Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
He was really pumped up today. That should frighten Leave.
He was really pumped up today
so full of wind then ?
I'm amazed at how much time DC has appeared to have to devote to the "renegotiation" and campaign already - makes you wonder what he does the rest of the time.
A prime minister can create a huge amount of time for him/herself if they so choose - they have no department of their own to run and no-one expects them to do the constituency job themselves (their office can handle all that as a letter from a PM's constituency office will carry more weight than most MPs). Once a strategy's been set upon, the PM's job is essentially to make sure things stay on course. That's what Cameron is trying to do now.
ABC NEW: Donald Trump wins Northern Mariana Islands Republican caucuses, according to N. Mariana Islands GOP, snagging nine pledged delegates.
He had the backing of the governor there so it always looked likely, but 9 welcome delegates nonetheless.
Yeah, I though that could be one of the liliputian places that might be stitched for Cruz to get through the 8-state gate at the Convention...
What's the latest on American Samoa?
Plains and Rocky Mountain West will get him up to 8. Wyoming, Utah, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska Cruz has to be favourite for. Part of the 'Friendly and Conventional' zone identified in personality studies and where they prefer Cruz's more libertarian policies, less bombastic approach and religious conservatism.
I'm starting to think it is much nearer 50-50 than predicted. We can't trust the polls, the last UK referendum they were mostly well wrong, predicting turnout will be very tricky and leave supporters seem more motivated.
The average leave supporter thinks it is time we got control of our borders/country again. They really believe in it. The average remainer says well, look, I kinda think it's a good idea to belong to something bigger in some way or other and the EU seems a bit like that. It's much more half-hearted.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
It's remarkable how many commentators fail to see this and instead still churn out copy about how no-one knows what Trump believes. Anyone outside a narrowly drawn managerial political spectrum doesn't compute for them.
DAVID Cameron has hit out at Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign accusing them of "making it up as they go along" on Brexit.
The Prime Minister said those who want to vote out in the upcoming referendum cannot say what Britain will look like outside the EU.
He didn't refer to him by name, but his attack on the "leaders of the Leave campaign" was clearly meant as a swipe at the Mayor of London.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
Nah, politicians are an odd bunch, one minute they’re shouting at each other across the dispatch box and the next minute it's best mates in the subsidised member’s bar.
It’s all pantomime.
It's not entirely pantomime but politicians are usually easily able to distinguish between the personal and the political. In any case, there are frequently aspects of their job that involve working cross-party - from single-issue campaigns to regional priorities to select committee work - so you have to be able to compartmentalise.
That doesn't mean that the arguments, when had, aren't sincere.
People will vote Leave for differing reasons. Leave are under no obligation to tell one or other group of supporters that they don't want their votes.
In the same way that there are people who will vote Remain because they think that David Cameron has prevented further integration, and there will be people who will vote Remain because they think we're heading for a United States of Europe. There'll be people who vote Remain because they think the EU entrenches liberal capitalism, and people who will vote remain because they think it entrenches social democracy.
Leave may not be under any obligation to tell people they don't want their votes, but they are under an obligation to say what Leave means, and let people decide from that. Instead, they are being dishonest.
As for your second paragraph: IMO the chasm that lies at the heart of Leave is far deeper than Remain's rift. For one thing, if you want to know what Remain means, there's a solid track record (which is why I'll probably be voting Leave). If you vote remain, expect more of the same.
The same cannot be said for Leave. Who knows what the f a Leave vote means?
This ridiculous situation has come about because after decades of complaining and grumbling, the hardcore outers have suddenly found themselves utterly unprepared for an historic opportunity. I do wonder if this has occurred through rank incompetence, or because some of the outers get money and/or influence from the current situation?
And this matters. I'm really concerned about the chaos that may occur after a leave vote when one batch of leave voters or the other realise they've been sold a pup.
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
It's remarkable how many commentators fail to see this and instead still churn out copy about how no-one knows what Trump believes. Anyone outside a narrowly drawn managerial political spectrum doesn't compute for them.
Trump is Pat Buchanan sans the strong Catholicism. Very obvious.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
Alex Wickham Barry Faulkner, Woking Labour Party chairman who posted material claiming ISIS is a "CIA operation", has just deleted his Facebook account.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
He was really pumped up today. That should frighten Leave.
He was really pumped up today
so full of wind then ?
Full of panic over some disastrous private polling I hope.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Reminds me of a great Benn diary story. After a cabinet meeting he looked over Wilson's diary that was left on the desk. The only remaining appointment in his diary was a dentists later in the week.
Ronnie Regan used to be often caught loitering around the White House with spare time on his hands, and was more than happy to accompany guests on tours, often going into great detail about the history of the building.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
He was really pumped up today. That should frighten Leave.
He was really pumped up today
so full of wind then ?
I'm amazed at how much time DC has appeared to have to devote to the "renegotiation" and campaign already - makes you wonder what he does the rest of the time.
A prime minister can create a huge amount of time for him/herself if they so choose - they have no department of their own to run and no-one expects them to do the constituency job themselves (their office can handle all that as a letter from a PM's constituency office will carry more weight than most MPs). Once a strategy's been set upon, the PM's job is essentially to make sure things stay on course. That's what Cameron is trying to do now.
DAVID Cameron has hit out at Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign accusing them of "making it up as they go along" on Brexit.
The Prime Minister said those who want to vote out in the upcoming referendum cannot say what Britain will look like outside the EU.
He didn't refer to him by name, but his attack on the "leaders of the Leave campaign" was clearly meant as a swipe at the Mayor of London.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
Nah, politicians are an odd bunch, one minute they’re shouting at each other across the dispatch box and the next minute it's best mates in the subsidised member’s bar.
It’s all pantomime.
I was in the Executive Lounge at Chelsea 20 odd years ago, and David Mellor and Tony Banks were on the same table, laughing and joking. I mentioned it to someone and he said they are always together at matches, they are good mates.
Alex Wickham Barry Faulkner, Woking Labour Party chairman who posted material claiming ISIS is a "CIA operation", has just deleted his Facebook account.
People will vote Leave for differing reasons. Leave are under no obligation to tell one or other group of supporters that they don't want their votes.
In the same way that there are people who will vote Remain because they think that David Cameron has prevented further integration, and there will be people who will vote Remain because they think we're heading for a United States of Europe. There'll be people who vote Remain because they think the EU entrenches liberal capitalism, and people who will vote remain because they think it entrenches social democracy.
Leave may not be under any obligation to tell people they don't want their votes, but they are under an obligation to say what Leave means, and let people decide from that. Instead, they are being dishonest.
As for your second paragraph: IMO the chasm that lies at the heart of Leave is far deeper than Remain's rift. For one thing, if you want to know what Remain means, there's a solid track record (which is why I'll probably be voting Leave). If you vote remain, expect more of the same.
The same cannot be said for Leave. Who knows what the f a Leave vote means?
This ridiculous situation has come about because after decades of complaining and grumbling, the hardcore outers have suddenly found themselves utterly unprepared for an historic opportunity. I do wonder if this has occurred through rank incompetence, or because some of the outers get money and/or influence from the current situation?
And this matters. I'm really concerned about the chaos that may occur after a leave vote when one batch of leave voters or the other realise they've been sold a pup.
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
There are several different paths available should we leave. Leavers would be quite entitled to present their own preference but since there's bound to be disagreement it might be wise not to. We also need to remember that this is a referendum not a general election. I'm not sure people are psychologically adjusted to that. For instance if Leave win, they don't suddenly become the government. The Tories would still be in power and it would be they who would negotiate a new deal with the EU. It is quite possible that controlling our borders would be the clincher for the leave campaign but a British government would then negotiate a Brexit deal that still involved free movement for single market access.
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
Sure, but if they don't say then they can hardly complain when Remain accuse them of being incoherent, or point out that a Leave result could lead to years of uncertainty, or result in the City being shut out of full access to the Single Market, or leave migration completely unchanged anyway.
I expect that the incoherence of the Leave side will be the next target for Remain, and quite rightly so.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
He was really pumped up today. That should frighten Leave.
He was really pumped up today
so full of wind then ?
Full of panic over some disastrous private polling I hope.
Probably read Sir Lynton in Telegraph. But he should have paid more attention to probable narrowing in GE polls due to his antics.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
"Hard Decisions" at 5-2 and "Tough Choices" at 2-1 for a profit.
61.54%.
Always avoid that one on the basis that George may have to make some hard choices and tough decisions.
Another one like that is "Insurance Premium Tax". "Stealth Tax" is another.
I'm fairly certain Shadsy will have tables of previous catchphrase mentions in older GO budget/Autumn statement speeches and be pricing accordingly. Well it's certainly the way I'd do it if I was making a book on the matter.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
on t'substantive point, maybe Trump is the best game theorist? (cf Scott Adams' blog)
People will vote Leave for differing reasons. Leave are under no obligation to tell one or other group of supporters that they don't want their votes.
In the same way that there are people who will vote Remain because they think that David Cameron has prevented further integration, and there will be people who will vote Remain because they think we're heading for a United States of Europe. There'll be people who vote Remain because they think the EU entrenches liberal capitalism, and people who will vote remain because they think it entrenches social democracy.
........And this matters. I'm really concerned about the chaos that may occur after a leave vote when one batch of leave voters or the other realise they've been sold a pup.
What chaos from the public? If the current Govt do things after a LEAVE vote that do not align with the view of what the majority of voters regard as their main issue, the voters can actually vote in a new bunch at 2020. Contrast this with REMAIN where our voters cannot vote out the folk that run the EU.
Cameron Christmas card list is going to be a hell of a lot smaller this year & I don't think he will need to find as much room for incoming ones either.
He was really pumped up today. That should frighten Leave.
He was really pumped up today
so full of wind then ?
Full of panic over some disastrous private polling I hope.
Probably read Sir Lynton in Telegraph. But he should have paid more attention to probable narrowing in GE polls due to his antics.
I don't suppose he gives too much of a toss - that will be someone else's problem. Letting the UK get free from the EU however, is another matter. Likely to be off a lot of important people's Christmas list for a long time if that happens.
ORB: "Fieldwork was carried out March 11-14 via phone. "
Looking at ORB they deserve commendation for confirming eligibility to vote and a sample that seems more reflective of usual voting patterns and ethnicity across the UK.
It's a 54-46 Leave Poll based on Certain To Vote and Likely to Vote.
It is noticeable that outright homeowners want out. These people have little or nothing to fear from interest rates, employment changes etc.
This is a substantial voting bloc - eight million households - and it grows year after year.
I speculate that this personal independence creates less fear and less subservience.
The self employed, the part time employed and the retired are leave as well. Many will either share the characteristic of independence, or see little in their lives that can be attributed to the 'success' of being in Europe.
Sorry to be coarse, but he does just look like a total bellend standing like that in that picture.
Reminds me of Blackadder 2, with the actors advising Prince George how to stand heroically.
That's the reason why I chose this picture for that thread.
He needs a clever butler to point out the absurdity of the pose. WRT to your musical references earlier. Although the female half of 2 Untalented was physically very impressive. Hyper Go Go and Shut UP And Dance were much better acts.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
That's simply the nature of a Referendum campaign. Nobody's offering a multiple choice to the electorate, and Leave are in no position to demand a multiple choice.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model...
They will have to face 1) their reselection under new boundaries and 2) their electorate in 2020. Let democracy rule.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
Sorry to be coarse, but he does just look like a total bellend standing like that in that picture.
Reminds me of Blackadder 2, with the actors advising Prince George how to stand heroically.
That's the reason why I chose this picture for that thread.
He needs a clever butler to point out the absurdity of the pose. WRT to your musical references earlier. Although the female half of 2 Untalented was physically very impressive. Hyper Go Go and Shut UP And Dance were much better acts.
I will be Osborne's butler cum aide-de-camp.
The 80s and 90s were awesome for that kind of music.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model...
They will have to face 1) their reselection under new boundaries and 2) their electorate in 2020. Let democracy rule.
The new boundaries are far from certain anyway. Several Tory MPs are likely to rebel when they come before the Commons in 2018 , and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a few Remain Tory MPs might suddenly develop a taste for keeping the boundaries unchanged!
ORB: "Fieldwork was carried out March 11-14 via phone. "
Looking at ORB they deserve commendation for confirming eligibility to vote and a sample that seems more reflective of usual voting patterns and ethnicity across the UK.
It's a 54-46 Leave Poll based on Certain To Vote and Likely to Vote.
It is noticeable that outright homeowners want out. These people have little or nothing to fear from interest rates, employment changes etc.
This is a substantial voting bloc - eight million households - and it grows year after year.
I speculate that this personal independence creates less fear and less subservience.
The self employed, the part time employed and the retired are leave as well. Many will either share the characteristic of independence, or see little in their lives that can be attributed to the 'success' of being in Europe.
That must be the first 'phone poll putting Leave ahead,
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
Sure, but if they don't say then they can hardly complain when Remain accuse them of being incoherent, or point out that a Leave result could lead to years of uncertainty, or result in the City being shut out of full access to the Single Market, or leave migration completely unchanged anyway. I expect that the incoherence of the Leave side will be the next target for Remain, and quite rightly so.
Did you read Andrew Lilico's article when I posted a link in response to an earlier point of yours a few days ago? In essence trading rules for a market, stay as they are and are then negotiated to something different. International agreements do not start from blank sheets of paper when negotiating between entities with existing relationships. Or do you know better?
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
MPs would be constitutionally entitled to ignore the outcome of the Referendum vote, although I suspect they would pay the price in 2020. It's about the only scenario in which I could see UKIP becoming a major party, after a Leave vote.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
I'm not sure about that exact scenario but the Parliamentary circus after a Leave win could be fascinating.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
MPs would be constitutionally entitled to ignore the outcome of the Referendum vote, although I suspect they would pay the price in 2020. It's about the only scenario in which I could see UKIP becoming a major party, after a Leave vote.
I don't think MPs would wish to be seen to ignore the Referendum outcome at all , but agreeing to a particular Free Trade Deal etc beyond that could be seen as an entirely different matter.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
That's simply the nature of a Referendum campaign. Nobody's offering a multiple choice to the electorate, and Leave are in no position to demand a multiple choice.
No, it's the nature of this referendum campaign in particular. And Leave wouldn't want a multiple choice even if they could get one - they need a broad church to win.
That doesn't mean that Leave isn't being utterly dishonest in trying to offer incompatible options. They should settle for one or the other, and try to convince the other side to their views.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
Sorry to be coarse, but he does just look like a total bellend standing like that in that picture.
Reminds me of Blackadder 2, with the actors advising Prince George how to stand heroically.
That's the reason why I chose this picture for that thread.
He needs a clever butler to point out the absurdity of the pose. WRT to your musical references earlier. Although the female half of 2 Untalented was physically very impressive. Hyper Go Go and Shut UP And Dance were much better acts.
I will be Osborne's butler cum aide-de-camp.
The 80s and 90s were awesome for that kind of music.
The Dancin Divaz remixes of various tracks are also well worth checking out, Judy Cheeks etc.
Did you read Andrew Lilico's article when I posted a link in response to an earlier point of yours a few days ago? In essence trading rules for a market, stay as they are and are then negotiated to something different. International agreements do not start from blank sheets of paper when negotiating between entities with existing relationships. Or do you know better?
I don't think I saw that, but if I understand you correctly, it doesn't sound right. If we leave the EU we leave the EU. That's kinda the point, right? So, in the absence of any other agreements, every right and obligation which derives from our membership of the EU must fall away. That means we'd have to negotiate a host of trading agreements with non-EU countries, as well as of course with the EU itself in accordance with Article 50.
Alternatively, perhaps he means that in practice these things are negotiated by discussing changes from the existing position, rather than starting from a blank sheet? If so, yes, I'm sure that's the case.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model...
They will have to face 1) their reselection under new boundaries and 2) their electorate in 2020. Let democracy rule.
The new boundaries are far from certain anyway. Several Tory MPs are likely to rebel when they come before the Commons in 2018 , and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a few Remain Tory MPs might suddenly develop a taste for keeping the boundaries unchanged!
It is in the manifesto so they are on very dodgy ground. Most rebels on other issues are also near retirement. These new boundaries will happen. As an example in Hampshire there is only a loss of 1 seat. Just one. With a couple of expected retirements there is probably going to be one (net) vacancy.
I'll repeat my concern (and this won't stop me voting Leave):
Immediately following a Brexit vote, the government will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. At this point, the British government and the EU will send negotiating teams to discuss the unwinding of the relationship. The EU will say: "OK, what relationship would you like?" and our response will be "We'll get back to you on that one..."
It is supposed to be a two year process from Article 50 to exit. If we don't know what relationship we want on the far side of that, it's not going to be two years.
What happens if we're still in negotiation in 2020? It's by no means inconceivable that that is the case, given that we ourselves have not decided yet. We could then have a pro-EU government elected. What happens then? Does our exit get permanently delayed?
We need to put the question on the ballot paper on June 23rd: "In the event of a vote for Leaving the European Union, would you prefer to remain in the European Economic Area, like Norway, or have a looser arrangement?"
(As an aside, I know there are several people who say 'let's go to EFTA/EEA immediately and then negotiate from there'. I fear that the other countries in EFTA are not going to be keen to go to a lot of trouble for us, solely so we'll fuck off again in a few years. I think they'd welcome us with open arms if we were committed members, but not if we're just passing through.)
This really is a must-read on the brokered convention front. And it looks like good news for Cruz on the face of it.
e.g. Party bosses stand ready to gut some of Trump’s greatest primary-season successes. He won every one of South Carolina’s 50 delegates, by finishing first statewide and in each congressional district, but Trump is powerless to fill that slate with his own people. To serve as a national delegate from South Carolina, one has to have been a delegate to the 2015 state convention—held more than a month before Trump announced his candidacy—and the approximately 1,000 eligible voters come from the same pool. Campaigns for the delegate slots are already underway.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
That's simply the nature of a Referendum campaign. Nobody's offering a multiple choice to the electorate, and Leave are in no position to demand a multiple choice.
No, it's the nature of this referendum campaign in particular. And Leave wouldn't want a multiple choice even if they could get one - they need a broad church to win.
That doesn't mean that Leave isn't being utterly dishonest in trying to offer incompatible options. They should settle for one or the other, and try to convince the other side to their views.
Leave are lying to their own voters.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
I'm sure that is right, but I think there is a real difficulty here, which is that there would almost certainly be a majority in parliament for the minimum-change option, i.e. an EEA-style deal. That could conflict with what the new post-Cameron government would want - not to mention the public.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
MPs would be constitutionally entitled to ignore the outcome of the Referendum vote, although I suspect they would pay the price in 2020. It's about the only scenario in which I could see UKIP becoming a major party, after a Leave vote.
I don't think MPs would wish to be seen to ignore the Referendum outcome at all , but agreeing to a particular Free Trade Deal etc beyond that could be seen as an entirely different matter.
Invoking Article 50 would meet the referendum outcome. It's getting a majority for what would come next that could be interesting.
Did you read Andrew Lilico's article when I posted a link in response to an earlier point of yours a few days ago? In essence trading rules for a market, stay as they are and are then negotiated to something different. International agreements do not start from blank sheets of paper when negotiating between entities with existing relationships. Or do you know better?
I don't think I saw that, but if I understand you correctly, it doesn't sound right. If we leave the EU we leave the EU. That's kinda the point, right? So, in the absence of any other agreements, every right and obligation which derives from our membership of the EU must fall away. That means we'd have to negotiate a host of trading agreements with non-EU countries, as well as of course with the EU itself, in accordance with Article 50.
Alternatively, perhaps he means that in practice these things are negotiated by discussing changes from the existing position, rather than starting from a blank sheet? If so, yes, I'm sure that's the case.
Sorry to appear rude Richard, but it seems to me that there is very little you understand correctly.
He's impressed me in the debates by going so completely off book. South Carolina was the pinnacle I think...
Defending planned parenthood, attacking Dubya over 9-11 and Iraq, not being worried about kipping what many see was a critical debate (Short term perhaps harmful, long term has worked out fine). He's a politician dealing in conviction, not the minutiae of game theory that alot of others (See Ed Miliband here) do - particularly in debates do.
on t'substantive point, maybe Trump is the best game theorist? (cf Scott Adams' blog)
I think he is much more 40 Second Boyd than Game Theorist.
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
Sure, but if they don't say then they can hardly complain when Remain accuse them of being incoherent, or point out that a Leave result could lead to years of uncertainty, or result in the City being shut out of full access to the Single Market, or leave migration completely unchanged anyway.
I expect that the incoherence of the Leave side will be the next target for Remain, and quite rightly so.
Ho hum.
And the coherence of Remain ?
Is it
Cracking deal and weve rolled back Europe ? As you were nothings really changed ? A bit more integration but only to tidy up loose ends ? More integration faster ?
Really the pointless name calling is just tedious. Both sides have huge gaps in guaranteeing the future and neither can.
People will vote Leave for differing reasons. Leave are under no obligation to tell one or other group of supporters that they don't want their votes.
In the same way that there are people who will vote Remain because they think that David Cameron has prevented further integration, and there will be people who will vote Remain because they think we're heading for a United States of Europe. There'll be people who vote Remain because they think the EU entrenches liberal capitalism, and people who will vote remain because they think it entrenches social democracy.
........And this matters. I'm really concerned about the chaos that may occur after a leave vote when one batch of leave voters or the other realise they've been sold a pup.
What chaos from the public? If the current Govt do things after a LEAVE vote that do not align with the view of what the majority of voters regard as their main issue, the voters can actually vote in a new bunch at 2020. Contrast this with REMAIN where our voters cannot vote out the folk that run the EU.
I meant chaos from the hardcore leaver voters as they scream and stamp their feet: "This isn't what we meant!"
There is going to be approximately four years between the referendum and 2020. If this issue isn't sorted out by 2020 then we really will be in trouble. And what if they are voted out? That does not mean the issue will be revisited, either way. In fact any government would be wise to keep well away.
Also, it is a mistake to think that a general election is a vote on any one specific issue except - perhaps - the competence or otherwise of the government.
What happens if we're still in negotiation in 2020? It's by no means inconceivable that that is the case, given that we ourselves have not decided yet. We could then have a pro-EU government elected. What happens then? Does our exit get permanently delayed?
There's no provision for un-firing the Article 50 starting gun. After 2 years we are out, whether or not an agreement has been reached. The deadline can be extended, but only by unanimous agreement of the 28 nations. Alternatively, presumably a new pro-EU government could ask to cancel the exit, but that would again require all 27 other countries to agree - it would be like a new admission, and I expect would require referendums in some cases. There would also be no guarantee that we'd be readmitted on the same favourable terms (opt-outs, rebate etc). So basically it's a non-starter - Leave means Leave.
As regards the new deal, the two-year deadline means that it's an exceptionally weak bargaining position for the UK, which is a major concern.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
But the headlines from the May elections are going to centre on things that may look rosy for UKIP vs LDs 1. London Mayoralty and London Assembly (UKIP expected to gain a seat or 2) 2. Scottish parliament (Nothing for UKIP to defend, LAB and may be LDs expected to lose ground) 3. Welsh Assembly (UKIP expected to gain a few for first time, Lab may lose a few and LDs also) 4. Local Council (UKIP not defending many and 1-3 above may drown this out).
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
UKIP have no local ground game for these kinds of boring local by elections. They fight a great air war and it destroyed the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) at the GE. The Lib Dems have shown no real signs of reversing their terminal decline. A few local by election results mean nothing. I remember in 2012-2014 we had Lib Dems on here citing loads of local by elections showing a Con -> LD swing and it would repeat at the GE in those areas. It didn't and the Lib Dems have been destroyed. Farron trying to deflect his party's destruction deserves ridicule.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model...
They will have to face 1) their reselection under new boundaries and 2) their electorate in 2020. Let democracy rule.
The new boundaries are far from certain anyway. Several Tory MPs are likely to rebel when they come before the Commons in 2018 , and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a few Remain Tory MPs might suddenly develop a taste for keeping the boundaries unchanged!
It is in the manifesto so they are on very dodgy ground. Most rebels on other issues are also near retirement. These new boundaries will happen. As an example in Hampshire there is only a loss of 1 seat. Just one. With a couple of expected retirements there is probably going to be one (net) vacancy.
It was in the 2010 Tory manifesto too but there were still a few rebels on the issue in the last Parliament - and some abstentions. Somebody has already suggested that 5 MPs from Wales are likely to rebel.Moreover, by 2018 the Government's majority may only be half of what it is now!
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
UKIP have no local ground game for these kinds of boring local by elections. They fight a great air war and it destroyed the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) at the GE. The Lib Dems have shown no real signs of reversing their terminal decline. A few local by election results mean nothing. I remember in 2012-2014 we had Lib Dems on here citing loads of local by elections showing a Con -> LD swing and it would repeat at the GE in those areas. It didn't and the Lib Dems have been destroyed. Farron trying to deflect his party's destruction deserves ridicule.
MaxPB: what it does show is that the LibDem members and activists are pounding the streets. That may or may not result in some sort of recovery between now and 2025, but it is certainly not a negative. (
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
You come across as someone who purports to be a Leave voter but actually you are undermining Leave at every opportunity, seems as if you are being disingenuous.
Leave is the option, yes or no, ni other option is on the ballot paper.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
That's simply the nature of a Referendum campaign. Nobody's offering a multiple choice to the electorate, and Leave are in no position to demand a multiple choice.
No, it's the nature of this referendum campaign in particular. And Leave wouldn't want a multiple choice even if they could get one - they need a broad church to win.
That doesn't mean that Leave isn't being utterly dishonest in trying to offer incompatible options. They should settle for one or the other, and try to convince the other side to their views.
What happens if we're still in negotiation in 2020? It's by no means inconceivable that that is the case, given that we ourselves have not decided yet. We could then have a pro-EU government elected. What happens then? Does our exit get permanently delayed?
There's no provision for un-firing the Article 50 starting gun. After 2 years we are out, whether or not an agreement has been reached. The deadline can be extended, but only by unanimous agreement of the 28 nations. Alternatively, presumably a new pro-EU government could ask to cancel the exit, but that would again require all 27 other countries to agree - it would be like a new admission, and I expect would require referendums in some cases. There would also be no guarantee that we'd be readmitted on the same favourable terms (opt-outs, rebate etc). So basically it's a non-starter - Leave means Leave.
As regards the new deal, the two-year deadline means that it's an exceptionally weak bargaining position for the UK, which is a major concern.
Laughable.
The U.K. hold all the aces, which is why Cameron's efforts were derided as so pathetic.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Debatable, since the prerogative powers would not automatically revive.
I don't know what Article 50 is, but presumably following a Brexit vote, we would be in a right pickle for a few years. Cameron would have to go. Boris would come in- someone incidentally I couldn't imagine negotiating his way out of a paper bag. Corbyn will get a stay of execution. Farron, nothing changes, he will continue to be ignored. God knows what happens to UKIP? Sterling would plummet. The Euro zone would start to cave in on itself, and presumably we would see a further Euro zone recession, hitting the UK particularly hard.
And that is a best case scenario.
You know what Project Fear goes OK with me. The prospect of a Brexit vote is quite terrifying.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
At most, they're under an obligation to outline possible alternatives. But, given that the vote is a simple Yes or No, and the Government won't be setting out its detailed proposals in the event of a Leave vote, they can go no further than that.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
Sure, but if they don't say then they can hardly complain when Remain accuse them of being incoherent, or point out that a Leave result could lead to years of uncertainty, or result in the City being shut out of full access to the Single Market, or leave migration completely unchanged anyway. I expect that the incoherence of the Leave side will be the next target for Remain, and quite rightly so.
Did you read Andrew Lilico's article when I posted a link in response to an earlier point of yours a few days ago? In essence trading rules for a market, stay as they are and are then negotiated to something different. International agreements do not start from blank sheets of paper when negotiating between entities with existing relationships. Or do you know better?
In the event of Article 50 notice being given, no extension granted, and no agreement being agreed (ouch!) by all parties by the end of the notice period, then the UK's membership of the EU will lapse and all existing agreements deriving from that membership will also lapse. That's as close as "a blank sheet of paper" as I can think of.
If you leave (pun not intended) an existing contract, the rights and obligations of that contract do not remain in place until one thinks of something better. Force of habit and institutional inertia will maintain some in place but others will not.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
How long would that take to get through Parliament without Opposition support.
Donald Trump has won the Republican caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands, a remote U.S. territory that consists of 15 islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Trump took home 73 percent of the vote and will win all nine delegates, according to Jason Osborne, who was the executive director of the local Republican Party.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed behind with 24 percent. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio made barely a blip -- Kasich took .02 percent and Rubio .01 percent of 471 total votes. ------------- Just look at the percentages that Kasich and Rubio got. Derisory!
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
That's simply the nature of a Referendum campaign. Nobody's offering a multiple choice to the electorate, and Leave are in no position to demand a multiple choice.
No, it's the nature of this referendum campaign in particular. And Leave wouldn't want a multiple choice even if they could get one - they need a broad church to win.
That doesn't mean that Leave isn't being utterly dishonest in trying to offer incompatible options. They should settle for one or the other, and try to convince the other side to their views.
Leave are lying to their own voters.
But what can leave realistically promise? If Scotland had voted to leave the UK Alex Salmond, as Scotland's first minister, was in a position to negotiate a withdrawal on Scotland's behalf. The leave people are not in that position. It would be down to the British government. Leave is obviously split they'd be better off focussing on sovereignty and self-government, being free to make our own mistakes.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
How long would that take to get through Parliament without Opposition support.
About 20 minutes. There's no need to debate amendments in the case of repeal of existing laws. I have no doubt that the Lords would throw it back, but as long as it had the support of the speaker, it could be done in a day without issues.
Can I just check my recollection here? You're intending to vote Leave?
If so - what sort of Leave do you hope for?
I was just thinking about that, and I still think EEA is the best option.
However, I do have some concerns:
1) We'd be by far the largest of the non-EU EEA countries. Therefore we could in the future end up bullying those countries simply because of our size. Having voted to leave the EU, I'm not sure that's a position we should be in.
2) That some in the EU will put pressure on the EEA countries to head more towards the EU. It's not as if the EU don't ave a track record of stealthy (and not-so stealthy) change. We might vote to 'leave' the EU, only for the grouping we join to become even more of an EU-light.
However both of these can be guarded against if we are honest and aware of the risks.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Perhaps one of the lawyers who post here can clarify something for me.
I have heard it said that repealing the FTPA alone would not restore the old system because there is no constitutional mechanism whereby powers can be added back to the Royal prerogative once they have become subject to statute. So, Parliament would need not just to repeal the FTPA but replace or amend it.
Donald Trump has won the Republican caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands, a remote U.S. territory that consists of 15 islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Trump took home 73 percent of the vote and will win all nine delegates, according to Jason Osborne, who was the executive director of the local Republican Party.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed behind with 24 percent. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio made barely a blip -- Kasich took .02 percent and Rubio .01 percent of 471 total votes. ------------- Just look at the percentages that Kasich and Rubio got. Derisory!
Those numbers are not possible. Even a single voter is 0.2%. That suggests Kasich got a tenth of a voter, and Rubio a twentieth.
It's not wrong though. I don't see how such a policy would be enforceable and are they going to turn up at my parents house and rifle through my mum's belongings to find the jewellery value it then tax it?
Anyway, the Mirror advertising means the leaflet has had its intended effect. It gets a low key campaign (so far) into the national press.
Comments
The average leave supporter thinks it is time we got control of our borders/country again. They really believe in it. The average remainer says well, look, I kinda think it's a good idea to belong to something bigger in some way or other and the EU seems a bit like that. It's much more half-hearted.
That doesn't mean that the arguments, when had, aren't sincere.
It seems to me that the main alternatives are:-
1. EEA/EFTA or
2. Canada.
There's no reason for Leave to say which they prefer,
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
Barry Faulkner, Woking Labour Party chairman who posted material claiming ISIS is a "CIA operation", has just deleted his Facebook account.
"More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
This one is more dubious. UKIP are holding up well in national polls IMHO Up a few with Comres and down a few with ISM compared to GE.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-mp-writesthe-liberal-challenge-on-immigration-49813.html
Ronnie Regan used to be often caught loitering around the White House with spare time on his hands, and was more than happy to accompany guests on tours, often going into great detail about the history of the building.
Now football, that is quite another matter.....
(perhaps this is your hobby)
I expect that the incoherence of the Leave side will be the next target for Remain, and quite rightly so.
"Stealth Tax" is another.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/15/anonymous-declares-total-war-on-donald-trump/
Looking at ORB they deserve commendation for confirming eligibility to vote and a sample that seems more reflective of usual voting patterns and ethnicity across the UK.
It's a 54-46 Leave Poll based on Certain To Vote and Likely to Vote.
It is noticeable that outright homeowners want out. These people have little or nothing to fear from interest rates, employment changes etc.
This is a substantial voting bloc - eight million households - and it grows year after year.
I speculate that this personal independence creates less fear and less subservience.
The self employed, the part time employed and the retired are leave as well. Many will either share the characteristic of independence, or see little in their lives that can be attributed to the 'success' of being in Europe.
WRT to your musical references earlier.
Although the female half of 2 Untalented was physically very impressive.
Hyper Go Go and Shut UP And Dance were much better acts.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
The 80s and 90s were awesome for that kind of music.
Florida is 99.
That doesn't mean that Leave isn't being utterly dishonest in trying to offer incompatible options. They should settle for one or the other, and try to convince the other side to their views.
Leave are lying to their own voters.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
Alternatively, perhaps he means that in practice these things are negotiated by discussing changes from the existing position, rather than starting from a blank sheet? If so, yes, I'm sure that's the case.
Immediately following a Brexit vote, the government will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. At this point, the British government and the EU will send negotiating teams to discuss the unwinding of the relationship. The EU will say: "OK, what relationship would you like?" and our response will be "We'll get back to you on that one..."
It is supposed to be a two year process from Article 50 to exit. If we don't know what relationship we want on the far side of that, it's not going to be two years.
What happens if we're still in negotiation in 2020? It's by no means inconceivable that that is the case, given that we ourselves have not decided yet. We could then have a pro-EU government elected. What happens then? Does our exit get permanently delayed?
We need to put the question on the ballot paper on June 23rd: "In the event of a vote for Leaving the European Union, would you prefer to remain in the European Economic Area, like Norway, or have a looser arrangement?"
(As an aside, I know there are several people who say 'let's go to EFTA/EEA immediately and then negotiate from there'. I fear that the other countries in EFTA are not going to be keen to go to a lot of trouble for us, solely so we'll fuck off again in a few years. I think they'd welcome us with open arms if we were committed members, but not if we're just passing through.)
e.g. Party bosses stand ready to gut some of Trump’s greatest primary-season successes. He won every one of South Carolina’s 50 delegates, by finishing first statewide and in each congressional district, but Trump is powerless to fill that slate with his own people. To serve as a national delegate from South Carolina, one has to have been a delegate to the 2015 state convention—held more than a month before Trump announced his candidacy—and the approximately 1,000 eligible voters come from the same pool. Campaigns for the delegate slots are already underway.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2016-03-14/how-to-steal-a-nomination-from-donald-trump
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)
Perhaps she confused Labour with a National Socialist Workers' Party.
And the coherence of Remain ?
Is it
Cracking deal and weve rolled back Europe ?
As you were nothings really changed ?
A bit more integration but only to tidy up loose ends ?
More integration faster ?
Really the pointless name calling is just tedious. Both sides have huge gaps in guaranteeing the future and neither can.
There is going to be approximately four years between the referendum and 2020. If this issue isn't sorted out by 2020 then we really will be in trouble. And what if they are voted out? That does not mean the issue will be revisited, either way. In fact any government would be wise to keep well away.
Also, it is a mistake to think that a general election is a vote on any one specific issue except - perhaps - the competence or otherwise of the government.
As regards the new deal, the two-year deadline means that it's an exceptionally weak bargaining position for the UK, which is a major concern.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
1. London Mayoralty and London Assembly (UKIP expected to gain a seat or 2)
2. Scottish parliament (Nothing for UKIP to defend, LAB and may be LDs expected to lose ground)
3. Welsh Assembly (UKIP expected to gain a few for first time, Lab may lose a few and LDs also)
4. Local Council (UKIP not defending many and 1-3 above may drown this out).
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/709732885046108160
Leave is the option, yes or no, ni other option is on the ballot paper.
If so - what sort of Leave do you hope for?
The U.K. hold all the aces, which is why Cameron's efforts were derided as so pathetic.
And that is a best case scenario.
You know what Project Fear goes OK with me. The prospect of a Brexit vote is quite terrifying.
If you leave (pun not intended) an existing contract, the rights and obligations of that contract do not remain in place until one thinks of something better. Force of habit and institutional inertia will maintain some in place but others will not.
Did Lilico really say different? If so, I'm not surprised: he isn't very bright. He famously thinks the cost of terraforming Mars is the same as climate change :O
May be my last of the week...
Mini Super Tuesday: What's at stake for the candidates as voters head to the polls: https://t.co/EBYQHYN2yJ https://t.co/tLClR6ErKM
Trump took home 73 percent of the vote and will win all nine delegates, according to Jason Osborne, who was the executive director of the local Republican Party.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed behind with 24 percent. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio made barely a blip -- Kasich took .02 percent and Rubio .01 percent of 471 total votes.
-------------
Just look at the percentages that Kasich and Rubio got. Derisory!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/zac-goldsmith-slammed-targeting-londons-7560272
However, I do have some concerns:
1) We'd be by far the largest of the non-EU EEA countries. Therefore we could in the future end up bullying those countries simply because of our size. Having voted to leave the EU, I'm not sure that's a position we should be in.
2) That some in the EU will put pressure on the EEA countries to head more towards the EU. It's not as if the EU don't ave a track record of stealthy (and not-so stealthy) change. We might vote to 'leave' the EU, only for the grouping we join to become even more of an EU-light.
However both of these can be guarded against if we are honest and aware of the risks.
PR is much more effective & cost-effective than advertising today. Period. https://t.co/8HU3Sp2GYP
The Trump figures are huge
I have heard it said that repealing the FTPA alone would not restore the old system because there is no constitutional mechanism whereby powers can be added back to the Royal prerogative once they have become subject to statute. So, Parliament would need not just to repeal the FTPA but replace or amend it.
Is there any truth in this?
Anyway, the Mirror advertising means the leaflet has had its intended effect. It gets a low key campaign (so far) into the national press.