For example I think Maggies obvious Euro-enthusiasm in the seventies was in part down to her leadership ambitions and in part that the saw the EU as a way of cementing the European countries together in the Cold War.
I think there's a lot of truth in that: when defeating communism was the goal, she saw supranational European institutions as a positive. When communism was gone, the irritations of the EU became much more pressing.
Forgive me, I am too young. Did people know communism was on the way out in 1988? I got the impression that predicting the fall of communism was a minority view even during Gorbachev, and that there was a big question mark right into the early 90s.
While no-one could have foreseen quite how quickly the collapse came, the signs were clearly visible from 1981 onwards (principally, the Gdansk shipyard strike and subsequent rise of Solidarity in Poland).
I remember as a sixth former way back in 1981 attending a lecture by a history prof who told us the Soviet Union would collapse in the next decade or two thanks to the disparities in income and access to technology between East and West. I think it was Norman Stone, who has gone on to be a leading historian, but I can't be certain.
As a first year undergrad in 1974, my young junior college lecturer was also predicting the Soviet demise but IIRC more because of internal divisions within the USSR. But such prescience was only to be expected from the future Sir Lawrence Freedman. Shame about Chilcot though, Larry.....
Sure there were a few lecturers. There was also one at the LSE. But none of the big names in Sovietology. Norman Stone was a "smash the reds" hater type, but I don't recall him saying much that was taken seriously in Sovietology. He was a "historian". The main Tory-Chatham House attitude towards Gorbachev was "let's do business".
For example I think Maggies obvious Euro-enthusiasm in the seventies was in part down to her leadership ambitions and in part that the saw the EU as a way of cementing the European countries together in the Cold War.
I think there's a lot of truth in that: when defeating communism was the goal, she saw supranational European institutions as a positive. When communism was gone, the irritations of the EU became much more pressing.
Forgive me, I am too young. Did people know communism was on the way out in 1988? I got the impression that predicting the fall of communism was a minority view even during Gorbachev, and that there was a big question mark right into the early 90s.
While no-one could have foreseen quite how quickly the collapse came, the signs were clearly visible from 1981 onwards (principally, the Gdansk shipyard strike and subsequent rise of Solidarity in Poland).
I remember as a sixth former way back in 1981 attending a lecture by a history prof who told us the Soviet Union would collapse in the next decade or two thanks to the disparities in income and access to technology between East and West. I think it was Norman Stone, who has gone on to be a leading historian, but I can't be certain.
As a first year undergrad in 1974, my young junior college lecturer was also predicting the Soviet demise but IIRC more because of internal divisions within the USSR. But such prescience was only to be expected from the future Sir Lawrence Freedman. Shame about Chilcot though, Larry.....
Has it been explained why Chilcot was further postponed till after the referendum?
On the first question, three possibilities: Soon after the referendum, (which would suit Boris), before the next election campaign but after the referendum had died down (mid 2017 to early 2019), or essentially at the 2020 election. The greater the ructions in the PCP, the likelier a contest is triggered sooner rather than later.
On the second question it seems to me that Boris has a Teflon coating and any failings will slip straight off. So the only issue is whether a young powerful inspiring candidate who appeals to the grassroots can come forward and establish themselves as a serious contender. For me this either Javid or Crabb as everyone else is tainted or old hat.
Essentially for Boris to be stopped, Dave needs to hang on and ride out the referendum and the backlash, make sure George doesn't cock anything else up and hope that one of the younger candidates can step up to the mark. Any more misfires and the 1922 chairman could be getting his letters, leading to PM Boris.
I don't see it.
MPs don't just nominate. The vote by exhaustive secret ballot. It's not like the Labour process. There will be a real contest with multiple candidates from both sides of the referendum divide. I think Boris will have problems because of his faltering performances in the House and on TV and the suspicion that he is simply not up to the job. Also, going back to the depths of time, ie the end of last year before the referendum consumed Tory consciousness, it used to be said that Boris lacked a following among MPs and that he neglected to court them. I am sceptical that he can have overcome that simply by coming out for Leave.
But Dave may be un-seated following a close 'Remain' vote by angry MPs, driven on by their even angrier constituency members.
A coup following a close Remain vote on a relatively low turnout would be insane. But if the Tories want to go full Corbyn nuts who are we to stop them?
It ain't going to happen; it really isn't. Trust me, I know my party.
Seconded.There are lots of Lefties thinking the Tories will lose their marbles the way Labour did when electing their new leader. Not going to happen.
If Remain win Cameron will stay PM as the country has backed his position, even if it is a little less secure after a close Remain. Boris could well be kept out of the final 2 by MPs in favour of Gove, we shall see
Gove would be better PM. Boris ha huge backing amongst members in my neck of the woods. The imperative is winnign Mayoralty first. a tough task.
For example I think Maggies obvious Euro-enthusiasm in the seventies was in part down to her leadership ambitions and in part that the saw the EU as a way of cementing the European countries together in the Cold War.
I think there's a lot of truth in that: when defeating communism was the goal, she saw supranational European institutions as a positive. When communism was gone, the irritations of the EU became much more pressing.
Forgive me, I am too young. Did people know communism was on the way out in 1988? I got the impression that predicting the fall of communism was a minority view even during Gorbachev, and that there was a big question mark right into the early 90s.
While no-one could have foreseen quite how quickly the collapse came, the signs were clearly visible from 1981 onwards (principally, the Gdansk shipyard strike and subsequent rise of Solidarity in Poland).
I remember as a sixth former way back in 1981 attending a lecture by a history prof who told us the Soviet Union would collapse in the next decade or two thanks to the disparities in income and access to technology between East and West. I think it was Norman Stone, who has gone on to be a leading historian, but I can't be certain.
As a first year undergrad in 1974, my young junior college lecturer was also predicting the Soviet demise but IIRC more because of internal divisions within the USSR. But such prescience was only to be expected from the future Sir Lawrence Freedman. Shame about Chilcot though, Larry.....
Has it been explained why Chilcot was further postponed till after the referendum?
It now looks like the govt have decided to sit on it for political reasons of not wanting anything negative in the news in the campaign period.
Completely unacceptable given the delays already from Chilcot, hopefully there will be a campaign to publish the report the day after it arrives, even if the Parliamentary debate on the report has to be postponed.
A few friendly MPs bringing it up at PMQs every week would be a good start, as would some of the overpaid "human rights" lawyers bringing a judicial review of the decision to postpone the publication.
On the first question, three possibilities: Soon after the referendum, (which would suit Boris), before the next election campaign but after the referendum had died down (mid 2017 to early 2019), or essentially at the 2020 election. The greater the ructions in the PCP, the likelier a contest is triggered sooner rather than later.
On the second question it seems to me that Boris has a Teflon coating and any failings will slip straight off. So the only issue is whether a young powerful inspiring candidate who appeals to the grassroots can come forward and establish themselves as a serious contender. For me this either Javid or Crabb as everyone else is tainted or old hat.
Essentially for Boris to be stopped, Dave needs to hang on and ride out the referendum and the backlash, make sure George doesn't cock anything else up and hope that one of the younger candidates can step up to the mark. Any more misfires and the 1922 chairman could be getting his letters, leading to PM Boris.
I don't see it.
MPs don't just nominate. The vote by exhaustive secret ballot. It's not like the Labour process. There will be a real contest with multiple candidates from both sides of the referendum divide. I think Boris will have problems because of his faltering performances in the House and on TV and the suspicion that he is simply not up to the job. Also, going back to the depths of time, ie the end of last year before the referendum consumed Tory consciousness, it used to be said that Boris lacked a following among MPs and that he neglected to court them. I am sceptical that he can have overcome that simply by coming out for Leave.
But Dave may be un-seated following a close 'Remain' vote by angry MPs, driven on by their even angrier constituency members.
A coup following a close Remain vote on a relatively low turnout would be insane. But if the Tories want to go full Corbyn nuts who are we to stop them?
It ain't going to happen; it really isn't. Trust me, I know my party.
Seconded.There are lots of Lefties thinking the Tories will lose their marbles the way Labour did when electing their new leader. Not going to happen.
I do wonder what will happen with Osborne and, more widely, the Conservative leadership. Osborne seems busted. Boris is unlikely to get PCP support and isn't substantial enough. Gove's got the brains but lots of people dislike him. Hunt is a lightweight and his NHS moves will not endear him to people, one suspects.
I'm not a fan of May, but by virtue of not being the others she's in a strong position.
Javid's the most lightweight lightweight since Andy Burnham. Priti Patel would be super, but apparently she's rubbish at interviews and can't think on her feet.
I can't vote for Priti, alas. While I do not support the death penalty, it would not prevent me from voting for someone generally. In the case of Priti, her failure to even accept there might be miscarriages of justice was staggering. It put me right off her.
Same here. The feebleness of her thinking shocked me actually.
My money is on May, but I think it will be Boris.
She is keeping her powder dry. Gove, May, Boris...maybe Javid. Not George, too many enemies now.
Surely leaving the EU would greatly reduce the numbers of health tourists, and allow the UK to decide from which countries to accept medical qualifications?
I was in the out patients department at Barnet General last week. There was a poster behind the reception desk saying 'Health Care isn't free to all' It went on to say that if you can't prove that you're a UK citizen or resident you may be asked to pay upfront. Can't recall seeing anything like that before.
That all sounds fine and dandy, but I wonder how many health tourists in Barnet or indeed elsewhere have actually been charged. Is there a published tariff showing how such charges are calculated? Thought not.
Indeed, it looked very much like a 'Being seen to do something' type thing. I will ask about a tariff when I'm back there in a few weeks.
About three years ago, I had to attend the minor burns unit at my local hospital (Queen Mary's, Roehampton) following an unfortunate incident with a hot water bottle. My appointments were initially weekly and then fortnightly over a three month period and I therefore gained a good idea idea of the composition of a significant number of patients also attending the unit, especially as there was usually a delay of at least an hour whilst one waited for one's queuing number to be reached. My my very clear impression was that the overwhelming majority (probably more than 80%) of the patients, together with their parents (as oddly most were children) were from overseas, since not a word of English was being spoken and doubtless not a penny piece was being contributed towards their treatment. The abuse of the NHS system was blatant and indeed palpable.
On the second question it seems to me that Boris has a Teflon coating and any failings will slip straight off. So the only issue is whether a young powerful inspiring candidate who appeals to the grassroots can come forward and establish themselves as a serious contender. For me this either Javid or Crabb as everyone else is tainted or old hat.
Essentially for Boris to be stopped, Dave needs to hang on and ride out the referendum and the backlash, make sure George doesn't cock anything else up and hope that one of the younger candidates can step up to the mark. Any more misfires and the 1922 chairman could be getting his letters, leading to PM Boris.
I don't see it.
snip
But Dave may be un-seated following a close 'Remain' vote by angry MPs, driven on by their even angrier constituency members.
But how does that lead to Boris becoming PM? It's not like the old days where a challenger took the fight to the leader, like Thatcher in 1975 or Heseltine in 1990 - the VoNC and election are two distinct processes.
"The rules of the Tory leadership contest provide that the final ballot shall be between an Inner and an Outer, and that the Outer shall win. Naturally, that is not quite how the rules are worded but, given that Tory MPs select a shortlist of two and party members have the final say, that is how it will work."
Rentoul is wrong. Europe won't play such a divisive role after the election (no, really). It will matter to a degree but Inners won't necessarily vote for an Inner just for that reason, nor Outers the other way. What will matter more than anything is electability.
Of course, one aspect of electability is party management and an Inner trying to impose their view on a party that thinks the other way would be a huge problem - but for most MPs, Europe is one issue among many. There are a few die-hards on both sides but the majority will swing behind the line and quibble only on details. May could win, for example, if it looks like she'd be best placed to unite the factions.
Another aspect is management of the government. On that score, most existing ministers have an advantage over Boris - even people like Hunt (activists won't necessarily dislike the fact that he's taking on the unions).
It would be a mistake to view events through only one prism.
Aidan Kerr Sunday Post #SP16 poll of 1,000 over 60s.
SNP 43% CON 28% LAB 19%
Brutal for Labour. Absolutely brutal.
I frankly don't believe that poll at all. The SNP are too low, the Tories are way too high and Labour, well who knows about Labour? Looking at the headlines in the SP today it seemed to be suggesting that Labour support has simply collapsed in the over 60s. I can believe that up to a point but 28% Tories in Scotland? No chance.
Lab at 19% for over 60s is not too different to how they far in poor polls in England.
I assume Boris makes it to the second round on the basis that he is a prominent Leaver and Tory associations will want him nominated
It's not up to them, it's up to MPs.
Yes, but the associations can make their views known to the MPs. Denying Boris a place now would seem like a stitch up, wouldn't it? Unless there were two genuinely impressive alternatives
It's a secret ballot, participation in the stitch-up is strictly deniable. They kept Portillo off the ballot before, they'll have no problem keeping Boris off it if MPs want somebody else.
That turned out so great didn't it ...
Well it didn't turn out badly enough to make them change the rules to stop it from happening next time...
The Tory rules have this interesting property of keeping out people both people who are unpopular with MPs (for obvious reasons) and people who are popular with party members (because supporters of the second-most-popular person will organize tactically to keep them off the ballot). Boris seems like he'd tick both boxes...
It will also leave the TV studio behind, disappointing devotees of the “cool wall” but an exciting prospect for fans of Top Gear’s sumptuously filmed location shoots.
About three years ago, I had to attend the minor burns unit at my local hospital (Queen Mary's, Roehampton) following an unfortunate incident with a hot water bottle.
Surely leaving the EU would greatly reduce the numbers of health tourists, and allow the UK to decide from which countries to accept medical qualifications?
I was in the out patients department at Barnet General last week. There was a poster behind the reception desk saying 'Health Care isn't free to all' It went on to say that if you can't prove that you're a UK citizen or resident you may be asked to pay upfront. Can't recall seeing anything like that before.
That all sounds fine and dandy, but I wonder how many health tourists in Barnet or indeed elsewhere have actually been charged. Is there a published tariff showing how such charges are calculated? Thought not.
Indeed, it looked very much like a 'Being seen to do something' type thing. I will ask about a tariff when I'm back there in a few weeks.
About three years ago, I had to attend the minor burns unit at my local hospital (Queen Mary's, Roehampton) following an unfortunate incident with a hot water bottle. My appointments were initially weekly and then fortnightly over a three month period and I therefore gained a good idea idea of the composition of a significant number of patients also attending the unit, especially as there was usually a delay of at least an hour whilst one waited for one's queuing number to be reached. My my very clear impression was that the overwhelming majority (probably more than 80%) of the patients, together with their parents (as oddly most were children) were from overseas, since not a word of English was being spoken and doubtless not a penny piece was being contributed towards their treatment. The abuse of the NHS system was blatant and indeed palpable.
'Has it been explained why Chilcot was further postponed till after the referendum?'
Well at a guess, I imagine it might just shake people's faith in the honesty of the British government machine - not ideal when that same machine is currently pumping out masses of propaganda which is at least as dishonest as that we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war.
'man in white' seen at Brussels Airport whose own sister reported him to the police TWO YEARS ago ...
Airport bomber Ibrahim, 29, was even deported to Europe on two occasions
The father of jihadis Khalid and Ibrahim El-Bakraoui is said to have warned police two years ago that they had been radicalised and might have gone to Syria.
'Has it been explained why Chilcot was further postponed till after the referendum?'
Well at a guess, I imagine it might just shake people's faith in the honesty of the British government machine - not ideal when that same machine is currently pumping out masses of propaganda which is at least as dishonest as that we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war.
God bless! A lot of PBers are used to easy wins backing Tories, it's not so nice once they're up against it and now we hear about propaganda and dirty tricks
About three years ago, I had to attend the minor burns unit at my local hospital (Queen Mary's, Roehampton) following an unfortunate incident with a hot water bottle.
Were they able to remove it?
It wasn't that unfortunate ..... the injury was to my left foot if you must know!
WRT the Soviet Union, I can still remember predictions in the 1980's that East Germany's GDP per head was about to overtake ours, and a lot of people took Soviet economic numbers at face value.
WRT the Soviet Union, I can still remember predictions in the 1980's that East Germany's GDP per head was about to overtake ours, and a lot of people took Soviet economic numbers at face value.
I know that Afghanistan have had the stuffing knocked out of them somewhat and are probably thinking about the flight home now but this is a ruthlessly effective performance by the Windies.
Aidan Kerr Sunday Post #SP16 poll of 1,000 over 60s.
SNP 43% CON 28% LAB 19%
Brutal for Labour. Absolutely brutal.
I frankly don't believe that poll at all. The SNP are too low, the Tories are way too high and Labour, well who knows about Labour? Looking at the headlines in the SP today it seemed to be suggesting that Labour support has simply collapsed in the over 60s. I can believe that up to a point but 28% Tories in Scotland? No chance.
For the over sixties it is quite believeable. Selective mortality in Labour voters and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like it to be true. It just seems very unlikely.
The recent Survation and Yougov sub-sample numbers from Scottish polls tell a similar story.
Talking of Osborne there is an interesting column by David Smith in the ST today available here: http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
The 7.5% increase in the Minimum Wage comes into force on Friday giving our lowest paid an increase of 10.8% from last October. A reminder of happier times for Osborne (with IDS clenching his fists in delight) or a new opportunity? He will certainly get a more favourable press this week than in the last fortnight.
I argued for a significant increase in the NMW before the budget as I thought it was important that more of the cost of employing the least skilled fell on the employer rather than the tax payer so I was delighted with what he did. The risk was that the marginal rate of employment of the least skilled would fall but the employment market has remained remarkably robust in the months up to the change (a point rather ignored by DS who is somewhat sceptical in tone).
If Osborne is to move on or out his greatest legacies will be the incredible improvement in employment and this step change in wages which will significantly reduce inequality in our society whilst giving a more sustainable base to the public finances.
The other side of the coin is stagnant productivity and the higher government borrowing which is sustaining all these low skilled, low productivity and low pay wealth consuming jobs.
An important part of working is the opportunity to better yourself through more experience leading to higher pay to being able to buy a house and afford a higher standard of living. I suspect that process has been greatly damaged during the last decade as real wages have stagnated, housing has become less affordable, ever greater student debt etc. Instead we're at risk of creating ever more inequality which isn't good for the economy or for society in general.
It also occurs to me that you if you applaud Osborne's employment strategy you must as a consequence condemn that of the Thatcher government.
If Thatcher (or Howe and Lawson) had pumped equivalently vast amounts of money into the economy then unemployment would have been certainly below three million and most probably below two million during the early and mid 1980s (and so saved themselves a great deal of political damage).
Instead their economic strategy was based on economic reform and sound public finances.
Re. the Cold War and Tory europhilia in the 1970s, there were two strands to it I think -
1. The idea that we needed a politically united 'Europe' to stand up to the Warsaw Pact. Interestingly we are still getting an echo of this argument now with various people suggesting we need Britain in the EU to 'stand up' to Putin.
2. Less emphasised, but important (as confirmed by a fascinating chat I had with my former local MP a few years ago), was the notion that EU would be a barrier to communism at home. There were plenty of Tories back then who thought Labour was heading in a communist direction and would if unchecked make the UK a Soviet satellite.
Aidan Kerr Sunday Post #SP16 poll of 1,000 over 60s.
SNP 43% CON 28% LAB 19%
Brutal for Labour. Absolutely brutal.
I frankly don't believe that poll at all. The SNP are too low, the Tories are way too high and Labour, well who knows about Labour? Looking at the headlines in the SP today it seemed to be suggesting that Labour support has simply collapsed in the over 60s. I can believe that up to a point but 28% Tories in Scotland? No chance.
For the over sixties it is quite believeable. Selective mortality in Labour voters and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like it to be true. It just seems very unlikely.
The recent Survation and Yougov sub-sample numbers from Scottish polls tell a similar story.
Its bollox
How would you break down the support for the Scottish Tories between the age groups? I'd have thought that if they are polling 18% or so overall then mid- to high-twenties among the over-sixties seems reasonable.
Re. the Cold War and Tory europhilia in the 1970s, there were two strands to it I think -
1. The idea that we needed a politically united 'Europe' to stand up to the Warsaw Pact. Interestingly we are still getting an echo of this argument now with various people suggesting we need Britain in the EU to 'stand up' to Putin.
2. Less emphasised, but important (as confirmed by a fascinating chat I had with my former local MP a few years ago), was the notion that EU would be a barrier to communism at home. There were plenty of Tories back then who thought Labour was heading in a communist direction and would if unchecked make the UK a Soviet satellite.
If you look at the sources: http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/639fb9e5-ca77-4653-8870-6cfd7f0782c6/publishable_en.pdf there is very little about the Cold War here. Even the foreign policy matter was about Franco-German co-operation. So it requires a belief that all the public reasons were subservient to private reasons. In reality, it would seem that they feared the decline of the old Conservative policy of Commonwealth preferences, and the halfway house of EFTA, and feared loss of market access.
The Ukip-backed campaign to pull Britain out of the EU has recruited EU migrants to staff its call centre despite telling voters such low-skilled workers “deprive British citizens of jobs”.
Leave.EU employs four phone bank staff from EU countries including Slovakia. Their job is to rally voters across the UK to back Brexit. The appointments come despite Leave.EU claiming that “as the world’s fifth biggest economy, the UK is well placed to supply its own labour”.
Aidan Kerr Sunday Post #SP16 poll of 1,000 over 60s.
SNP 43% CON 28% LAB 19%
Brutal for Labour. Absolutely brutal.
I frankly don't believe that poll at all. The SNP are too low, the Tories are way too high and Labour, well who knows about Labour? Looking at the headlines in the SP today it seemed to be suggesting that Labour support has simply collapsed in the over 60s. I can believe that up to a point but 28% Tories in Scotland? No chance.
For the over sixties it is quite believeable. Selective mortality in Labour voters and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like it to be true. It just seems very unlikely.
The recent Survation and Yougov sub-sample numbers from Scottish polls tell a similar story.
Its bollox
How would you break down the support for the Scottish Tories between the age groups? I'd have thought that if they are polling 18% or so overall then mid- to high-twenties among the over-sixties seems reasonable.
I would guess that lower life expectancy among Labour voters due to class-based deprivation is particlarly intense in Scotland.
Comments
And pro-EU Parris types who are pretending Tories want him to be PM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35906110
John Stapleton just about to begin a phone-in about Boris.
Completely unacceptable given the delays already from Chilcot, hopefully there will be a campaign to publish the report the day after it arrives, even if the Parliamentary debate on the report has to be postponed.
A few friendly MPs bringing it up at PMQs every week would be a good start, as would some of the overpaid "human rights" lawyers bringing a judicial review of the decision to postpone the publication.
Oh, I see....
My my very clear impression was that the overwhelming majority (probably more than 80%) of the patients, together with their parents (as oddly most were children) were from overseas, since not a word of English was being spoken and doubtless not a penny piece was being contributed towards their treatment. The abuse of the NHS system was blatant and indeed palpable.
Of course, one aspect of electability is party management and an Inner trying to impose their view on a party that thinks the other way would be a huge problem - but for most MPs, Europe is one issue among many. There are a few die-hards on both sides but the majority will swing behind the line and quibble only on details. May could win, for example, if it looks like she'd be best placed to unite the factions.
Another aspect is management of the government. On that score, most existing ministers have an advantage over Boris - even people like Hunt (activists won't necessarily dislike the fact that he's taking on the unions).
It would be a mistake to view events through only one prism.
The Tory rules have this interesting property of keeping out people both people who are unpopular with MPs (for obvious reasons) and people who are popular with party members (because supporters of the second-most-popular person will organize tactically to keep them off the ballot). Boris seems like he'd tick both boxes...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/27/james-may-chris-evans-top-gear-amazon
Well at a guess, I imagine it might just shake people's faith in the honesty of the British government machine - not ideal when that same machine is currently pumping out masses of propaganda which is at least as dishonest as that we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Airport bomber Ibrahim, 29, was even deported to Europe on two occasions
The father of jihadis Khalid and Ibrahim El-Bakraoui is said to have warned police two years ago that they had been radicalised and might have gone to Syria.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510912/Captured-Dramatic-arrest-man-white-seen-Brussels-Airport-sister-reported-police-TWO-YEARS-ago.html
A lot of PBers are used to easy wins backing Tories, it's not so nice once they're up against it and now we hear about propaganda and dirty tricks
1. The idea that we needed a politically united 'Europe' to stand up to the Warsaw Pact. Interestingly we are still getting an echo of this argument now with various people suggesting we need Britain in the EU to 'stand up' to Putin.
2. Less emphasised, but important (as confirmed by a fascinating chat I had with my former local MP a few years ago), was the notion that EU would be a barrier to communism at home. There were plenty of Tories back then who thought Labour was heading in a communist direction and would if unchecked make the UK a Soviet satellite.
http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/639fb9e5-ca77-4653-8870-6cfd7f0782c6/publishable_en.pdf
there is very little about the Cold War here. Even the foreign policy matter was about Franco-German co-operation.
So it requires a belief that all the public reasons were subservient to private reasons. In reality, it would seem that they feared the decline of the old Conservative policy of Commonwealth preferences, and the halfway house of EFTA, and feared loss of market access.
The Ukip-backed campaign to pull Britain out of the EU has recruited EU migrants to staff its call centre despite telling voters such low-skilled workers “deprive British citizens of jobs”.
Leave.EU employs four phone bank staff from EU countries including Slovakia. Their job is to rally voters across the UK to back Brexit. The appointments come despite Leave.EU claiming that “as the world’s fifth biggest economy, the UK is well placed to supply its own labour”.
Talk about playing politics on Easy mode.
New Thread New Thread