbook—to accuse Trump of being anti-woman, intolerant, and too hotheaded to have his finger on the nuclear button—it would be the first concerted effort to convince voters that Trump isn’t fit to be president.
Democrats in Washington see opportunity in the Republican melee.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-02/republicans-wrestle-with-trump-after-dominant-super-tuesday-wins
8:34AM
You can get odds of 7/2 on West Ham winning tonight - unbeaten in the PL at home since August and having the chance to stop Spurs going top of the PL in their last home derby against us...
Payet playing this time and our 3rd game since Thursday.
I don't get those odds.
Algeria to the best of my knowledge has never been part of the EU Mr Meeks!
Where's Evan Bayh when you need him?
But surely they know you?
And your books?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey
But lets wait for this:
http://www.foxnews.com/live-coverage/fox-news-gop-debate
http://iceagenow.info/democratic-voters-defecting-to-guy-who-called-b-s-on-man-made-global-warming/
"And you've fucking stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it."
I think he meant to refer to Jesus with a beard. Unless it was a typo by the Guardian - which would round off the whole thing with a glorious symmetry
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/02/adblocking-protection-racket-john-whittingdale
new thread
* So use colons and derivatives thereof.
https://www.rt.com/uk/332633-austerity-death-rate-rise/
The absolute death rate is likely to rise over the coming 20 to 30 years across the Western world as the post-WW2 baby boomers begin to die off, and colder winters / potential food shortages going into the 2030 grand solar minimum are not going to help either. After the improvement in 2010, mortality rates have stopped improving - I don't think we should have begun yet to see the impact on the absolute death rate from the baby boomers starting to die off.......whcih in turn raises questions about the performance of the NHS over the past 6 years of this government.
Funnily enough cold weather last winter was blamed for the high number of deaths in 2015, particularly in January and February of last year, yet the global warmists in the government were telling us using their fallacious made up data that it was one of the warmest winters ever. Talk about joined up government!
There is no meaningful difference - not least to the free movement issue - if we follow the Norway EEA EFTA route.