If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
No we haven't a Scooby about either. We haven't a crystal ball to determine the future under either scenario.
What we do know is that if we leave then our future will be part determined by our Parliament and part determined by 27 other countries; if we leave it will be determined by our Parliament.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
Control C, control V:
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
All credibility has been lost when someone claims they know what Remain means.
The most important aspect of LEAVE opinion but deliberately understated is IMMIGRATION. Basically, stopping Johnny Foreigner coming in. All other topics like free trade etc. is a sideshow to most of them.
Unfortunately I think that's true. But the single factor that continues to tip me towards leave is that I think free movement of labour is too high a price to pay for free trade; essentially it's hardwiring a privilege of capital over labour which I don't see building a healthy society. But even if I think that lots of other people take the same view because they don't like foreigners, that's not a reason to change my own vote.
Realistically it looks like our economy needs and will continue to need a substantial amount of immigration to retain an appropriate age profile in the workforce, and that seems fine. We just need to be able to decide which skillsets we require (which may well included substantial unskilled immigration) rather than have no control.
Free movement is not the same as free trade, it's a lot more, well, flexible and a lot better from an export and import perspective. If we do vote to Leave - and that looks the likelist outcome right now - we will negotiate a new deal with the EU and/or join EFTA/EEA. Either way we will be as bound to honour the new agreement as we are to honouring the present one. And that will involve a binding agreement on immigration.
I agree we will be bound to any agreement, but would favour rejecting any that is contingent upon our agreeing free movement of labour. I'm not sure I've quite understood you but you seem to be saying that there is no possibility of such a scenario.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
No we haven't a Scooby about either. We haven't a crystal ball to determine the future under either scenario.
What we do know is that if we leave then our future will be part determined by our Parliament and part determined by 27 other countries; if we leave it will be determined by our Parliament.
It will be determined by our Parliament to the extent it gets to approve the new deal. Once it does that, sovereignty is ceded once again in all areas covered by the new deal. Of course, Parliament could at any time vote for the UK to leave the EU.
One interest point in the ORB poll , is that the groups with a majority favouring Remain are those which are earning money for the country , the employed , self employed , those unemployed who want a job , whereas those groups favouring Leave are the Retired and those unemployed who do not want a job .
Haha what are you sayin'?
Just giving you some facts , I know you Leavers don't like them .
yes but the problem is your interpretation of the facts.
basically people who are to busy rushing around to have time to think are voting remain whereas more mature people and those with the opportunity for full reflection are voting leave,
More that many of those who have a job believe ( rightly or wrongly ) they may not have one if we Leave and that those who are retired or do not want a job do not care if jobs are lost .
The people most likely to want to stay are students.
By political persuasion it's the tiny leftish factions of the Greens, Plaid, SNP and Lib Dems.
People who have bought their houses outright - those most likely to have 'built' Britain with their taxes - are the keenest leavers.
Part time workers - those who may be most affected by limitless labour supplies of cheap foreign alternatives - are Leavers as well - along with self starting, independently minded self employed.
Part time workers - I am not too sure. Their "job rights" like equal pay, equal holidays have been given by the EU and protected by the EU. I am not sure a future UK government will protect that. The same goes for the 48 hours directive.
The EU is massively in favour of flexible working/zero hours contracts... The sooner the left realise they have been bought off with a few scraps the better.
We will choose the devil we know rather than jump into the fire of unregulated "free" market.
The EU has given huge protection to workers. All things we take for granted now, maternity / paternity, part-time workers rights etc., all stem from the EU.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
All credibility has been lost when someone claims they know what Remain means.
A referendum is a choice of prospectuses. No one absolutely guarantees that either prospectus will turn out to be correct, but that is what the public get to vote on.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
All credibility has been lost when someone claims they know what Remain means.
A referendum is a choice of prospectuses. No one absolutely guarantees that either prospectus will turn out to be correct, but that is what the public get to vote on.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passio
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
Control C, control V:
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
We are in a club which is seeking ever closer union, which has a programme to work towards it. The EU to its credit is totally upfront about this, it is the british establishment which is pretending it somehow isn't. That;s the certainty.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
No we haven't a Scooby about either. We haven't a crystal ball to determine the future under either scenario.
What we do know is that if we leave then our future will be part determined by our Parliament and part determined by 27 other countries; if we leave it will be determined by our Parliament.
It will be determined by our Parliament to the extent it gets to approve the new deal. Once it does that, sovereignty is ceded once again in all areas covered by the new deal. Of course, Parliament could at any time vote for the UK to leave the EU.
But any new deal would cover far fewer areas. Even the most integrated option would only be 9% of the legislation.
The most important aspect of LEAVE opinion but deliberately understated is IMMIGRATION. Basically, stopping Johnny Foreigner coming in. All other topics like free trade etc. is a sideshow to most of them.
Unfortunately I think that's true. But the single factor that continues to tip me towards leave is that I think free movement of labour is too high a price to pay for free trade; essentially it's hardwiring a privilege of capital over labour which I don't see building a healthy society. But even if I think that lots of other people take the same view because they don't like foreigners, that's not a reason to change my own vote.
Realistically it looks like our economy needs and will continue to need a substantial amount of immigration to retain an appropriate age profile in the workforce, and that seems fine. We just need to be able to decide which skillsets we require (which may well included substantial unskilled immigration) rather than have no control.
Free movement is not the same as free trade, it's a lot more, well, flexible and a lot better from an export and import perspective. If we do vote to Leave - and that looks the likelist outcome right now - we will negotiate a new deal with the EU and/or join EFTA/EEA. Either way we will be as bound to honour the new agreement as we are to honouring the present one. And that will involve a binding agreement on immigration.
I agree we will be bound to any agreement, but would favour rejecting any that is contingent upon our agreeing free movement of labour. I'm not sure I've quite understood you but you seem to be saying that there is no possibility of such a scenario.
Not without us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital. I cannot see a Tory-led government doing that. And I think it would do substantial damage if it did. The key is that free trade is very different to free movement, which essentially gives equality of treatment for all entities/people from the EU within the EU. It saves a huge amount if time and money when doing business, certainly in my experience. It's not just about tariffs - far from it.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passio
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
Control C, control V:
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
We are in a club which is seeking ever closer union, which has a programme to work towards it. The EU to its credit is totally upfront about this, it is the british establishment which is pretending it somehow isn't. That;s the certainty.
'ever closer union'
Strikes me that in the event of Remain winning there will be much shrieking from those who blindly assume that voting to stay means keeping the status quo.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
Which LEAVE are you proposing ? EEA [ free movement ! ], EFTA, ............glorious isolation !
Personally EEA but that's a debate for the future.
At least, you are coherent. Would you agree then there needs to be another referendum if LEAVE were to win between EEA or EFTA or something else ?
Or, would you leave [sic ] that to the government or Parliament ?
If it was up to me I'd recommend a negotiation to join the EEA as a transition to leaving with a referendum to endorse our joining the EEA (which I think would be won overwhelmingly, it'd have vast majority of today's Remain and about half of today's Leave backing it).
If the referendum fails then we leave outright and just negotiate simply trade deals like Canada etc
You are right about the EEA option winning if that was offered after we had left. Almost 70 - 30 I'd say.
But then, in what respect, is EEA that much different from the EU ?
OT. I find it very difficult to see Philip Hammond's position on Syria to be logical. He criticizes Russia for supporting the only possible government that have any chance of restoring order.
His idea of backing various unknown disparate opposition forces is barking. The country has been invaded by a rag tag of loonies supported by the British government. The only slight hope for peace is Putin. I think Philip Hammond should spell out what he is doing that could ever lead to peace?
A referendum is a choice of prospectuses. No one absolutely guarantees that either prospectus will turn out to be correct, but that is what the public get to vote on.
As of now, Remain offer one. Leave don't.
No, both sides are offering multiple visions.
No, Remain offer a single way forward which will be implemented as British government policy if the referendum is voted through. Leave - well, we have absolutely no idea what Leave offer, do we?
Anyway, we seem to have reached stupidity hour, when the most entrenched Leavers seek to persuade themselves that black is white in a valiant attempt to proclaim that leaving the EU is an immaculate conception. I wish you all well with that endeavour and recommend you avoid zebra crossings. I have more productive things to do now.
Anyway, we seem to have reached stupidity hour, when the most entrenched Leavers seek to persuade themselves that black is white in a valiant attempt to proclaim that leaving the EU is an immaculate conception. I wish you all well with that endeavour and recommend you avoid zebra crossings. I have more productive things to do now.
All these Frank Spencers 'Oooh, what are we going to DO BETTY?' - do they realise how pathetic they sound? MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS is what we'll do - you know, how two thirds of the world still operates? Leaving the EU is of course a beginning, not an end. But the alternative is no beginning at all. Staying in is no guarantee of any sort of future, merely that we won't have a say in that future. It is absolution from responsibility, not security.
The EU is something we participate in, not something that is done to us. a dull marriage to an unattractive but reliable middle-aged partner to be ready to frolic naked with the weirdos on the bus: the idea is arresting but the reality is both daunting and ultimately unattractive to anyone who isn't one of the weirdos on the bus.
Yet another option on the list. Leavers really don't have a clue what they want.
They don't have the ability to accept that there are downsides as well as upsides to leaving the EU. It's this lack of realism that is superabundant on the Leave side which is so offputting.
You can pretty well guarantee that if there were ever a Leave vote, an absolute majority of those voting Leave would be feeling betrayed in short order. That doesn't sound to me like a healthy state of affairs.
Well that's simply not true.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
Jeremy Corbyn has argued staying in based on a very different model of the EU. Andrew Duff wants to stay in so we can join with full integration. The most likely is none of these models, with us im an outer ring with a centralised Eurozone (but how centralised we don't know) passing laws over us.
But what is on offer is the Cameron deal. Corbyn and Duff (who?) would need to win an election before they could change the terms the UK now has.
Those two might but Merkel and Hollande won't need to win UK elections to change the EU into something different to Cameron's deal. At least our own representatives will have major input into whichever Leave choice is chosen.
No, Remain offer a single way forward which will be implemented as British government policy if the referendum is voted through. Leave - well, we have absolutely no idea what Leave offer, do we?
No Remain is not. The Prime Minister is proposing that but a plethora of other Remain figures have proposed alternative visions.
Given the transient nature of our politics, let alone the fact the PM has already handed in his notice of resignation, there is absolutely zero reason to consider his version of Remain any more exclusively fan any alternative versions.
The most important aspect of LEAVE opinion but deliberately understated is IMMIGRATION. Basically, stopping Johnny Foreigner coming in. All other topics like free trade etc. is a sideshow to most of them.
Unfortunately I think that's true. But the single factor that continues to tip me towards leave is that I think free movement of labour is too high a price to pay for free trade; essentially it's hardwiring a privilege of capital over labour which I don't see building a healthy society. But even if I think that lots of other people take the same view because they don't like foreigners, that's not a reason to change my own vote.
Realistically it looks like our economy needs and will continue to need a substantial amount of immigration to retain an appropriate age profile in the workforce, and that seems fine. We just need to be able to decide which skillsets we require (which may well included substantial unskilled immigration) rather than have no control.
Free movement is not the same as free trade, it's a lot more, well, flexible and a lot better from an export and import perspective. If we do vote to Leave - and that looks the likelist outcome right now - we will negotiate a new deal with the EU and/or join EFTA/EEA. Either way we will be as bound to honour the new agreement as we are to honouring the present one. And that will involve a binding agreement on immigration.
I agree we will be bound to any agreement, but would favour rejecting any that is contingent upon our agreeing free movement of labour. I'm not sure I've quite understood you but you seem to be saying that there is no possibility of such a scenario.
Not without us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital. I cannot see a Tory-led government doing that. And I think it would do substantial damage if it did. The key is that free trade is very different to free movement, which essentially gives equality of treatment for all entities/people from the EU within the EU.
OK, I see what you're saying now. Yes, we wouldn't get the other three without accepting free movement. I'd be in favour of losing all of them; not looking for a fudge which keeps out foreigners but lets us use their money and sell them as much stuff as we like.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
All credibility has been lost when someone claims they know what Remain means.
A referendum is a choice of prospectuses. No one absolutely guarantees that either prospectus will turn out to be correct, but that is what the public get to vote on.
As of now, Remain offer one. Leave don't.
That's just nonsense Alistair, neither side can offer certainty to pretend that one can and the other can't is just plain silly. The choice if there is one is between the uncertainty of treading your own path with all the inherent dangers or the uncertainty of being dragged along by other people in a direction you may not want to go
OT. I find it very difficult to see Philip Hammond's position on Syria to be logical. He criticizes Russia for supporting the only possible government that have any chance of restoring order.
His idea of backing various unknown disparate opposition forces is barking. The country has been invaded by a rag tag of loonies supported by the British government. The only slight hope for peace is Putin. I think Philip Hammond should spell out what he is doing that could ever lead to peace?
I don't even know which group we are supporting. They all enjoy 5-star comfort in Istanbul hotels and eat and drink at Saudi, Qatari expense. A good life.
The Americans spent $0.5 bn training 34 graduates from their course. I hope they are still fighting. They are the costliest soldiers in history.
We support the Kurdish terrorists, Turkey bombs them. Israel has a tacit understanding with Al-Nusra, who is an Al-Qaeda affiliate. When you see pictures of Aleppo, which was a city of 3m people, you can understand why they are refugees today.
One interest point in the ORB poll , is that the groups with a majority favouring Remain are those which are earning money for the country , the employed , self employed , those unemployed who want a job , whereas those groups favouring Leave are the Retired and those unemployed who do not want a job .
Haha what are you sayin'?
Just giving you some facts , I know you Leavers don't like them .
yes but the problem is your interpretation of the facts.
basically people who are to busy rushing around to have time to think are voting remain whereas more mature people and those with the opportunity for full reflection are voting leave,
More that many of those who have a job believe ( rightly or wrongly ) they may not have one if we Leave and that those who are retired or do not want a job do not care if jobs are lost .
The people most likely to want to stay are students.
By political persuasion it's the tiny leftish factions of the Greens, Plaid, SNP and Lib Dems.
People who have bought their houses outright - those most likely to have 'built' Britain with their taxes - are the keenest leavers.
Part time workers - those who may be most affected by limitless labour supplies of cheap foreign alternatives - are Leavers as well - along with self starting, independently minded self employed.
Part time workers - I am not too sure. Their "job rights" like equal pay, equal holidays have been given by the EU and protected by the EU. I am not sure a future UK government will protect that. The same goes for the 48 hours directive.
The EU is massively in favour of flexible working/zero hours contracts... The sooner the left realise they have been bought off with a few scraps the better.
We will choose the devil we know rather than jump into the fire of unregulated "free" market.
The EU has given huge protection to workers. All things we take for granted now, maternity / paternity, part-time workers rights etc., all stem from the EU.
Delors was right after all.
Wow.
You do understand that the working time directive originated from the International Labour Organization?
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passio
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
So if you know what remain means, what is it ?
Control C, control V:
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
We are in a club which is seeking ever closer union, which has a programme to work towards it. The EU to its credit is totally upfront about this, it is the british establishment which is pretending it somehow isn't. That;s the certainty.
'ever closer union'
Strikes me that in the event of Remain winning there will be much shrieking from those who blindly assume that voting to stay means keeping the status quo.
It' slightly worse than that. The status quo is where we were in December, Cameron claims he has improved on that , I rather suspect he hasn't.
Anyway, we seem to have reached stupidity hour, when the most entrenched Leavers seek to persuade themselves that black is white in a valiant attempt to proclaim that leaving the EU is an immaculate conception. I wish you all well with that endeavour and recommend you avoid zebra crossings. I have more productive things to do now.
Must have been a bad day as the Remain big guns are posting incessantly on here.
First we had Boris showing up Chukka as being less than honest, Soubry claiming our trade with the EU will stop completely if we leave, and a poll (remember them) showing Leave doing better than expected.
So we end up with Alastair posting non stop as to what Leave means, when he has had the choices pointed out to him by several different people.
He has been asked to post a positive case for Remain but has not done so, which leads me to think that there isn't one.
I agree with the questions. As far as security goes: it seems no easier to nick someone's voting code and use it than it does to nick their polling card and head down the station (since you don't need ID). I mean you need to be the right sex, or at least androgynous, for the latter version, but that's the only limitation. Provided the starting point is a physical polling card with a code then the risk of large scale fraud seems very limited.
Obscurity and accuracy seem straightforward as anyone who's tried to find out what a teenager is up to on Snapchat can tell you. Freedom is a big issue, but again no worse than with a postal vote (you can stand over someone with the same threat of physical violence whether they are using their phone or filling a card for you to post). So overall I don't see that EV is a step down from PV, though for those who support polling station only I can see I distinction. on your final test.
You can nick someone's voting code and head down the station and fraudulently vote once. But that's one vote. It's harder to do for two people, or three, or many. Crack electronic voting and you could manipulate thousands of votes with one keypress.
Obscurity is exceptionally difficult to trust when the software and/or hardware at the other end is not open. Sadly many EV systems are closed. Can you guarantee that company is not recording things?
Using Snapchat as an example is bogus for two reasons. Firstly it is doing a very different thing, and secondly the rewards of hacking Snapchat are nothing when compared to hacking or manipulating an EV system. It's bad enough in our political system, where millions are spent on each election. But imagine it in the US: why spend that last couple of billion on the election when you could just hire a hacker for a few million?
Then there is the whole factor of whether you can trust the counting machines to be doing so correctly. In our current system, there representatives of every candidate can be at the count to ensure it is free and fair. That's much harder to do in a computer system.
Your point about freedom is true to a point, except we have systems in place to guard against it in polling booths, and such physical threats could only affect a handful of votes at most.
The main problem with EV is the risks of mass manipulation of votes.
And I should have asked a fifth question: can a reasonable voter trust the system to match all these requirements?
All these Frank Spencers 'Oooh, what are we going to DO BETTY?' - do they realise how pathetic they sound? MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS is what we'll do - you know, how two thirds of the world still operates? Leaving the EU is of course a beginning, not an end. But the alternative is no beginning at all. Staying in is no guarantee of any sort of future, merely that we won't have a say in that future. It is absolution from responsibility, not security.
The EU is something we participate in, not something that is done to us.
There is an argument that we should leave the EU, but that is dependent on those suggesting that course of action coming up with a coherent alternative. Since that hasn't happened, a decision to leave would be like leaving a dull marriage to an unattractive but reliable middle-aged partner to be ready to frolic naked with the weirdos on the bus: the idea is arresting but the reality is both daunting and ultimately unattractive to anyone who isn't one of the weirdos on the bus.
Some of us are hoping to frolic naked with gorgeous men who adore us.
But I see that we have yet another EU thread so I will not divert it onto more pleasurable topics. As you were.....
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
That's interesting.
Slightly at odds with your other posts that it's because we would have "sovereignty" that we would use it to be mean to The Gays, and lynch foreigners.
When you scratch the surface and ask what people actually want to be able to do that they can't do in the EU, the answers that come back are:
1) dispense with the human rights culture (presumably after leaving the ECHR, though strictly speaking that's irrelevant) 2) stop foreigners coming in 3) prop up failing industries
To be fair, I'd put those under "manic protectionism" rather than "North Korean-style autarky".
The anti-immigrant and reactionary overtones that usually go with that are a noxious side-effect.
To be honest, I think you're engaging in a bit of rationalisation now you've made up your mind.
Despite you brandishing him as a "Leaver" Philip Thompson was actually on the fence like you a few months ago, and leaning to Remain, but has now come off the fence the other way and not for any of the reasons you ascribe to stereotype those you now oppose.
Well I met someone today who was very strongly for 'leave'. Her reasons were only that she was fed up with our courts being over ruled by the EU.
The first job for Remain is a rapid re-education program
Not at all. It's a perfectly valid reason to vote Leave.
The most important aspect of LEAVE opinion but deliberately understated is IMMIGRATION. Basically, stopping Johnny Foreigner coming in. All other topics like free trade etc. is a sideshow to most of them.
Unfortunately I think that's true. But the single factor that continues to tip me towards leave is that I think free movement of labour is too high a price to pay for free trade; essentially it's hardwiring a privilege of capital over labour which I don't see building a healthy society. But even if I think that lots of other people take the same view because they don't like foreigners, that's not a reason to change my own vote.
Realistically it looks like our economy needs and will continue to need a substantial amount of immigration to retain an appropriate age profile in the workforce, and that seems fine. We just need to be able to decide which skillsets we require (which may well included substantial unskilled immigration) rather than have no control.
Free movement is not the same as free trade, it's a lot more, well, flexible and a lot better from an export and import perspective. If we do vote to Leave - and that looks the likelist outcome right now - we will negotiate a new deal with the EU and/or join EFTA/EEA. Either way we will be as bound to honour the new agreement as we are to honouring the present one. And that will involve a binding agreement on immigration.
Not without us giving up free movement of goods, services and capital. I cannot see a Tory-led government doing that. And I think it would do substantial damage if it did. The key is that free trade is very different to free movement, which essentially gives equality of treatment for all entities/people from the EU within the EU.
OK, I see what you're saying now. Yes, we wouldn't get the other three without accepting free movement. I'd be in favour of losing all of them; not looking for a fudge which keeps out foreigners but lets us use their money and sell them as much stuff as we like.
Without free movement we can't sell them as much as we like, that's the problem. I have become Remain - much to my own surprise - because I feel Leave is asking me to give up freedoms I currently enjoy in Europe - personal and work-related - for a completely unclear and potentially very difficult future. I think there are huge opportunities out there in the wider world which we can exploit without having to give up what we have at the moment.
Anyway, we seem to have reached stupidity hour, when the most entrenched Leavers seek to persuade themselves that black is white in a valiant attempt to proclaim that leaving the EU is an immaculate conception. I wish you all well with that endeavour and recommend you avoid zebra crossings. I have more productive things to do now.
Good riddance. Your arguments are as pompous and patronising as they are boring and repetitive.
It's worth Leave winning just to see your weaselling and backtracking when your prophecies of doom fail to materialise.
Sort of on topic, I just got back from my local Indian takeaway where I overheard two WWC friends vociferously discussing Brexit.
I must say, what impressed me the most was the level of grasp of the arguments that both had. Both these men knew about tarrifs, Japan car manufacturing, currency risk, trade deal options, Merkel's backtracking and the eurozone potentially outvoting us regularly.
Yes, they didn't get *everything* right (one described Holland as a socialist country.. Hmm..) but we hear a lot of patronising nonsense about the ignorance of 'ordinary' people from the elites, who talk down to them, but both were making well-formed and cogent arguments and most of the key facts have cut through.
They are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. In this case, one for Remain and one for Leave.
Interestingly, the Remainer (on the basis, "better the devil I know", which I'm hearing a lot) was convinced Leave would win. Conversely the Leaver was resigned to Remain winning, like me.
I actually got involved in their debate at the end after they apologised for so passionately arguing in the restaurant and I said 'not at all' and chipped in with my own PoV on why we should Leave.
Ended up with us shaking hands and introducing ourselves, suggesting we go for a drink at the local pub sometime, which was very nice and pleasant.
Anyway, we seem to have reached stupidity hour, when the most entrenched Leavers seek to persuade themselves that black is white in a valiant attempt to proclaim that leaving the EU is an immaculate conception. I wish you all well with that endeavour and recommend you avoid zebra crossings. I have more productive things to do now.
Good riddance. Your arguments are as pompous and patronising as they are boring and repetitive.
It's worth Leave winning just to see your weaselling and backtracking when your prophecies of doom fail to materialise.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
There were reports on Tuesday that a Chechen fighting in Syria, Omar al-Shishani, a top Islamic State commander died from injuries sustained in an American air strike. American Special Forces reportedly captured one of IS's chemical weapons experts, Sleiman Daoud al-Afari last week.
I am sure the American's are treating very well...
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
It's fascinating watching this 'debate' in light of the Indyref.
This is what (some of) the Nats were arguing. Self-determination, at any cost.
Now we know the cost of that is £15bn a year...
Is it really worth a 9% cut in living standards so we can buy "more powerful hair-dryers"?
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
It's fascinating watching this 'debate' in light of the Indyref.
This is what (some of) the Nats were arguing. Self-determination, at any cost.
Now we know the cost of that is £15bn a year...
Is it really worth a 9% cut in living standards so we can buy "more powerful hair-dryers"?
Where are these numbers from? The same dodgy places as the £3000 a year??
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
I hope, on reflection, you will withdraw that remark.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
It's fascinating watching this 'debate' in light of the Indyref.
This is what (some of) the Nats were arguing. Self-determination, at any cost.
Now we know the cost of that is £15bn a year...
Is it really worth a 9% cut in living standards so we can buy "more powerful hair-dryers"?
Are David Cameron and George Osborne so shit that they would parley a vast increase in their own competencies and a vast decrease in the UK's financial outgoings into a 9% drop in living standards? How odd, I'd been told they were a competent Government.
There were reports on Tuesday that a Chechen fighting in Syria, Omar al-Shishani, a top Islamic State commander died from injuries sustained in an American air strike. American Special Forces reportedly captured one of IS's chemical weapons experts, Sleiman Daoud al-Afari last week.
I am sure the American's are treating very well...
The credit belongs to the Syrian people, supported by Russia and Iran. Belatedly also to President Obama who has also put an end to our government's, France's, Qatar's, Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's supporting for Islamist terrorists.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
He doesn't seem to realise he's essentially wailing 'Oh the democracy, the political participation, the options we'd have - make them all go away!'.
There were reports on Tuesday that a Chechen fighting in Syria, Omar al-Shishani, a top Islamic State commander died from injuries sustained in an American air strike. American Special Forces reportedly captured one of IS's chemical weapons experts, Sleiman Daoud al-Afari last week.
I am sure the American's are treating very well...
The credit belongs to the Syrian people, supported by Russia and Iran. Belatedly also to President Obama who has also put an end to our government's, France's, Qatar's, Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's supporting for Islamist terrorists.
"our government's"....don't you mean the "British government" ?
"Nick Clegg says it is not about fear. But it is legitimate for people to be concerned. This decision will cast a shadow for children who cannot vote. He thinks of his kids; if Britain votes to leave, the UK will fall apart. Britain will be drifting “south of Greenland”, he says.
There are jeers from the audience. People shout “rubbish”."
Outside PB comments, most LEAVE supporters probably want immigration ended or at least radically reduced from EU countries, so I don't think EEA would have a majority among LEAVE? I am guessing Hedgie-LEAVE is a much smaller demographic than Nigel-LEAVE
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
It's fascinating watching this 'debate' in light of the Indyref.
This is what (some of) the Nats were arguing. Self-determination, at any cost.
Now we know the cost of that is £15bn a year...
Is it really worth a 9% cut in living standards so we can buy "more powerful hair-dryers"?
Who says our standard of living would drop by 9% if we vote Leave?
"Nick Clegg says it is not about fear. But it is legitimate for people to be concerned. This decision will cast a shadow for children who cannot vote. He thinks of his kids; if Britain votes to leave, the UK will fall apart. Britain will be drifting “south of Greenland”, he says.
There are jeers from the audience. People shout “rubbish”."
More! More!
Clegg pulling out what I like to call "The Kid's Company Defence".
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
The insults of the Leave zealots get even nastier as their arguments for their point of view get weaker .
OT. I find it very difficult to see Philip Hammond's position on Syria to be logical. He criticizes Russia for supporting the only possible government that have any chance of restoring order.
His idea of backing various unknown disparate opposition forces is barking. The country has been invaded by a rag tag of loonies supported by the British government. The only slight hope for peace is Putin. I think Philip Hammond should spell out what he is doing that could ever lead to peace?
I don't even know which group we are supporting. They all enjoy 5-star comfort in Istanbul hotels and eat and drink at Saudi, Qatari expense. A good life.
The Americans spent $0.5 bn training 34 graduates from their course. I hope they are still fighting. They are the costliest soldiers in history.
We support the Kurdish terrorists, Turkey bombs them. Israel has a tacit understanding with Al-Nusra, who is an Al-Qaeda affiliate. When you see pictures of Aleppo, which was a city of 3m people, you can understand why they are refugees today.
To be fair the Pentagon deliberately only trained a few, they thought supporting Al Qaeda and IS an appalling proposition.
As for Hammond, I am not sure how much money the Gulfies have given him but when he betrays the national interest and sullies the name of his office he has managed to endanger and disgrace the whole country. Cameron and his cohort sink to ever lower lows, good to see Obama having given him both barrels over Libya.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
The insults of the Leave zealots get even nastier as their arguments for their point of view get weaker .
He says countries in the EU have been able to do things differently.
He says three big things will have changed.
First, the border arrangments of Schengen will need to be tightened up.
Second, there will be deeper security cooperation, to keep our streets safe from terrorist attack.
And, third, he thinks the Eurozone will have integrated more.
(In one of his 2014 debates with Farage, Clegg got into trouble when he answered a similar question by saying he did not think much would have changed.)"
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
False symmetry is a specialism of Leavers. It ignores the fact that government policy is to remain in the EU. A leave vote would be a repudiation of government policy and require a new one to be drawn up.
The greatest source of amusement for me at present is knowing that precisely the most passionate Leavers would be precisely the angriest posters in a year or two's time after a Leave vote when their dreams had not been met.
Your post ignores the fact that government policy is the very definition of transient and not permanent politics.
Since the last Europe Referendum: # The parties of government have changed at an election four times # Six Prime Ministers have been in Downing Street # There have been nine general elections # There have been nine Chancellor's of the Exchequer # There have been sixteen Home Secretary's
To suggest that government policy should be at all relevant to this referendum is laughable. Government policy is a matter for general elections, not referenda.
We know what Remain means. We haven't a Scooby what Leave means.
What's laughable is your attempt to suggest that there is much doubt about the first or the slightest clarity about the second.
No we haven't a Scooby about either. We haven't a crystal ball to determine the future under either scenario.
What we do know is that if we leave then our future will be part determined by our Parliament and part determined by 27 other countries; if we leave it will be determined by our Parliament.
Yes, because our Parliament will be omnipotent and not subject to any influence by the EU, US, any other country...and events, dear boy, events.
There were reports on Tuesday that a Chechen fighting in Syria, Omar al-Shishani, a top Islamic State commander died from injuries sustained in an American air strike. American Special Forces reportedly captured one of IS's chemical weapons experts, Sleiman Daoud al-Afari last week.
I am sure the American's are treating very well...
The credit belongs to the Syrian people, supported by Russia and Iran. Belatedly also to President Obama who has also put an end to our government's, France's, Qatar's, Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's supporting for Islamist terrorists.
"our government's"....don't you mean the "British government" ?
Errr yes?
Although I agree it is hard to tell who they are working for.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
I hope, on reflection, you will withdraw that remark.
No, I won't.
You think an independent Britain would lead to a reduction in gay rights and a rise in xenophobia.
It's a view, but it's deeply cynical and I disagree with you.
It's not an alternative, it's the fundament. When the baseline, worst case, scenario is actually outlined - we know longer have a 'free' market (that we pay handsomely for) with the EU, it becomes as scary as sock monsters under the bed. All the Remain Frank Spencer panicky chaff looks ridiculous. The real risk; the real unknown, is staying in, where there is no floor of how bad it could get, because even EU laws themselves are continually bent and twisted and offer no protection.
To go back to my first point, the point that you carefully keep sidestepping - Leave have no idea what Leave means. Everyone has their own pet version and most of them are mutually contradictory.
If Britain votes Leave, we're heading for an almighty argument where at best almost no one will get what they want. And for what? In all probability, some notional concept of "sovereignty" that doesn't really exist in the interconnected world in which we now live unless we retreat into manic protectionism or North Korean-style autarky.
As a proposition, it sucks harder than a non-EU vacuum cleaner.
I'm not side-stepping anything, I'm describing your first point as irrelevant. What does being Australia mean? What does being Singapore mean? What does being Switzerland mean? It means deciding national policy as a country, hopefully with the maximum democratic participation. Leave is campaigning for the country to start making those decisions for itself - it does not need to and nor should it state what those decisions should be for the next ten years.
I think we all know that it's precisely the prospect of Britain making its own decision for itself that scares Alastair.
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
The insults of the Leave zealots get even nastier as their arguments for their point of view get weaker .
It's not an insult, nor is it nasty.
It's a fact by his own admission.
I can't help it - I agree it's a distasteful view - but there you go.
There's no accounting for the motives of the Remaniacs.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
Which LEAVE are you proposing ? EEA [ free movement ! ], EFTA, ............glorious isolation !
Personally EEA but that's a debate for the future.
At least, you are coherent. Would you agree then there needs to be another referendum if LEAVE were to win between EEA or EFTA or something else ?
Or, would you leave [sic ] that to the government or Parliament ?
If it was up to me I'd recommend a negotiation to join the EEA as a transition to leaving with a referendum to endorse our joining the EEA (which I think would be won overwhelmingly, it'd have vast majority of today's Remain and about half of today's Leave backing it).
If the referendum fails then we leave outright and just negotiate simply trade deals like Canada etc
You are right about the EEA option winning if that was offered after we had left. Almost 70 - 30 I'd say.
But then, in what respect, is EEA that much different from the EU ?
To the best of my understanding:
1: We can sign free trade deals with nations the EU doesn't have any with. Given that 80% (and rapidly rising) of the world's economy is not in the EU then this is an incredible opportunity. 2: Huge chunks of what the EU does, the EEA does not. See for example agriculture, the CAP is one of the most pernicious policies in politics. 3: While the final regulations for product trade (which only makes a small fraction of our economy) may be the same, we lose a lot of the regulations for along the way and for businesses that are not exporting to the EU.
If we assume that Remain are actually right and that three million jobs are dependent upon our trade agreement with the EU (1/5th of the world's economy), then if we join the EEA we have the potential to keep those three million jobs and create up to 12 million more by signing new agreements with the remaining 80% of the globe.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
If Britain votes Leave, Britiain leaves the EU from the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Leave means.
It may be that new terms are made in the future even after a Leave vote. If so, we can expect future debates. But no one can pretend that's not the the prospectus offered by Leave.
Which LEAVE are you proposing ? EEA [ free movement ! ], EFTA, ............glorious isolation !
Personally EEA but that's a debate for the future.
At least, you are coherent. Would you agree then there needs to be another referendum if LEAVE were to win between EEA or EFTA or something else ?
Or, would you leave [sic ] that to the government or Parliament ?
If it was up to me I'd recommend a negotiation to join the EEA as a transition to leaving with a referendum to endorse our joining the EEA (which I think would be won overwhelmingly, it'd have vast majority of today's Remain and about half of today's Leave backing it).
If the referendum fails then we leave outright and just negotiate simply trade deals like Canada etc
You are right about the EEA option winning if that was offered after we had left. Almost 70 - 30 I'd say.
But then, in what respect, is EEA that much different from the EU ?
We get to have a proper seat with a vote at the many international organisations where the rules are being made rather than having to have the EU use that vote on behalf and perhaps against our best interests.
Comments
What we do know is that if we leave then our future will be part determined by our Parliament and part determined by 27 other countries; if we leave it will be determined by our Parliament.
If Britain votes Remain, Britain remains in the EU on the basis of the terms negotiated by David Cameron. Like them or not (I find them pretty uninspiring), that's what Remain means.
It may be that those terms are not honoured in the future even after a Remain vote. If so, we can expect pandemonium. But no one can pretend that's not the prospectus offered by Remain.
The EU has given huge protection to workers. All things we take for granted now, maternity / paternity, part-time workers rights etc., all stem from the EU.
Delors was right after all.
As of now, Remain offer one. Leave don't.
Out of the blue, along came a £500m bill for swapping migrants/asylum seekers between Greece and Turkey and that was just a fortnight ago.
Indiana Jones and the Very Last (we promise this time) Crusade
But then, in what respect, is EEA that much different from the EU ?
His idea of backing various unknown disparate opposition forces is barking. The country has been invaded by a rag tag of loonies supported by the British government. The only slight hope for peace is Putin. I think Philip Hammond should spell out what he is doing that could ever lead to peace?
No, Remain offer a single way forward which will be implemented as British government policy if the referendum is voted through. Leave - well, we have absolutely no idea what Leave offer, do we?
Given the transient nature of our politics, let alone the fact the PM has already handed in his notice of resignation, there is absolutely zero reason to consider his version of Remain any more exclusively fan any alternative versions.
The Americans spent $0.5 bn training 34 graduates from their course. I hope they are still fighting. They are the costliest soldiers in history.
We support the Kurdish terrorists, Turkey bombs them. Israel has a tacit understanding with Al-Nusra, who is an Al-Qaeda affiliate. When you see pictures of Aleppo, which was a city of 3m people, you can understand why they are refugees today.
https://twitter.com/UnpopularTruth3/status/709823761843757056
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/709819253977915392
You do understand that the working time directive originated from the International Labour Organization?
First we had Boris showing up Chukka as being less than honest, Soubry claiming our trade with the EU will stop completely if we leave, and a poll (remember them) showing Leave doing better than expected.
So we end up with Alastair posting non stop as to what Leave means, when he has had the choices pointed out to him by several different people.
He has been asked to post a positive case for Remain but has not done so, which leads me to think that there isn't one.
Obscurity is exceptionally difficult to trust when the software and/or hardware at the other end is not open. Sadly many EV systems are closed. Can you guarantee that company is not recording things?
Using Snapchat as an example is bogus for two reasons. Firstly it is doing a very different thing, and secondly the rewards of hacking Snapchat are nothing when compared to hacking or manipulating an EV system. It's bad enough in our political system, where millions are spent on each election. But imagine it in the US: why spend that last couple of billion on the election when you could just hire a hacker for a few million?
Then there is the whole factor of whether you can trust the counting machines to be doing so correctly. In our current system, there representatives of every candidate can be at the count to ensure it is free and fair. That's much harder to do in a computer system.
Your point about freedom is true to a point, except we have systems in place to guard against it in polling booths, and such physical threats could only affect a handful of votes at most.
The main problem with EV is the risks of mass manipulation of votes.
And I should have asked a fifth question: can a reasonable voter trust the system to match all these requirements?
But I see that we have yet another EU thread so I will not divert it onto more pleasurable topics. As you were.....
http://wdtn.com/2016/03/15/accused-donald-trump-stage-runner-charged-federally/
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/03/protest-donald-trump-now-federal-crime
...now, where did I leave my specs?
It's worth Leave winning just to see your weaselling and backtracking when your prophecies of doom fail to materialise.
I must say, what impressed me the most was the level of grasp of the arguments that both had. Both these men knew about tarrifs, Japan car manufacturing, currency risk, trade deal options, Merkel's backtracking and the eurozone potentially outvoting us regularly.
Yes, they didn't get *everything* right (one described Holland as a socialist country.. Hmm..) but we hear a lot of patronising nonsense about the ignorance of 'ordinary' people from the elites, who talk down to them, but both were making well-formed and cogent arguments and most of the key facts have cut through.
They are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. In this case, one for Remain and one for Leave.
Interestingly, the Remainer (on the basis, "better the devil I know", which I'm hearing a lot) was convinced Leave would win. Conversely the Leaver was resigned to Remain winning, like me.
I actually got involved in their debate at the end after they apologised for so passionately arguing in the restaurant and I said 'not at all' and chipped in with my own PoV on why we should Leave.
Ended up with us shaking hands and introducing ourselves, suggesting we go for a drink at the local pub sometime, which was very nice and pleasant.
I love this country.
They estimate IS has lost 40% of its revenue - much of it from oil - after losing control of the Turkish-Syrian border.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35816552
Kurds deserve a lot of credit for this. I am sure the American's are treating very well...
This is what (some of) the Nats were arguing. Self-determination, at any cost.
Now we know the cost of that is £15bn a year...
Is it really worth a 9% cut in living standards so we can buy "more powerful hair-dryers"?
Leave will never win over those who hate their own country, or distrust their own countrymen.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/15/guardian-eu-referendum-debate-with-farage-clegg-alan-johnson-and-leadsom-live
The credit belongs to the Syrian people, supported by Russia and Iran. Belatedly also to President Obama who has also put an end to our government's, France's, Qatar's, Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's supporting for Islamist terrorists.
"our government's"....don't you mean the "British government" ?
There are jeers from the audience. People shout “rubbish”."
More! More!
I am guessing Hedgie-LEAVE is a much smaller demographic than Nigel-LEAVE
The broadcasters should take note for future debates, if and when they happen.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
As for Hammond, I am not sure how much money the Gulfies have given him but when he betrays the national interest and sullies the name of his office he has managed to endanger and disgrace the whole country. Cameron and his cohort sink to ever lower lows, good to see Obama having given him both barrels over Libya.
He says countries in the EU have been able to do things differently.
He says three big things will have changed.
First, the border arrangments of Schengen will need to be tightened up.
Second, there will be deeper security cooperation, to keep our streets safe from terrorist attack.
And, third, he thinks the Eurozone will have integrated more.
(In one of his 2014 debates with Farage, Clegg got into trouble when he answered a similar question by saying he did not think much would have changed.)"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/15/guardian-eu-referendum-debate-with-farage-clegg-alan-johnson-and-leadsom-live
https://twitter.com/wintrthur/status/709839816607850498
Errr yes?
Although I agree it is hard to tell who they are working for.
You think an independent Britain would lead to a reduction in gay rights and a rise in xenophobia.
It's a view, but it's deeply cynical and I disagree with you.
It's a fact by his own admission.
I can't help it - I agree it's a distasteful view - but there you go.
There's no accounting for the motives of the Remaniacs.
1: We can sign free trade deals with nations the EU doesn't have any with. Given that 80% (and rapidly rising) of the world's economy is not in the EU then this is an incredible opportunity.
2: Huge chunks of what the EU does, the EEA does not. See for example agriculture, the CAP is one of the most pernicious policies in politics.
3: While the final regulations for product trade (which only makes a small fraction of our economy) may be the same, we lose a lot of the regulations for along the way and for businesses that are not exporting to the EU.