1 Nuneaton and Bedworth 43 per 1,000 2 Stoke-on-Trent 42.4 per 1,000 3 Tamworth 42 per 1,000 4 North East Lincolnshire 40.8 per 1,000 5 Kingston upon Hull City of 39.3 per 1,000 6 Preston 38.6 per 1,000 7 Sandwell 38.3 per 1,000 8 Norwich 38.1 per 1,000 9 Walsall 37.5 per 1,000 10 Blackpool 37.3 per 1,000
How lucky we are that a handful of (Brexit) posters know more about the future of science in the UK than 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal.
It's a humbling revelation.
Hawking is probably worried his Ukrainian "nurse" won't get her visa stamped.
What a shitty comment.
Pretty daft as well given that the Ukraine are not in the EU. Not sure what point Mr Ghost was trying to make there.
The rest of us are enjoying pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Oh dear. And round we go again...
It has been vastly entertaining trying to follow the tortured logic of the Brexiteers this morning.
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers
Switzerland has a problem recruiting World class researchers in science, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
If we left the EU, we might have the same recruitment problem as Switzerland, say 150 Fellows of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
Oh, wait...
You're really not capable of independent thinking, are you?
From that letter: "Sir, The EU has boosted UK science in two crucial ways. First, increased funding has raised greatly the level of European science as a whole and of the UK in particular because we have a competitive edge. Second, we now recruit many of our best researchers from continental Europe, including younger ones who have obtained EU grants and have chosen to move with them here. Being able to attract and fund the most talented Europeans assures the future of British science and also encourages the best scientists elsewhere to come here."
With regard to the funding aspect: "The UK Government funds 30% of research and development undertaken in the UK, whilst the EU funds around 3%". https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/12/UK research and EU/ Of that 3% from the EU, a proportion will be UK money paid to the EU and redistributed back.
With regard to the recruitment aspect, given the number of UK universities in the world top 50 (10) compared with other EU universities (2), it is hard to see why it would be difficult to continue to attract top scientists post-Brexit.
Mr. Eagles, hope you return to Leave. The City would be subject, obviously, to more EU meddling if we're inside than outside, not to mention the importance of self-determination, accountability of those who pass laws over us, and the opposing long-term interests of the integration-loving eurozone and the UK.
Mr Dancer, I've always said I'd vote in what I considered in the best long term economic interests oh the UK.
Now I admire you, and the likes of Casino Royale, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall who have said they will vote to Leave so the the UK becomes a wholly sovereign country again, I just feel that principle (which I admire and support) comes with too high a price right now.
We're talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
I think the issue is that it is now or never, the cost of separation is never going to be zero. If we vote to remain we set ourselves down the path of the European superstate, eventually it will be 1 EMU country with 27 regions and us. I don't like the idea of that and the cost of separation at that point will be even higher.
Will people stop making persuasive arguments for Remain or Leave.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
I am talking of practicality. Show me a realistic path by which we get from a Leave vote to a WTO based relationship with the EU (as opposed to an EFTA/EEA relationship) in the next 4 years with the current political situation in Parliament.
Leave are barely managing to creep a few polling leads even now. Given that there will be a large portion of the Leave advocates - of which I am one - who will then align with the Government for an EEA deal, how on earth do you expect to ever get enough support for a non EEA deal?
Well that was the point I was making. In the event of a Leave vote I think there would still be a majority of people in favour of freedom of movement, or at least retaining the four freedoms. In a vote like the one I pointed out I think option 2 (EEA/EFTA) would win by a pretty wide margin.
Mr. Eagles, I agree in jobs and livelihoods, and if we were making a vote on a 3 year basis, I might well agree with you.
But you know the EU can and will meddle as it can to integrate more, impose regulations on the eurozone which will then affect the City (previously not the case) and that the eurozone has a QMV critical mass.
This is a 10-20 year decision, perhaps longer. The eurozone may rise and fall a little, but the prognosis is still terminal. If we were outside the EU, it would decrease trade with the bloc, but also enable us to make laws/regulations and trade deals better suited to ourselves, and there are far more countries outside the EU than inside.
Why is this a 10-20 year decision. The EU is in a period of huge change with different nations having very divergent views and very unpredictable elections in Germany and France next year. If we remain we will be at the table but if there is an attempt to subvert the UK agreement or the EU make unacceptable changes in the future the UK would be able to hold a second referendum at that time. Nothing is for ever
Sorry Big G but that is fanciful. If we vote to stay in then this debate is dead as far as a new vote is concerned for decades. Almost no matter what happens no Government will offer us another vote until I am far beyond claiming my pension.
1 Nuneaton and Bedworth 43 per 1,000 2 Stoke-on-Trent 42.4 per 1,000 3 Tamworth 42 per 1,000 4 North East Lincolnshire 40.8 per 1,000 5 Kingston upon Hull City of 39.3 per 1,000 6 Preston 38.6 per 1,000 7 Sandwell 38.3 per 1,000 8 Norwich 38.1 per 1,000 9 Walsall 37.5 per 1,000 10 Blackpool 37.3 per 1,000
1 Nuneaton and Bedworth 43 per 1,000 2 Stoke-on-Trent 42.4 per 1,000 3 Tamworth 42 per 1,000 4 North East Lincolnshire 40.8 per 1,000 5 Kingston upon Hull City of 39.3 per 1,000 6 Preston 38.6 per 1,000 7 Sandwell 38.3 per 1,000 8 Norwich 38.1 per 1,000 9 Walsall 37.5 per 1,000 10 Blackpool 37.3 per 1,000
Mr. NorthWales, if we held a vote and declined (as happened to the Constitution) it would simply be repackaged, with a new font and liberal use of a thesaurus. And if we had a Labour Government then no such thing will happen.
There's also far more use of QMV, fewer vetoes and less need of grand treaty changes because of Lisbon, which allowed for more treaty-free changes to be made.
Your second paragraph outlines why I'll probably vote leave, albeit reluctantly. It's got nothing to do with the lamentable leave campaign.
This stems from the basic situation that different groups of people on both sides want to leave/remain for different reasons, and hence want different outcomes.
Some people on leave (the far left) want out of the EU because it's a corporatist undemocratic institution dominated by lobbyists and other enemies of the people. Traditionalist of all political views want to leave the EU because of sovereignty concerns. Free trade libertarians like Messrs RCS1000, Tyndall and myself want out so we can trade freely with the largest market and make our own deals. People further to the right, and those that have been left behind by the modern world want to leave the EU to restrict immigration. All of these have different solutions.
Different groups of people want to stay for different reasons as well, and ultimately probably have differing long term objectives, but ultimately if you are a remainer there is only one way to achieve this which is to stay with the program and make the best fist of it you can.
But it isn't worth Leave debating this for two reasons. Firstly their opponents would like nothing better than them getting into a navel gazing bout of fratricide over exactly where they are going, the whole PFJ/JPF over who leads the out campaign was unedifying enough without starting a second round.
The other reason is quite frankly it doesnt matter want Leave think, Cameron or his successor will be the one that does the deal, which means it will be some sort of EEA/EFTA fudge. Leave could campaign for this, or a full kipper out and go it along, makes no difference. However it is not the job of the wrecking ball to get planning permission for the new buildings to follow.
I'm far from convinced that remain is anywhere near as split as leave.
Leave do need to debate it, as I can see little other than chaos if we vote Leave. One group of leavers is going to be very upset with whatever happens, and there is a good chance this rancour will poison negotiations.
Yet despite this I'm probably going to vote leave. Hmmm.
Many Leavers are being dishonest by not having this debate now.
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
Mr. Eagles, hope you return to Leave. The City would be subject, obviously, to more EU meddling if we're inside than outside, not to mention the importance of self-determination, accountability of those who pass laws over us, and the opposing long-term interests of the integration-loving eurozone and the UK.
Mr Dancer, I've always said I'd vote in what I considered in the best long term economic interests oh the UK.
Now I admire you, and the likes of Casino Royale, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall who have said they will vote to Leave so the the UK becomes a wholly sovereign country again, I just feel that principle (which I admire and support) comes with too high a price right now.
We're talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
I think the issue is that it is now or never, the cost of separation is never going to be zero. If we vote to remain we set ourselves down the path of the European superstate, eventually it will be 1 EMU country with 27 regions and us. I don't like the idea of that and the cost of separation at that point will be even higher.
Will people stop making persuasive arguments for Remain or Leave.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
Might I suggest you stop trying to decide at the moment. You have three months of this. Clear your mind and settle for not making a decision yet. Then enjoy poking holes in all the arguments and taunting away to your heart's content for the next 12 weeks or so. It will make the campaign a lot more fun and might even help you to decide more clearly if you don't feel you have a vested interest in the arguments until just before the actual vote.
Yes, I'm sure highlighting 'the Swiss disaster' is a brilliant tactic for Remain. Where did they go wrong eh? If only the poor heathens had joined the EU they could have been flooded with eager scientists. I'm sure they're weeping bitter tears into their money.
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
We could for example trouser the money we get back from leaving and have free unis again thereby inviting top quality grads from across the world to study here.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
I'm far from convinced that remain is anywhere near as split as leave.
Leave do need to debate it, as I can see little other than chaos if we vote Leave. One group of leavers is going to be very upset with whatever happens, and there is a good chance this rancour will poison negotiations.
Yet despite this I'm probably going to vote leave. Hmmm.
Many Leavers are being dishonest by not having this debate now.
If they spend the next couple of months tearing each other to pieces over what happens next, the only people that will benefit will be Remain. Farage's crew want all the way OUT to stop immigrants, pretty much the rest of leave, including all the politicians don't. That isn't a reconcilable position.
Mr. Eagles, hope you return to Leave. The City would be subject, obviously, to more EU meddling if we're inside than outside, not to mention the importance of self-determination, accountability of those who pass laws over us, and the opposing long-term interests of the integration-loving eurozone and the UK.
Mr Dancer, I've always said I'd vote in what I considered in the best long term economic interests oh the UK.
Now I admire you, and the likes of Casino Royale, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall who have said they will vote to Leave so the the UK becomes a wholly sovereign country again, I just feel that principle (which I admire and support) comes with too high a price right now.
We're talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
I think the issue is that it is now or never, the cost of separation is never going to be zero. If we vote to remain we set ourselves down the path of the European superstate, eventually it will be 1 EMU country with 27 regions and us. I don't like the idea of that and the cost of separation at that point will be even higher.
Will people stop making persuasive arguments for Remain or Leave.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
Might I suggest you stop trying to decide at the moment. You have three months of this. Clear your mind and settle for not making a decision yet. Then enjoy poking holes in all the arguments and taunting away to your heart's content for the next 12 weeks or so. It will make the campaign a lot more fun and might even help you to decide more clearly if you don't feel you have a vested interest in the arguments until just before the actual vote.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
And ignoring 45% of remain voters and a very large chunk of leave's 55% (if that was the end result) makes sense in what way?
It would be put to a referendum, keep the four freedoms and access to the single market, or move to WTO rules and lose the four freedoms. There is nothing in between. The EU will never give away the three freedoms we want and single market access as an option, it will be all or nothing. If we want to restrict immigration and benefits abuse, we have to do it on our end by ending in-work benefits, housing benefits and making everything contributory.
Yes, I'm sure highlighting 'the Swiss disaster' is a brilliant tactic for Remain. Where did they go wrong eh? If only the poor heathens had joined the EU they could have been flooded with eager scientists. I'm sure they're weeping bitter tears into their money.
Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland.
We could for example trouser the money we get back from leaving and have free unis again thereby inviting top quality grads from across the world to study here.
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
I have never claimed to speak on behalf of the rest of the Leave advocates. I don't claim that now so again your reply was a straw man argument. Not surprising given that you are desperately trying to avoid answering the point I made about you picking and choosing the political points on which you think Hawking is right.
You really do expose your intellectual failings by persisting with this argument.
Remain is broadly split between people who welcome the idea of the UK being absorbed into a European state and are open about it and those who are happy enough with that outcome but won't admit it - like the PM and the Chancellor.
There might also be a few others who are genuinely too dense to understand what the end point of Remain is.
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
I can't speak for the migration control advocates because I don't agree with them. All I can do is what I and others on here have done which is continue to advocate the EEA route as the very best choice for our relationship with the world.
And whilst I am sure you will be right about the anger of a small vociferous minority, they are going to be unhappy almost no matter what happens. I am not sure I or you or any serious politician can do anything about that.
Blimey TSE, you used to be indecisive but now you are not so sure?
The lack of clarity about what happens next is by far my biggest concern about Leave. Whilst I am convinced that the EU is progressing down a path that we do not want to follow and that our membership will become increasingly problematic as a result I do want a clear consensus of what the alternative being offered actually is.
I think this is the problem with peter_from_putney's position. The lack of leadership is making spelling out that alternative and coalescing around it very difficult.
The constant swapping of sides seen by some posters on here is why I cannot see the point in deciding one way or the other until the arguments have been much better aired (yes, I know...). I'm very likely to vote leave, but could be persuaded (or pushed) back over the fence. Given this, what's the point in committing myself when the debate has hardly begun?
I can understand why firm remainers or leavers have made up their mind. For those of us who can somewhat see both sides, it's a far less clear decision. I fear this is hard for some of the committed posters to comprehend.
Your second paragraph outlines why I'll probably vote leave, albeit reluctantly. It's got nothing to do with the lamentable leave campaign.
We are on the same page. As I have said on here repeatedly this is a difficult issue on which differing views are entirely legitimate. I recall as an exercise making the case myself for Remain about a month ago and having no difficulty with coming up with arguments. I think TSE said that made him pause too.
For me it is all about the end game. Where do we want to be in another 20 years? A peripheral member of an EU dominated by the EZ which looks from the outside like a single federalised country or someone who has close relations with that EU but is not a member of it and can make its own decisions?
In the short term our continuing relationship with the EU and access to the single market is important and I would want that. In 20 years? Who knows?
Mr. Eagles, hope you return to Leave. The City would be subject, obviously, to more EU meddling if we're inside than outside, not to mention the importance of self-determination, accountability of those who pass laws over us, and the opposing long-term interests of the integration-loving eurozone and the UK.
Mr Dancer, I've always said I'd vote in what I considered in the best long term economic interests oh the UK.
Now I admire you, and the likes of Casino Royale, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall who have said they will vote to Leave so the the UK becomes a wholly sovereign country again, I just feel that principle (which I admire and support) comes with too high a price right now.
We're talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
I think the issue is that it is now or never, the cost of separation is never going to be zero. If we vote to remain we set ourselves down the path of the European superstate, eventually it will be 1 EMU country with 27 regions and us. I don't like the idea of that and the cost of separation at that point will be even higher.
Will people stop making persuasive arguments for Remain or Leave.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
Might I suggest you stop trying to decide at the moment. You have three months of this. Clear your mind and settle for not making a decision yet. Then enjoy poking holes in all the arguments and taunting away to your heart's content for the next 12 weeks or so. It will make the campaign a lot more fun and might even help you to decide more clearly if you don't feel you have a vested interest in the arguments until just before the actual vote.
I will follow your advice.
Especially the poking fun bit. Be brutal. PB needs more random brutality. :-)
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
Indeed while many PB leavers are libertarian minded and follow the Hannan/Carswell line most Outers voting in this referendum are far more concerned that we don't have to build a city the size of Sunderland each year to accommodate the increase in the UK population as a result of free movement. The Leave campaign has to sort out this dichotomy or risk failiure.
Mr. Eagles, I agree in jobs and livelihoods, and if we were making a vote on a 3 year basis, I might well agree with you.
But you know the EU can and will meddle as it can to integrate more, impose regulations on the eurozone which will then affect the City (previously not the case) and that the eurozone has a QMV critical mass.
This is a 10-20 year decision, perhaps longer. The eurozone may rise and fall a little, but the prognosis is still terminal. If we were outside the EU, it would decrease trade with the bloc, but also enable us to make laws/regulations and trade deals better suited to ourselves, and there are far more countries outside the EU than inside.
Why is this a 10-20 year decision. The EU is in a period of huge change with different nations having very divergent views and very unpredictable elections in Germany and France next year. If we remain we will be at the table but if there is an attempt to subvert the UK agreement or the EU make unacceptable changes in the future the UK would be able to hold a second referendum at that time. Nothing is for ever
Sorry Big G but that is fanciful. If we vote to stay in then this debate is dead as far as a new vote is concerned for decades. Almost no matter what happens no Government will offer us another vote until I am far beyond claiming my pension.
If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum
Mr. Eagles, hope you return to Leave. The City would be subject, obviously, to more EU meddling if we're inside than outside, not to mention the importance of self-determination, accountability of those who pass laws over us, and the opposing long-term interests of the integration-loving eurozone and the UK.
Mr Dancer, I've always said I'd vote in what I considered in the best long term economic interests oh the UK.
Now I admire you, and the likes of Casino Royale, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall who have said they will vote to Leave so the the UK becomes a wholly sovereign country again, I just feel that principle (which I admire and support) comes with too high a price right now.
We're talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
I think the issue is that it is now or never, the cost of separation is never going to be zero. If we vote to remain we set ourselves down the path of the European superstate, eventually it will be 1 EMU country with 27 regions and us. I don't like the idea of that and the cost of separation at that point will be even higher.
Will people stop making persuasive arguments for Remain or Leave.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
Might I suggest you stop trying to decide at the moment. You have three months of this. Clear your mind and settle for not making a decision yet. Then enjoy poking holes in all the arguments and taunting away to your heart's content for the next 12 weeks or so. It will make the campaign a lot more fun and might even help you to decide more clearly if you don't feel you have a vested interest in the arguments until just before the actual vote.
I will follow your advice.
Especially the poking fun bit. Be brutal. PB needs more random brutality. :-)
I'm curious when, as a nation, we began to lose our self confidence. So many people seem terrified of not being governed, they continually need to be told what to do and when. That is such a Marxist mindset, a society where individual decisions are removed and replaced by the greater good, in this case the EU. I understand why socialists think that way, they naively believe in equality etc but for conservative voters to be scaremongering about our lack of ability to stand on our own two feet is bewildering.
Its the resignation I find so frustrating, the acceptance that we can't survive without being regulated by other people. I dislike government, I loathe undemocratic, unaccountable people taking decisions that affect my life. If I fuck up I'll live with it, I'm not happy when others do it for me. This referendum is about a mindset, a once in a generation opportunity to send a message, immigration, EFTA, human rights, trade etc etc are neither here nor there.
Politicians are a bad thing, they start wars, pass stupid laws, steal our money, condescend us, by voting OUT we remove thousands of them
I think the counter-argument, for socialists and non-socialists alike, is not that the EU knows best. It's that it is wholly illusory in today's world to think that Britain can on its own decide its future - let alone that you as an individual voter will have more influence on what happens.Because globalisation has made countries so interdependent, a non-EU British Government would spend much of its time trying to join with other countries on one issue after another to achieve a critical mass that would actually affect the outcome.
The debate between Casino Royale and Richard N on standards was a good example. CR suggests that British governments would be selective, signing up to some standards but not others according to its assessment of which ones made sense. But in reality industry today is not especially fussed about whether they are required to put this or that on the label: what drives them bonkers is if different countries have different standards.
I used to be in your camp, for different reasons: I felt that socialist progress would be easier in a smaller, separate country than in the EU. I no longer think that even if, say, Corbyn were elected with a sweeping majority, it would actually enable him to transform the country. Obviously we can change planning rules and income tax rates and so forth, as we can within the EU. But few of our major ideas, good or bad, are actually viable on the basis of a small separate country.
And if you've lived in Switzerland, as I have, you'll be aware that they see things similarly. They are hard-working and prosper within a tight orbit around the EU. With the exception of the free movement issue, no significant party seriously suggests trying to strike out and pursue a significantly different path.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
I can't speak for the migration control advocates because I don't agree with them. All I can do is what I and others on here have done which is continue to advocate the EEA route as the very best choice for our relationship with the world.
And whilst I am sure you will be right about the anger of a small vociferous minority, they are going to be unhappy almost no matter what happens. I am not sure I or you or any serious politician can do anything about that.
There is the one thing that leave can do - be honest about free movement of labour.
'You post on PB: you are an anorak. You will vote In or Leave.'
Yes people on here pretending to have been swayed one way or the other by various news items really are quite tiresome. I do wonder, do they seriously think that these announced 'conversions' are going to impact the result?
I know a couple of people on here have flipped to the other side. TSE was Leave, then Remain and now I think undecided. Philip_Thomson was Remain, now Leave/EFTA-EEA. One could write a whole page about SeanT's position...
I was an ardent Remainer until last summer, then moved to a likely Leave.
After Dave's deal I was a definitive Leaver.
Then my friend who works in the financial services industry and was an ardent outer flipped sides because of the lack of clarity of what Brexit means coupled with a discussion with Alastair pushed me back to a likely Remainer.
I have to confess the continuity IDS wing of the Tory party who are seeing the referendum as a way of ditching Cameron and undo the Cameroon detoxify project are doing their upmost to make me campaign for Remain.
Blimey TSE, you used to be indecisive but now you are not so sure?
The lack of clarity about what happens next is by far my biggest concern about Leave. Whilst I am convinced that the EU is progressing down a path that we do not want to follow and that our membership will become increasingly problematic as a result I do want a clear consensus of what the alternative being offered actually is.
I think this is the problem with peter_from_putney's position. The lack of leadership is making spelling out that alternative and coalescing around it very difficult.
60% of our clients are in the Financial Services Sector directly or indirectly. My straw poll has them backing Remain due to the uncertainty of lack of access the single market/passport.
I found Nigel Lawson's attack on Mark Carney illuminating, no substantive criticisms, just an attack on the man.
I take the view that if the EU don't honour their promises we'll have another referendum within a decade and we'll Leave then.
Which particular promises impressed you, such that you are relying on the EU delivering on them. Sorry, but I found the whole re-negotiation thing much ado about very little, unlike Cameron who returned, thrilled to bits, clutching a piece of paper so to speak.
Nice little example of our "influence" in the EU - EU Ports Services Regulation bill just been passed by EU parliament, despite 65 of the 66 UK MEPs who voted, voting against it.
"Associated British Ports (ABP), which said in a statement that the UK ports industry is united in urging MEPs to vote against the regulation, believes that privately-financed ports would be undermined by the PSR.
James Cooper, CEO of ABP and chairman of the UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG), claimed that the current text is ambiguous, adding that this “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk."
In context: "In 2013, the ports sector employed 118,200 people. Of these, 43% worked in either transport or a transport-related activity, with a further 18% employed in cargo handling. •The workers in the sector are highly productive. The sector’s labour productivity (measured as gross value added divided by employment) is £65,400 per worker. This is 1.3 times the UK economy’s average. •It is estimated that the ports sector made a £7.7 billion value-added contribution to UK GDP." http://www.britishports.org.uk/news/oxford-economics-study-on-the-economic-contribution-of-the-uk-ports-industry
Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
The bit you gloss over, is they have problems recruiting research staff not due to lack of cash, but due to almost all their academic institutions being fifth rate, not a problem we have on the whole.
Probably a contender for the most ignorant comment so far.
Let’s take physics, and look at the top 20 research universities, as ranked by QS . They are dominated by the US, of course. Cambridge & Imperial are at No 5= and Oxford is at No 9.
There is only ONE continental European university in the top 20, It is not in Germany or in France.
It is in Switzerland -- the ETH, Zurich at No 8. It beats Oxford.
Hardly surprising given its history -- Einstein & Schrodinger & Pauli were all Professors at Zurich at one time or another. Relativity and quantum mechanics were born in Switzerland.
Switzerland has an absolutely outstanding record in pure and applied physics, engineering and medicine. Why do you think there are all these big pharma and engineering companies headquartered there!
What Switzerland does is interesting. It sends far fewer students to university than we do, and their universities are on average much better than ours.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
And ignoring 45% of remain voters and a very large chunk of leave's 55% (if that was the end result) makes sense in what way?
It would be put to a referendum, keep the four freedoms and access to the single market, or move to WTO rules and lose the four freedoms. There is nothing in between. The EU will never give away the three freedoms we want and single market access as an option, it will be all or nothing. If we want to restrict immigration and benefits abuse, we have to do it on our end by ending in-work benefits, housing benefits and making everything contributory.
Actually in the EEA/EFTA we can end all those benefits even without contributions. There is a freedom to move in the EEA but not a guarantee on benefits like there is in the EU. So that is a big difference.
'You post on PB: you are an anorak. You will vote In or Leave.'
Yes people on here pretending to have been swayed one way or the other by various news items really are quite tiresome. I do wonder, do they seriously think that these announced 'conversions' are going to impact the result?
I know a couple of people on here have flipped to the other side. TSE was Leave, then Remain and now I think undecided. Philip_Thomson was Remain, now Leave/EFTA-EEA. One could write a whole page about SeanT's position...
I was an ardent Remainer until last summer, then moved to a likely Leave.
After Dave's deal I was a definitive Leaver.
Then my friend who works in the financial services industry and was an ardent outer flipped sides because of the lack of clarity of what Brexit means coupled with a discussion with Alastair pushed me back to a likely Remainer.
I have to confess the continuity IDS wing of the Tory party who are seeing the referendum as a way of ditching Cameron and undo the Cameroon detoxify project are doing their upmost to make me campaign for Remain.
Blimey TSE, you used to be indecisive but now you are not so sure?
The lack of clarity about what happens next is by far my biggest concern about Leave. Whilst I am convinced that the EU is progressing down a path that we do not want to follow and that our membership will become increasingly problematic as a result I do want a clear consensus of what the alternative being offered actually is.
I think this is the problem with peter_from_putney's position. The lack of leadership is making spelling out that alternative and coalescing around it very difficult.
60% of our clients are in the Financial Services Sector directly or indirectly. My straw poll has them backing Remain due to the uncertainty of lack of access the single market/passport.
I found Nigel Lawson's attack on Mark Carney illuminating, no substantive criticisms, just an attack on the man.
I take the view that if the EU don't honour their promises we'll have another referendum within a decade and we'll Leave then.
If the EU dont honour their promises, there should be no referendum, the British Government should immediately notify the EU of out intention to leave, and begin the process under article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The EU will have the period of time from us requesting to leave, until us leaving to honour their promises. Otherwise its gunpowder time.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Come on Nick, Switzerland is way, way altogether too smothered economically, geographically, culturally, linguistically, etc., etc with the EU, as well as being far too small to ever even remotely consider pursuing a significantly different path as you put it.
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
In the unlikely even of there even being a Labour government in the foreseeable future, if they ignored or violated the referendum lock then I could see the next Tory government having a referendum again.
This “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk."
The EU risking jobs and investment - surely that can't be right. Isn't it the sine qua non of Britain's prosperity?
What does the Astronomer Royal think?
The idea that EU membership is necessarily always a positive thing for UK manufacturing is a myth anyway. A few minutes quick googling came up with these examples since 2010 with almost no effort at all:
2010 Twinings shut their North Tyneside headquarters and move production to Poland - using a £10m EU grant. AVX shut their Paignton electronics factory and move production to the Czech Republic Edwards Technology Gorup shut their Shoreham factory and move production to the Czech Republic.
2011 Cadbury shut their Bristol factory to move production to Poland. Storck end Bendicks mint production in Winchester, moving production to Germany.
2013 Ford cut over 1000 jobs at Southampton and Dagenham moving production to Turkey using an £80 million EU loan to help the move.
2014 Imperial Tobacco shut their Nottingham plant to move production to Poland and Germany Japan Tobacco (B&H) shut their Antrim Factory to move production to Poland and Romania. Smiths Medical closes its Haslingden factory and moves production to the Czech republic.
2016 Texas Instruments announce the closure of their Greenock factory to move production to Germany. Shepton Mallet Cider Mill closes with production being moved to Ireland. Crown Closures shut their Poole factory to move production to Poland.
There are loads more going back to the start of the last decade.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
416 foreign national offenders were freed between October and December There were 5,789 foreign offenders living in Britain due for deportation Nearly a third of them – 1,865 – have been loose for more than five years Many challenge their deportation orders using controversial human rights
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
In the unlikely even of there even being a Labour government in the foreseeable future, if they ignored or violated the referendum lock then I could see the next Tory government having a referendum again.
For which they'll probably campaign for 'Remain' again.
But it's highly unlikely that there would be another referendum. And anyone clinging onto that hope is fooling themselves. As are those assuming that Labour won't get their act into gear.
416 foreign national offenders were freed between October and December There were 5,789 foreign offenders living in Britain due for deportation Nearly a third of them – 1,865 – have been loose for more than five years Many challenge their deportation orders using controversial human rights
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Have they completed their sentence? Or have they been released after serving say half their sentence? How often do people actually complete their sentences?
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
And ignoring 45% of remain voters and a very large chunk of leave's 55% (if that was the end result) makes sense in what way?
It would be put to a referendum, keep the four freedoms and access to the single market, or move to WTO rules and lose the four freedoms. There is nothing in between. The EU will never give away the three freedoms we want and single market access as an option, it will be all or nothing. If we want to restrict immigration and benefits abuse, we have to do it on our end by ending in-work benefits, housing benefits and making everything contributory.
Actually in the EEA/EFTA we can end all those benefits even without contributions. There is a freedom to move in the EEA but not a guarantee on benefits like there is in the EU. So that is a big difference.
I've been wondering about that. I had assumed that non-discrimination against EU nationals seeking to work in an EEA state was part of the freedom of movement commitment and so an EEA state would be susceptible to challenge if it had a benefits policy that treated non-domestic nationals less favourably. Is that not the case?
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
Indeed. The Referendum vote is really 'Leave', or 'Integrate'.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
More likely he doesn't want to be seen as being like Blair buggering off to take the dodgy dollar from all and sundry,
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
Indeed. The Referendum vote is really 'Leave', or 'Integrate'.
Actually the referendum vote is really "LEAVE" or "DISAPPEAR" as a nation state.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
I don't think anyone's been attacking their integrity on this thread, have they?
It's simply been that a number of Leavers have had the temerity to disagree with Scott P that Stephen Hawking thinking one thing on the EU and its contribution to science is the end of the argument.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
More likely he doesn't want to be seen as being like Blair buggering off to take the dodgy dollar from all and sundry,
Why do you think Cameron is sweating over this referendum? He has a top job in the EU waiting for him if he fends off the voting public that want to Leave.
I was 60/40 remain but he came over as very professional and independent and did comment on how being in the EU had been beneficial to the UK and he endorsed David Cameron's deal. I confess to not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the City but he reassured me that we would be safer remaining and that the risks in leaving are greater. Leave has no coherent message at present but some leavers on here have suggested a looser trade deal with some contribution to the EU and acceptance of free movement of labour and if that was the leave position I would vote for it
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
The voters can then choose who they want to take decisions in 2020, that maybe UKIP 0 immigration, Labour & Lib Dems lots more immigration and the Conservatives ?????. It is called democracy.
I would suggest that is the inevitable position we would adopt if we left the EU. The actual mechanics to get to any other position - which would have to involve Cameron standing down straight away, a general election and a result in which UKIP held the balance of power and additionally their MPs chose to reject an EFTA/EEA deal - is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
The overwhelming majority of MPs are either outright Remain or EFTA/EEA supporters. The number of MPs who are leave and no EEA deal is tiny. Even the one UKIP MP is an EFTA/EEA advocate.
So as with so many other claims by Remain, the idea that we would choose anything other than an EFTA/EEA deal is frankly daft.
I fear that the voter will not accept a looser agreement with free movement of labour. The leave campaign are making control of our borders the priority and this plays into voters desire to restrict immigration, and indeed migration. If post the referendum it became clear that voters had been misled there would be fury and it would be justified
And ignoring 45% of remain voters and a very large chunk of leave's 55% (if that was the end result) makes sense in what way?
It would be put to a referendum, keep the four freedoms and access to the single market, or move to WTO rules and lose the four freedoms. There is nothing in between. The EU will never give away the three freedoms we want and single market access as an option, it will be all or nothing. If we want to restrict immigration and benefits abuse, we have to do it on our end by ending in-work benefits, housing benefits and making everything contributory.
Actually in the EEA/EFTA we can end all those benefits even without contributions. There is a freedom to move in the EEA but not a guarantee on benefits like there is in the EU. So that is a big difference.
I've been wondering about that. I had assumed that non-discrimination against EU nationals seeking to work in an EEA state was part of the freedom of movement commitment and so an EEA state would be susceptible to challenge if it had a benefits policy that treated non-domestic nationals less favourably. Is that not the case?
No I'm sure others could correct this but I believe freedom of movement in the EEA extends to the right to live and work etc and does not extend to non discrimination on benefits.
'If there is treaty change there has to be another referendum'
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
Indeed. The Referendum vote is really 'Leave', or 'Integrate'.
416 foreign national offenders were freed between October and December There were 5,789 foreign offenders living in Britain due for deportation Nearly a third of them – 1,865 – have been loose for more than five years Many challenge their deportation orders using controversial human rights
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Nick, as long as judges hand down sentences based on a rational interpretation of criminal statute law, people like Plato will consider themselves deprived of justice.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
I don't think anyone's been attacking their integrity on this thread, have they?
It's simply been that a number of Leavers have had the temerity to disagree with Scott P that Stephen Hawking thinking one thing on the EU and its contribution to science is the end of the argument.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Sorry Richard. Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
416 foreign national offenders were freed between October and December There were 5,789 foreign offenders living in Britain due for deportation Nearly a third of them – 1,865 – have been loose for more than five years Many challenge their deportation orders using controversial human rights
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Nick, as long as judges hand down sentences based on a rational interpretation of criminal statute law, people like Plato will consider themselves deprived of justice.
My understanding is that the judges did indeed hand down sentences which included being deported once the term of incarceration was completed. It is apparently Nick and yourself who are trying to defend the defiance of the rational interpretation of criminal statute law.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Knowing Cameron's nature, I can't see that happening. If there is on thing that Cameron is good at, is his desire and power to manipulate most of his Tory colleagues.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Memo to remainers : when you are reduced to X factor sound bites to try and convince people who have a very wide range of experience in their own fields and years of experience in academia, science and business, it's not just patronising twaddle but we'll merrily take the piss out of you.
I think even one call from Lammy would be considered a nuisance. Like Harman he's perfected the art of talking to all grown adults like they're five years old:
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Actually in the EEA/EFTA we can end all those benefits even without contributions. There is a freedom to move in the EEA but not a guarantee on benefits like there is in the EU. So that is a big difference.
That's not correct. The non-discrimination rules are the same.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Knowing Cameron's nature, I can't see that happening. If there is on thing that Cameron is good at, is his desire and power to manipulate most of his Tory colleagues.
Yes but post referendum he will see his position as one of reunifying the party and will allow his new cabinet to play a full role in any negotiations and act as a figure head until circa 2018/19 when he will make way for his succession
Actually in the EEA/EFTA we can end all those benefits even without contributions. There is a freedom to move in the EEA but not a guarantee on benefits like there is in the EU. So that is a big difference.
That's not correct. The non-discrimination rules are the same.
You can add self-sufficiency rules like Norway and Switzerland though, I checked this after the last time we discussed it. Norway requires all EU immigrants to show they are self-sufficient within 90 days and can survive without government help. Within the EU it's unclear whether this is possible.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
As a matter of interest which route would you take
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
As a matter of interest which route would you take
Memo to Leave side: When you are reduced to rubbishing Stephen Hawking and 150 other Fellows of the Royal Society, you have not only automatically lost the argument, you are also making it worse by increasing the publicity given to the letter and by looking somewhat off your collective trollies. It is especially bad, verging on disastrous, to attack their integrity. In political terms, it doesn't matter one jot whether the distinguished scientists are right or not. I don't think they are, as it happens, but no-one cares what I think. People will, however think that such people might know something about how scientific research operates
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
Sorry Richard. Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Richard you can help me with my entirely anecdotal quest to discover the various merits or otherwise of staying or going.
I have so far looked at financial services (better to stay - we have gone over at length my reasoning); agriculture (for better or worse, UK farmers benefit from EU subsidies, so stay); and entertainment (stay, although many of the eg. intellectual property agreements/patents are global).
The other day you mentioned that you had (owned?) some factories which complain about EU rules even though those factories don't export to or trade with the EU.
Well the other point is that in a 55:45 vote to Leave, everyone saying that getting a deal which includes freedom of movement would be a "betrayal" of the 55%, we also have to take into account that almost half of the country voted to remain and are clearly happy with freedom of movement, given that there are people like us in the Leave camp one has to surmise that over 50% of people support freedom of movement.
[snip]
It's not a valid assumption that people voting Remain support full freedom of movement. I shall be voting Remain but, if we leave, I'd ideally prefer a deal which didn't include full freedom of movement (assuming such a deal were available). The consideration that the only viable-looking option doesn't buy us anything on freedom of movement is one of the key arguments in favour of Remain, IMO.
416 foreign national offenders were freed between October and December There were 5,789 foreign offenders living in Britain due for deportation Nearly a third of them – 1,865 – have been loose for more than five years Many challenge their deportation orders using controversial human rights
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Nick, as long as judges hand down sentences based on a rational interpretation of criminal statute law, people like Plato will consider themselves deprived of justice.
My understanding is that the judges did indeed hand down sentences which included being deported once the term of incarceration was completed. It is apparently Nick and yourself who are trying to defend the defiance of the rational interpretation of criminal statute law.
There is a distinction between appealing a sentence and defiance of the criminal law. That, of course, is a rationalistic POV. Thank you for making my point for me.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
It's quite possible that Remain will do exactly that.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Yes but as a rare traditionalist Tory on here who for example was delighted by last night's defeat of the government on Sunday trading why do I want to see more and more of this green and pleasant land concreted over to house our burgeoning population esp here in the South East. Net annual migration of 330K people is not sustainable. If I'm to give my vote to Out what's in it for me if migration continues unchecked? Modest immigration might be beneficial but these levels aren't modest.
Complaining about unilateral actions and their consequences. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
It really is. She truly is an awful Conservative leader.
She is a truly small-c conservative. Doing everything possible to not rock the boat or make major changes, kicking any can down the road until there is no longer an alternative.
Comparisons made in the past between her and Thatcher could not be further from the truth.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
It's quite possible that Remain will do exactly that.
It is. I am 100% for Leave but they are doing everything humanly possible to throw this campaign away.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
If leave win David Cameron will head a new unifying cabinet and I would expect Michael Gove would be charged with Brexit negotiations
Indeed. Which is why I think there is no question that our Brexit strategy would be the EEA route.
Yes but as a rare traditionalist Tory on here who for example was delighted by last night's defeat of the government on Sunday trading why do I want to see more and more of this green and pleasant land concreted over to house our burgeoning population esp here in the South East. Net annual migration of 330K people is not sustainable. If I'm to give my vote to Out what's in it for me if migration continues unchecked? Modest immigration might be beneficial but these levels aren't modest.
Net annual migration is clearly much, much higher than 330k. We don't know how much because Cameron refuses to release the numbers on active NINO numbers before the referendum, as he has contempt for the British people and how they might react to such a thing.
Well the other point is that in a 55:45 vote to Leave, everyone saying that getting a deal which includes freedom of movement would be a "betrayal" of the 55%, we also have to take into account that almost half of the country voted to remain and are clearly happy with freedom of movement, given that there are people like us in the Leave camp one has to surmise that over 50% of people support freedom of movement.
[snip]
It's not a valid assumption that people voting Remain support full freedom of movement. I shall be voting Remain but, if we leave, I'd ideally prefer a deal which didn't include full freedom of movement (assuming such a deal were available). The consideration that the only viable-looking option doesn't buy us anything on freedom of movement is one of the key arguments in favour of Remain, IMO.
It's not an argument in favour of Remain, where you're actively voting for more of the same. It's more an argument against voting Leave, or to abstain in frustration, if that's your dealbreaker.
Personally, it doesn't wash for me as I think we'll have far more options on free movement outside the EU rather than within it, where our hands truly are irrevocably tied.
How come the BBC is not providing any coverage of John Longworth's allegation about pressure on businessmen from No 10??
The news agenda has moved on and landed outside Michael Gove's front door. Chris Grayling trying to play a straight bat on Sky over the Sun's HMQ story but today's press pack will be pressurising everyone from leave to comment. Sky are clearing inferring it was Michael Gove.
If it really was Gove, he'd be in the sticky brown stuff.
Definite resignation from the Privy Council and the cabinet most likely.
The media do seem to be after him this am
Would be a real shame as Gove is shaping up to be the finest Justice Secretary ever.
I would be disappointed as he is a good Justice Secretary. While I now favour remain following Mark Carney's recent evidence to the select committee I am sure there is a large number of both remain and leave supporters who will want to come together after the 23rd June and who will look to Michael Gove having a big roll in the post referendum cabinet
FWIW, I saw 4 main board directors of a bank yesterday and took a straw poll. 3 of them favoured Brexit, and 1 was on the fence (probably 60/40 in favour of remain).
You can add self-sufficiency rules like Norway and Switzerland though, I checked this after the last time we discussed it. Norway requires all EU immigrants to show they are self-sufficient within 90 days and can survive without government help. Within the EU it's unclear whether this is possible.
Complaining about unilateral actions and their consequences. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
It really is. She truly is an awful Conservative leader.
She is a truly small-c conservative. Doing everything possible to not rock the boat or make major changes, kicking any can down the road until there is no longer an alternative.
Comparisons made in the past between her and Thatcher could not be further from the truth.
She has endlessly tacked Left in office.
My iPhone auto capitalised that (annoyingly) but I'd be supremely dissatisfied with her if I were a German conservative.
She makes Cameron look like Norman Tebbit in comparison.
@bbclaurak Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
Since the Second World War, five Prime Ministers have elected to stay in the House of Commons at a general election after duty required them to - Churchill, Douglas-Home, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. It's not that unusual a decision.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
Look at your examples though. The most recent is Callaghan. I would say that it's fallen out of fashion at least.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
All Prime Ministers need to suffer from the conceit that they have a unique contribution to make. However, when you look at the field on the Conservative side at present and the dynamics of internal party politics, David Cameron would be fully justified in concluding that the party isn't going to make a good choice if he steps down in the near future.
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
I think that's a good point. Though he's prone to some interesting errors of judgement, I don't think Osborne would make the error of thinking he could become leader without having support at all levels of the parliamentary party locked down. Trying to talk Cameron into sticking around in the hope that conditions will become favourable for a near-coronation is probably his only hope of becoming leader in the foreseeable future.
If (unlikely as it seems) Dan Jarvis was made Labour Leader, Osborne's chances of becoming Leader will be over. In a beauty contest Osborne would lose and his party knows that.
I think Osborne's chances are already close to dead. I think it was TSE that wrote the header about his only chance is if remain win big.
Osborne's disliked by too many of his own party. I suspect he only remains in post whilst Cameron is PM. After that, he's gone.
Comments
Of course. From election night
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/08/the-first-litmus-test-nuneaton-is-a-tory-hold/
With regard to the funding aspect: "The UK Government funds 30% of research and development undertaken in the UK, whilst the EU funds around 3%". https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/12/UK research and EU/
Of that 3% from the EU, a proportion will be UK money paid to the EU and redistributed back.
With regard to the recruitment aspect, given the number of UK universities in the world top 50 (10) compared with other EU universities (2), it is hard to see why it would be difficult to continue to attract top scientists post-Brexit.
My mood swings on the EURef are giving me whiplash
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/08/the-first-litmus-test-nuneaton-is-a-tory-hold/
That was one heck of a result. It was the one that finally persuaded me (together with Curtice's analysis) to cover myself on a Tory Majority.
Good job I did.
Good job I did.
Same here. Went balls deep on a Tory Maj.
You could still get around 2/1 on a Tory Maj at that time.
There's also far more use of QMV, fewer vetoes and less need of grand treaty changes because of Lisbon, which allowed for more treaty-free changes to be made.
Mr. Max, that's my feeling also.
Leave do need to debate it, as I can see little other than chaos if we vote Leave. One group of leavers is going to be very upset with whatever happens, and there is a good chance this rancour will poison negotiations.
Yet despite this I'm probably going to vote leave. Hmmm.
Many Leavers are being dishonest by not having this debate now.
What I did say was
Switzerland is outside the EU, and very wealthy, say the Brexiteers Ah, say the Brexiteers, we could solve any recruitment problem because we would be very wealthy, like Switzerland. Sadly, that logical fallacy is exposed by the current situation in Switzerland, where, according to experts in their field, there is a problem recruiting World class research staff
But enough. Sadly I must depart from the greatest collection of minds ever collected in a single place for a spell.
It would be put to a referendum, keep the four freedoms and access to the single market, or move to WTO rules and lose the four freedoms. There is nothing in between. The EU will never give away the three freedoms we want and single market access as an option, it will be all or nothing. If we want to restrict immigration and benefits abuse, we have to do it on our end by ending in-work benefits, housing benefits and making everything contributory.
#GERS: Tobacco and alcohol revenues now worth more than North Sea oil. https://t.co/EZPsSnKuvF
You really do expose your intellectual failings by persisting with this argument.
There might also be a few others who are genuinely too dense to understand what the end point of Remain is.
I don't think there is much to add beyond that.
"Spread betting has Lib Dem at 10.5 - 12.
How much downside risk is there to buying at 12. Although relying heavily on Swinson result."
And whilst I am sure you will be right about the anger of a small vociferous minority, they are going to be unhappy almost no matter what happens. I am not sure I or you or any serious politician can do anything about that.
For me it is all about the end game. Where do we want to be in another 20 years? A peripheral member of an EU dominated by the EZ which looks from the outside like a single federalised country or someone who has close relations with that EU but is not a member of it and can make its own decisions?
In the short term our continuing relationship with the EU and access to the single market is important and I would want that. In 20 years? Who knows?
Though George Osborne hates me now.
MP David Lammy fined £5,000 over London mayoral campaign nuisance calls - https://t.co/uP47DzPA1j
Especially via the medium of thread headers.
The debate between Casino Royale and Richard N on standards was a good example. CR suggests that British governments would be selective, signing up to some standards but not others according to its assessment of which ones made sense. But in reality industry today is not especially fussed about whether they are required to put this or that on the label: what drives them bonkers is if different countries have different standards.
I used to be in your camp, for different reasons: I felt that socialist progress would be easier in a smaller, separate country than in the EU. I no longer think that even if, say, Corbyn were elected with a sweeping majority, it would actually enable him to transform the country. Obviously we can change planning rules and income tax rates and so forth, as we can within the EU. But few of our major ideas, good or bad, are actually viable on the basis of a small separate country.
And if you've lived in Switzerland, as I have, you'll be aware that they see things similarly. They are hard-working and prosper within a tight orbit around the EU. With the exception of the free movement issue, no significant party seriously suggests trying to strike out and pursue a significantly different path.
@bbclaurak
Meanwhile in case you were wondering, Cameron's just told BBC Radio Oxford he will stand again as an MP in 2020 altho he'll stand down as PM
There is no guarantee whatever of that. The 'referendum lock' has already been disregarded in the case of transferring judicial and home affairs powers to the EU by this government. And why would a Labour government respect it?
This Micawberish attitude people in the UK have to the EU ('oh well maybe it will reform, or maybe it will collapse, or maybe...something) is just a form of self-delusion.
DavidL downthread is right - this is a decision for the long term and this is very likely to be the only chance we get to make such a decision for a long time.
http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-market-access-to-port-services-and-financial-transparency-of-ports-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-2.html#/##vote-tabs-list-4
"Associated British Ports (ABP), which said in a statement that the UK ports industry is united in urging MEPs to vote against the regulation, believes that privately-financed ports would be undermined by the PSR.
James Cooper, CEO of ABP and chairman of the UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG), claimed that the current text is ambiguous, adding that this “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk."
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/3485/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-just-out-this-week-s-politicalbetting-polling-matters-tv-s/p5
In context:
"In 2013, the ports sector employed 118,200 people. Of these, 43% worked in either transport or a transport-related activity, with a further 18% employed in cargo handling.
•The workers in the sector are highly productive. The sector’s labour productivity (measured as gross value added divided by employment) is £65,400 per worker. This is 1.3 times the UK economy’s average.
•It is estimated that the ports sector made a £7.7 billion value-added contribution to UK GDP."
http://www.britishports.org.uk/news/oxford-economics-study-on-the-economic-contribution-of-the-uk-ports-industry
Let’s take physics, and look at the top 20 research universities, as ranked by QS . They are dominated by the US, of course. Cambridge & Imperial are at No 5= and Oxford is at No 9.
There is only ONE continental European university in the top 20, It is not in Germany or in France.
It is in Switzerland -- the ETH, Zurich at No 8. It beats Oxford.
Hardly surprising given its history -- Einstein & Schrodinger & Pauli were all Professors at Zurich at one time or another. Relativity and quantum mechanics were born in Switzerland.
Switzerland has an absolutely outstanding record in pure and applied physics, engineering and medicine. Why do you think there are all these big pharma and engineering companies headquartered there!
What Switzerland does is interesting. It sends far fewer students to university than we do, and their universities are on average much better than ours.
And their best, the ETH, is the best research university on the continent in pure and applied sciences..
The EU risking jobs and investment - surely that can't be right. Isn't it the sine qua non of Britain's prosperity?
What does the Astronomer Royal think?
If the EU dont honour their promises, there should be no referendum, the British Government should immediately notify the EU of out intention to leave, and begin the process under article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The EU will have the period of time from us requesting to leave, until us leaving to honour their promises. Otherwise its gunpowder time.
It also leaves open the option of his changing his mind about staying on as Prime Minister, of course...
2010
Twinings shut their North Tyneside headquarters and move production to Poland - using a £10m EU grant.
AVX shut their Paignton electronics factory and move production to the Czech Republic
Edwards Technology Gorup shut their Shoreham factory and move production to the Czech Republic.
2011
Cadbury shut their Bristol factory to move production to Poland.
Storck end Bendicks mint production in Winchester, moving production to Germany.
2013
Ford cut over 1000 jobs at Southampton and Dagenham moving production to Turkey using an £80 million EU loan to help the move.
2014
Imperial Tobacco shut their Nottingham plant to move production to Poland and Germany
Japan Tobacco (B&H) shut their Antrim Factory to move production to Poland and Romania.
Smiths Medical closes its Haslingden factory and moves production to the Czech republic.
2016
Texas Instruments announce the closure of their Greenock factory to move production to Germany.
Shepton Mallet Cider Mill closes with production being moved to Ireland.
Crown Closures shut their Poole factory to move production to Poland.
There are loads more going back to the start of the last decade.
Ok - that would be like what happened with the Lisbon Treaty, right? Pull the other one.
Tell me what happens if the Leavers win the referendum? Because if it's left in Cameron's hands to negotiate the Brexit, he will have won by default as he sabotages the whole negotiation with whats left of the EU.
Your last point though: Cameron will know this comment will be taken that way. I wonder if he is seriously wavering.
Yep, people who have completed their sentences are released. You feel they should still be imprisoned anyway? Are there other forms of illegal detention that you support?
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
But it's highly unlikely that there would be another referendum. And anyone clinging onto that hope is fooling themselves. As are those assuming that Labour won't get their act into gear.
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Have they completed their sentence? Or have they been released after serving say half their sentence? How often do people actually complete their sentences?
One thing to ponder: what is George Osborne thinking at present? He's no fool and he'll be aware that he's had a poor few months. He might well feel that his interests would be best served by having his best political friend staying in Number 10 indefinitely. If so, you can imagine that he has been twisting David Cameron's arm.
Leave need to stop whingeing and change the subject on to their own territory. At the moment they are like boxers reeling from one blow to another, apparently surprised and hurt to find that the other side are pummelling them. That's not a good look.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35772206
It's simply been that a number of Leavers have had the temerity to disagree with Scott P that Stephen Hawking thinking one thing on the EU and its contribution to science is the end of the argument.
The issue of whether people should be deported, whether they have committed an offence and served a sentence or not, is a separate one, and needs to be addressed on an individual basis. People who commit offences are more likely to be deported, but under current rules (not EU-related) this is still decided individually, not as a blanket policy.
Nick, as long as judges hand down sentences based on a rational interpretation of criminal statute law, people like Plato will consider themselves deprived of justice.
2004 GDP (USD Tn, Nom):
EU28 (Yes I know it was 25 nations back then) - 13.70
Non-EU - 29.75
2014 GDP:
EU28 - 18.53
Non-EU - 58.74
Cumulative 10y growth:
EU28 - 35.22%
Non-EU - 87.56%
EU ex UK 2004 - 11.40
EU ex UK 2014 - 15.58
10y cum - 36.7%
Looking at ex-UK from 2009 after the EMU crisis developed the EU as a whole has grown by 8.7%, without the UK it is 5.7% growth.
My understanding is that the judges did indeed hand down sentences which included being deported once the term of incarceration was completed. It is apparently Nick and yourself who are trying to defend the defiance of the rational interpretation of criminal statute law.
Go get an argument
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35772202
I have so far looked at financial services (better to stay - we have gone over at length my reasoning); agriculture (for better or worse, UK farmers benefit from EU subsidies, so stay); and entertainment (stay, although many of the eg. intellectual property agreements/patents are global).
The other day you mentioned that you had (owned?) some factories which complain about EU rules even though those factories don't export to or trade with the EU.
What sectors are those factories in?
thanks
There is a distinction between appealing a sentence and defiance of the criminal law. That, of course, is a rationalistic POV. Thank you for making my point for me.
Comparisons made in the past between her and Thatcher could not be further from the truth.
Personally, it doesn't wash for me as I think we'll have far more options on free movement outside the EU rather than within it, where our hands truly are irrevocably tied.
My iPhone auto capitalised that (annoyingly) but I'd be supremely dissatisfied with her if I were a German conservative.
She makes Cameron look like Norman Tebbit in comparison.