The video doesn't seem to show anything much at all.
The Leftists are making a huge fuss and looking uglier every time. No wonder Trump's supporters are getting louder.
presumably they just want to show physical contact between the parties. They presumably also have evidence of the bruises.
the alleged victim is hardly a leftist though.
And while Trump's supporters get louder they will look more misogynist
The reporter, Fields, originally claimed to have been thrown to the ground. She's destroyed her reputation as a credible journalist with this frivolous nonsense.
FIFA does nothing that could not be done without it, or even most charitably, done much much better.
For all its faults, there are some things the Eu does that cannot be done from without. Are they important? People will disagree, but it's at least reasonable in theory if not in practice, unlike Fifa.
However the analogy is a good one, as it is about falsely conflating things.
Flawed supranational body setting rules that members must follow to enjoy the benefits of playing global football.
EU or no EU we need a build British buy British campaign. French police drive French cars. Their trains are French trains. It's absurd that we are happy to watch domestic producers die to save pennies in the short term. And it's the same with farming - we import food we can grow ourselves because it's slightly cheaper on a spot price when contracts are signed.
Other EU nations haven't done this. Why have we? In France there was a national scandal when Eurostar bought Siemens trains instead of Alstom. Here we seem giddy that Hitachi has opened a warehouse to screw together imported train components for a few years before shutting the place citing lack of orders.
The problem with 'Buy British' campaigns is that it is increasingly unclear where something is made. The days of companies like Butterley (yes, them again), are limited. They managed the entire process: up until 1948 they owned coal mines, iron ore extraction, steel making and fabrication.
Nowadays where something is made can be difficult. Take the case you mentioned: the new Hitachi trains being 'made' in the new factory at (sp?)Ayton Newcliffe. For the first batch of trains, the bodyshells are coming in from Japan. The diesel engines for the bi-mode trains are from MTU of Germany. The pantographs are from the brilliant British company Brecknell Willis.
Are they British-made trains? And will they be when they finally start making bodyshells?
But you are being unfair on Hitachi: they have moved their global rail business from Japan to the UK. That is a real sign of confidence in us.
As I've said before on here, a chip designed for a British firm was manufactured in China, packaged in Austria, sent to America for testing, and then to Britain for sale. Yet the most valuable part - the IP - is British. If you buy the chip from them, not a single part was made in Britain. But where was it made?
Yadda.
Do you think it's different for France and Germany ?
Yet they still keep their major industries going.
The German companies I know best - and admittedly a different sector to you - have beautiful factories in East German, lovely paid for by the EU and West German taxpayers
There is a significant potential for the UK govt to mishandle the steel crisis, which could adversely affect the EU ref and Senedd votes coming soon. Their reluctance to save Redcar due to EU rules on state subsidy is likely to be repeated again, but they will try to prevaricate for 3 months until the expected win is safely in the bag.
There is something wrong with the UK govt's approach to industry (possibly excessive business rates and energy taxes) when TATA feel that they should concentrate their European steel making in the Netherlands, not exactly a low cost country.
Although the Netherlands has an enormous current account surplus (bigger than Germany or Switzerland as a percentage of GDP), so presumably they are doing something right.
FIFA does nothing that could not be done without it, or even most charitably, done much much better.
For all its faults, there are some things the Eu does that cannot be done from without. Are they important? People will disagree, but it's at least reasonable in theory if not in practice, unlike Fifa.
However the analogy is a good one, as it is about falsely conflating things.
It's a bad analogy for Leave because a global governing body is essential if a sport is going to have global competitions (which they all aspire to do). If FIFA disappeared there would need to be a replacement with similar powers (though hopefully less corruption).
I don't think Hannan thinks of the EU as something so obviously necessary that it would have to be recreated if it disappeared.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
Mike I thought generally speaking older voters were more likely to vote Leave and more likely to vote at all. I'm not sure this class breakdown shows the relative size of the different bands. DEs massively outnumber ABs don't they?
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
Co-operation involves mutual interest. Most problems have a solution that works for both sides if you approach it logically.
The EU doesn't involve collaboration: at the end of the day QMV is majority voting. That might work for continental European countries that have a broadly similar political, philsophical and legal history. But our interests are fundamentally different on too many occasions - and we (plus the Scandis and the Baltics) are too often in a minority.
The balance of interests doesn't favour us, and the wins we get aren't sufficient to outweigh the losses
Your defensive, repetitive and spluttering reaction shows its hit the mark, and you're nervous about it.
Ok, you got me.
I am so terrified of Dan's BRILLIANT analogy I deliberately drew attention to it so nobody else would be aware of it and change their vote, swayed by the crushing logic of his argument.
When given a list of ways people had been contacted about the EU referendum, the answers are startling:
76% of people said they had not been contacted at all about the EU referendum. And just 7% of people had even had a leaflet about it.
We can have a glimpse at some ‘wisdom of the crowds’. We asked what people thought turnout would be in the referendum –
When asked, the average response shows that the public predict turnout will be 57% on June 23rd.
What is interesting is that this is broadly in line with non-poll based predictions, particularly amid valid fears about low turnout being a big issue in this referendum. And it certainly links in with the fact that most people do not feel informed about the vote.
What’s also interesting is how consistent this prediction was across all social groups: men put it at 58%, women at 57%. 18-24 year olds put it at 56%, 45-54 year olds at 56%. ABC1 voters (the wealthier) put the figure at 57%, while lower-income C2DE voters put it at 58%. It looks like the public are fairly sure this will be a sub-General Election turnout level.
I'm chairing a campaign forum meeting tomorrow night and the key message is that there is a long long time to go before the referendum. The people who have already made their minds up won't change. The people who haven't made their minds up will probably do so in the closing weeks. Which leaves 10 weeks or so of shadow boxing.
I remain able to make a good case for both leave and remain and able to demolish arguments being made for both leave or remain - neither camp is convincing. Ultimately it's a complex issue and punters don't do complex. Whoever can distill this down into a simple message and communicate it effectively will win by persuading the undecided to (a) back their side and (b) go and vote.
I think the Leave camp's simple message is probably self-determination - you can't control your borders and set your laws and stay in the EU. For remain they're trying various "jobs" and "security" arguments which are nullified by leave making the same case in reverse. I've argued for "project terror" instead of project fear and think it could work - foreign investment and foreign manufacturing will all leave so that's your kids future knackered. But I wouldn't deploy that until the final fortnight. Otherwise I struggle with how Remain funds a simple cut through persuasive message. Which is why in my opinion Leave are winning this.
I think Project Terror is precisely what we'll get in the final fortnight.
It's the only way the Remain campaign feel they can drive the apathetic but Remain inclined non-voters into the polling booth.
They can do a lot by turning the volume up to 11, choreographing one prophecy of doom after another, together with coordinating intracompany warnings of the hounds of hell by every major employer they can think of. Sterling will probably fall in the final days too, which will help Remain.
Most people won't pay real attention until the final few weeks.
The most interesting thing for me in this campaign (from the point of view of a future social history of our national character) is whether or not the average voter will be able to stand up to all this battering and see through this charade for what it is.
In the past we have not been easily frightened or intimidated from doing what we believe to be right.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
@robfordmancs: V interesting analysis - online polls have too many pro-Brexit social conservatives, may therefore overstate "leave" https://t.co/I2NZP6Dk4d
Mike I thought generally speaking older voters were more likely to vote Leave and more likely to vote at all. I'm not sure this class breakdown shows the relative size of the different bands. DEs massively outnumber ABs don't they?
No - we discussed this on a previous thread. The bands AB, C1, C2 and DE are similar in size, with C2 the smallest.
The difficulty is that Remain is strongest with AB (high voting) and the young (low voting), and Leave is strongest with C1 (low voting) and the elderly (high voting). As Charles suggests, to get a clear picture you need representative samples in each of the 4 mixtures.
If this stream of high profile Union leader re-joiners continues, we can be clear that illustrious posters on here (SO, Alastair M - I forget which if not both) are correct in assuming the Labour party does not seek power.
@robfordmancs: V interesting analysis - online polls have too many pro-Brexit social conservatives, may therefore overstate "leave" https://t.co/I2NZP6Dk4d
Wow - amazing that all those pro-Brexit social conservatives were Miliband fans just last year...
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
Co-operation involves mutual interest. Most problems have a solution that works for both sides if you approach it logically.
The EU doesn't involve collaboration: at the end of the day QMV is majority voting. That might work for continental European countries that have a broadly similar political, philsophical and legal history. But our interests are fundamentally different on too many occasions - and we (plus the Scandis and the Baltics) are too often in a minority.
The balance of interests doesn't favour us, and the wins we get aren't sufficient to outweigh the losses
In your opinion. But even if that's the case, there's no guarantee (ore reason to believe) that the balance of interests will be better outside. That's wishful thinking.
Saying “I support the EU because I like Europe” is rather like saying “I support FIFA because I like football”.
It's a really, really, really bad analogy.
Would football be better without FIFA?
Would FIFA be better is we left it?
It's a great analogy.
Your defensive, repetitive and spluttering reaction shows its hit the mark, and you're nervous about it.
It really isn't.
U.K. Football clubs couldn't sign anyone from anyone from other FIFA member countries for starters.
As all international transfers are done via FIFA.
You are wilfully missing the point: having a passion for football does not imply support for the organisation of FIFA; a love for Europe does not imply support for the EU.
You could quite reasonably have a case to make to quit, reform, or operate outside the existing structures to indulge and even progress that passion without them, so to draw the two as coterminous is bogus.
The DNA paternity testing kits used on the Jeremy Kyle show are flying off the shelves at a budget store - generating almost half a million pounds.
Until the deal with Home Bargains, DNA home testing kits with the ability to prove a range of biological relationships were only available from online websites. The kits are now available in 290 stores across the UK, priced at £4.99 and offering a £99 processing service.
Just how good are they? Used to run a pregnancy testing service , and the caveat was always that the testee was “probably” pregnant. Think there was less than a 5% chance of being wrong, although medications and being too early could affect the results.
@robfordmancs: V interesting analysis - online polls have too many pro-Brexit social conservatives, may therefore overstate "leave" https://t.co/I2NZP6Dk4d
Wow - amazing that all those pro-Brexit social conservatives were Miliband fans just last year...
1. Hitachi have NOT set up their global or even EU base at Newton Aycliffe. No trains for export will ever be built there - they'll be built at the Ansaldo factory they bought in Italy which has a continental gauge connection to EU railways that Aycliffe does not. Ironically local MPs cheered the announcement from Great Western that they were bung from Hitachi - I had to point out these trains would be built in Italy 2. Buy British is simple. Start with food. Aldi are making a great play for domestic fresh produce. Move onto cars and give public vehicle contracts to something built here - parts may be imported now but expand operations and they won't be. Then we need to bring back tech companies - it's not like Dyson needs 3rd world wages as his products are premium priced anyway. 3. Are we so stupid as a nation that we think being reliant on foreign energy and steel is preferable to having domestic capacity? Imports may be a fraction cheaper in the short term but what about the medium and long term? What about national security and the infrastructure that requires - do UK governments nit have a duty to put our interests in 2050 ahead of their mates making a one off profit now?
If the 2 year period is impossible, then he screwed up in recommending we sign the Lisbon Treaty when he was Cabinet Secretary
Part of the problem is likely to be us, mind.
"So, you've invoked Article 50, what kind of future relationship would you like with the EU?"
"Errrr... We'll get back to you on that."
It's entirely possible we'd want further discussions, and maybe even a new government, before we decided what we want.
No chance.
If we vote leave this year there is still nearly 4 years to go before the next General Election. No government could seek reelection having failed to get a deal in place while claiming to represent "competence versus chaos".
Conversely having leave winning the referendum in 2016 but still not left by 2020 would cause the Tory party to be torn apart.
So realpolitik ensures a decision must not just be made but smoothly put in place reasonably far enough ahead of the general election to allow the government to then move on and set itself up for reelection.
The DNA paternity testing kits used on the Jeremy Kyle show are flying off the shelves at a budget store - generating almost half a million pounds.
Until the deal with Home Bargains, DNA home testing kits with the ability to prove a range of biological relationships were only available from online websites. The kits are now available in 290 stores across the UK, priced at £4.99 and offering a £99 processing service.
Just how good are they? Used to run a pregnancy testing service , and the caveat was always that the testee was “probably” pregnant. Think there was less than a 5% chance of being wrong, although medications and being too early could affect the results.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
1. Hitachi have NOT set up their global or even EU base at Newton Aycliffe. No trains for export will ever be built there - they'll be built at the Ansaldo factory they bought in Italy which has a continental gauge connection to EU railways that Aycliffe does not. Ironically local MPs cheered the announcement from Great Western that they were bung from Hitachi - I had to point out these trains would be built in Italy 2. Buy British is simple. Start with food. Aldi are making a great play for domestic fresh produce. Move onto cars and give public vehicle contracts to something built here - parts may be imported now but expand operations and they won't be. Then we need to bring back tech companies - it's not like Dyson needs 3rd world wages as his products are premium priced anyway. 3. Are we so stupid as a nation that we think being reliant on foreign energy and steel is preferable to having domestic capacity? Imports may be a fraction cheaper in the short term but what about the medium and long term? What about national security and the infrastructure that requires - do UK governments nit have a duty to put our interests in 2050 ahead of their mates making a one off profit now?
Choosing not to be reliant on foreign energy means choosing expensive energy. Expensive energy means other sectors of our economy cannot be competitive.
Your defensive, repetitive and spluttering reaction shows its hit the mark, and you're nervous about it.
Ok, you got me.
I am so terrified of Dan's BRILLIANT analogy I deliberately drew attention to it so nobody else would be aware of it and change their vote, swayed by the crushing logic of his argument.
Oh, wait...
I think it will have a lot of cut through to "ordinary" football fans, who will get it unlike you, and that's precisely why you're so defensive about it.
EU or no EU we need a build British buy British campaign. French police drive French cars. Their trains are French trains. It's absurd that we are happy to watch domestic producers die to save pennies in the short term. And it's the same with farming - we import food we can grow ourselves because it's slightly cheaper on a spot price when contracts are signed.
Other EU nations haven't done this. Why have we? In France there was a national scandal when Eurostar bought Siemens trains instead of Alstom. Here we seem giddy that Hitachi has opened a warehouse to screw together imported train components for a few years before shutting the place citing lack of orders.
The problem with 'Buy British' campaigns is that it is increasingly unclear where something is made. The days of companies like Butterley (yes, them again), are limited. They managed the entire process: up until 1948 they owned coal mines, iron ore extraction, steel making and fabrication.
Nowadays where something is made can be difficult. Take the case you mentioned: the new Hitachi trains being 'made' in the new factory at (sp?)Ayton Newcliffe. For the first batch of trains, the bodyshells are coming in from Japan. The diesel engines for the bi-mode trains are from MTU of Germany. The pantographs are from the brilliant British company Brecknell Willis.
Are they British-made trains? And will they be when they finally start making bodyshells?
But you are being unfair on Hitachi: they have moved their global rail business from Japan to the UK. That is a real sign of confidence in us.
As I've said before on here, a chip designed for a British firm was manufactured in China, packaged in Austria, sent to America for testing, and then to Britain for sale. Yet the most valuable part - the IP - is British. If you buy the chip from them, not a single part was made in Britain. But where was it made?
Yadda.
Do you think it's different for France and Germany ?
Yet they still keep their major industries going.
No, I don't think it's different for them. In fact, the same applies to them, albeit to a lesser extent in some industries.
But I fear my point has merrily gone 'whoosh!' over your head. Please let me know if you catch up with it.
Essentially the levelling out of support across social groups in recent years was reversed, and the Tories did much better than in 2010 among AB voters (net Con minus Lab + 6) and the elderly (+11), the two hgihest-turnout groups, while Labour made big progress among DE voters (Lab-Con +11) and the young (+15). I don't remember ever seeing before such marked shifts in opposite directions in different social groups. Young women in particular had an enormous shift to Labour - plus 16 to the Tory -6 - perhaps the Milifan syndrome was stronger than we thought!
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
"In fact if we compare General Election turnout between constituencies, we find that turnout is not higher in more Eurosceptic areas – in fact it is slightly lower".
I really don't understand how this is relevant to the certainty to vote in the referendum. There is no comparator and if Leave supporters are more strongly motivated, and there seems some evidence for that, then they are more likely to vote in this referendum than they were in the general.
The motivation factors are on a different level but Sindy was an example of this. Poor run down areas, where turnout is traditionally very poor had much higher turnout than had ever been seen before. Many of these people were not even on the electoral register until shortly before Sindy, they were consistent non voters, and yet they turned out.
All of this makes the job of the Pollsters very difficult because there are no effective comparators but the idea that if we have 60% turnout for Brexit it will necessarily be the same dutiful ABs who bother to turn up in general and local elections seems to me to be a very uncertain base from which to work. A different approach, unfortunately subjective and relying on self assessment, would be to ask who cares enough to vote in the referendum. It might give a different answer.
Sindyref turnout was the highest in a very long time, but the lowest turnout areas were in Glsgow and Dundee, the only areas that broke for Yes. It looks to me that a rising tide floats all boats.
The people who turnout to vote are generally those people who always do.
But the people who always turn out and vote formed a much smaller percentage of those who voted than they usually do because there were many traditional non voters who were particularly motivated by that vote. I think that is what we will see here as well but how you measure an effect like that I have no idea.
If that were the case then we would have expected the highest turnout areas to be for Yes, but infact the opposite was true.
There was an incredibly weak, basically nonexistant, correlation between turnout and Yes vote.
Saying “I support the EU because I like Europe” is rather like saying “I support FIFA because I like football”.
It's a really, really, really bad analogy.
Would football be better without FIFA?
Would FIFA be better is we left it?
It's a great analogy.
Your defensive, repetitive and spluttering reaction shows its hit the mark, and you're nervous about it.
It really isn't.
U.K. Football clubs couldn't sign anyone from anyone from other FIFA member countries for starters.
As all international transfers are done via FIFA.
You are wilfully missing the point: having a passion for football does not imply support for the organisation of FIFA; a love for Europe does not imply support for the EU.
You could quite reasonably have a case to make to quit, reform, or operate outside the existing structures to indulge and even progress that passion without them, so to draw the two as coterminous is bogus.
Loving a sport does imply wanting it to have a single, global governing body because that it is clearly in the best interests of players and fans. No-one wants a sport they like to go the same way as boxing.
By contrast no-one (least of all Dan Hannan) sees an EU-like institution as a necessity that would have to be recreated if it went away.
The US State Department and the Pentagon has ordered the families of US diplomats and military personnel to leave posts in southern Turkey over "increased threats from terrorist groups".
The two agencies said on Tuesday that dependents of US staffers at the US consulate in Adana, the Incirlik airbase and two other locations must leave.
I'm chairing a campaign forum meeting tomorrow night and the key message is that there is a long long time to go before the referendum. The people who have already made their minds up won't change. The people who haven't made their minds up will probably do so in the closing weeks. Which leaves 10 weeks or so of shadow boxing.
I remain able to make a good case for both leave and remain and able to demolish arguments being made for both leave or remain - neither camp is convincing. Ultimately it's a complex issue and punters don't do complex. Whoever can distill this down into a simple message and communicate it effectively will win by persuading the undecided to (a) back their side and (b) go and vote.
I think the Leave camp's simple message is probably self-determination - you can't control your borders and set your laws and stay in the EU. For remain they're trying various "jobs" and "security" arguments which are nullified by leave making the same case in reverse. I've argued for "project terror" instead of project fear and think it could work - foreign investment and foreign manufacturing will all leave so that's your kids future knackered. But I wouldn't deploy that until the final fortnight. Otherwise I struggle with how Remain funds a simple cut through persuasive message. Which is why in my opinion Leave are winning this.
Enjoy the meeting; sounds challenging.
As you say the greatest challenge is that punters don't do complex. There is one school of thought (I ascribe to it 49%) that says this doesn't matter because they will decide what they decide regardless of whether it is deemed optimal by one side or the other.
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
Both have issues as tag lines though.
Remain can point out that even after leaving, Britain cannot sit in splendid isolation and will be affected by decisions taken elsewhere. There is no such thing as complete freedom from interference.
Leave can point out that we have had over 40 years to try and shape our future in Europe and this has proved a spectacular failure.
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
Fraser Nelson Why is Gus O’Donnell misrepresenting EU rules? Britain needs to give 2yrs notice of leaving - can be given any time. Timing in our hands.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
Not if we follow the EFTA route.
*If*.
I think that is beyond question personally. It is certainly vastly more likely than the claims of worse deals you are propagating.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
The fact you 'accept' that Leave EU/GO don't want it to rest there proves my point. Voters are being told many different things, which are often mutually exclusive.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
Indeed isn't the high cost of energy in the UK (driven partly by global warming fears) part of the reason that Port Talbot is threatened over other Tata plants?
On topic, the fatal flaw in Mike's piece is the claim that turnout for a GE can be correlated with likely turnout for the EU referendum. There are plenty of people who might see no point in voting for the local town council at Westminster for as long as the important decisions are being made in Brussels.
Not a view I share but one I have seen repeated a great deal over the last few years.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
The fact you 'accept' that Leave EU/GO don't want it to rest there proves my point. Voters are being told many different things, which are often mutually exclusive.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
Nor is there any clarity about what Voting Remain means. Probably the only thing anyone can claim with any certainty is that the one thing we won't get is the current arrangement. Once we have voted to remain we will be signing up for further integration. You may not think that is what you are voting for but you can be damn sure the EU does and they will act accordingly.
As for pithy one-liners (the next PB competition?), how about:
Leave: The right to manage our country, our laws, and our economy without interference. Remain: Create and shape our future in a strong Europe engaging with the world.
I think that sums up the problem for Remain.
Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so.
Under Remain, we have no choice, even if we don't want to do something or don't agree or don't think it is the right priority
"Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we can do so."
The problem with that is that if the co-operation with Europe and the world is not in their interest, they have no reason to do so. Leavers act as though we will have the say on everything.
it should be: "Leave's philosophy is that where co-operation with Europe and with the world is in the UK's interests we may be able to do so, if it is in their interests as well."
we could easily end up with worse deals than we have at the moment.
Not if we follow the EFTA route.
*If*.
I think that is beyond question personally. It is certainly vastly more likely than the claims of worse deals you are propagating.
EFTA is not Boris's preference though. It's far from inevitable when even the Conservative Cabinet members campaigning for Leave don't agree on it.
1. Hitachi have NOT set up their global or even EU base at Newton Aycliffe. No trains for export will ever be built there - they'll be built at the Ansaldo factory they bought in Italy which has a continental gauge connection to EU railways that Aycliffe does not. Ironically local MPs cheered the announcement from Great Western that they were bung from Hitachi - I had to point out these trains would be built in Italy 2. Buy British is simple. Start with food. Aldi are making a great play for domestic fresh produce. Move onto cars and give public vehicle contracts to something built here - parts may be imported now but expand operations and they won't be. Then we need to bring back tech companies - it's not like Dyson needs 3rd world wages as his products are premium priced anyway. 3. Are we so stupid as a nation that we think being reliant on foreign energy and steel is preferable to having domestic capacity? Imports may be a fraction cheaper in the short term but what about the medium and long term? What about national security and the infrastructure that requires - do UK governments nit have a duty to put our interests in 2050 ahead of their mates making a one off profit now?
2) That's far from simple. RCS was arguing the opposite the other week when it came to Apple bringing production back to America, stating that too many parts are produced close to each other in China.
3) That comes to the questions I asked in my post below.
Saying “I support the EU because I like Europe” is rather like saying “I support FIFA because I like football”.
It's a really, really, really bad analogy.
Would football be better without FIFA?
Would FIFA be better is we left it?
It's a great analogy.
Your defensive, repetitive and spluttering reaction shows its hit the mark, and you're nervous about it.
It really isn't.
U.K. Football clubs couldn't sign anyone from anyone from other FIFA member countries for starters.
As all international transfers are done via FIFA.
You are wilfully missing the point: having a passion for football does not imply support for the organisation of FIFA; a love for Europe does not imply support for the EU.
You could quite reasonably have a case to make to quit, reform, or operate outside the existing structures to indulge and even progress that passion without them, so to draw the two as coterminous is bogus.
Loving a sport does imply wanting it to have a single, global governing body because that it is clearly in the best interests of players and fans. No-one wants a sport they like to go the same way as boxing.
By contrast no-one (least of all Dan Hannan) sees an EU-like institution as a necessity that would have to be recreated if it went away.
Anyway, it has provoked some discussion.
Here's what most football fans will think: "I love football, but I hate FIFA, so I see how it can be perfectly fine to, likewise, hate the EU but love Europe."
It will end there.
On FIFA you might well want a very different governing body, with a light set of rules, or if that's not possible set up your own international football tournament operating outside its structures on a different set of rules and standards but preserving the essential heritage of the game too.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
Indeed isn't the high cost of energy in the UK (driven partly by global warming fears) part of the reason that Port Talbot is threatened over other Tata plants?
That is what Tata and the media keep parroting but it is a strange excuse. Port Talbot produces steel in blast furnaces, hence is mostly powered by coking coal rather than electricity. Coal is very cheap at the moment.
The video doesn't seem to show anything much at all.
The Leftists are making a huge fuss and looking uglier every time. No wonder Trump's supporters are getting louder.
presumably they just want to show physical contact between the parties. They presumably also have evidence of the bruises.
the alleged victim is hardly a leftist though.
And while Trump's supporters get louder they will look more misogynist
The reporter, Fields, originally claimed to have been thrown to the ground. She's destroyed her reputation as a credible journalist
really? that does sound like a problem for her case then! "Trump supporters shouting at woman" still not a good look. Maybe that's the motive?
I think the case against Lewandowski will be dismissed - here's the reasoning.
At 00:04 Fields can be seen extremely close to Donald Trump, even touching him I think (Trump states that she put her arm on him).
This gives Lewandowski the defence that he was protecting Mr Trump
"Non-Deadly Force in Defense of Others
Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using non deadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend another person (a third person) against the aggressor’s imminent use of unlawful force against that other person (third person). There is no duty to retreat."
It can be argued the action was proportionate (He pulled her away from Mr Trump after she placed her hand on Mr Trump).
That'll be the law I think, the politics/optics are another matter entirely.
Felicity Morse This guy was on #EgyptAir flight when passengers thought they were on hijacked plane. What those passengers did next https://t.co/C1QHGJqPWp
On topic, the fatal flaw in Mike's piece is the claim that turnout for a GE can be correlated with likely turnout for the EU referendum. There are plenty of people who might see no point in voting for the local town council at Westminster for as long as the important decisions are being made in Brussels.
Not a view I share but one I have seen repeated a great deal over the last few years.
I doubt there's any truth to that and even if there were, these are probably the same people who thing the important decisions are being made at secret Bilderberg meetings behind closed doors, i.e. conspiraloons, and not statistically significant.
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
The fact you 'accept' that Leave EU/GO don't want it to rest there proves my point. Voters are being told many different things, which are often mutually exclusive.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
Nor is there any clarity about what Voting Remain means. Probably the only thing anyone can claim with any certainty is that the one thing we won't get is the current arrangement. Once we have voted to remain we will be signing up for further integration. You may not think that is what you are voting for but you can be damn sure the EU does and they will act accordingly.
The result of the referendum will mean whatever Mr Cameron wants it to mean. He will decide it.
But nobody knows what Mr Cameron really wants. Because he refuses to tell us.
Emerging market portfolios have underperfomed the US/UK in the last decade (Well ccording to my pension statements anyway) , so perhaps there is some equilibrium to be restored here...
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
The fact you 'accept' that Leave EU/GO don't want it to rest there proves my point. Voters are being told many different things, which are often mutually exclusive.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
Project Fear in full swing this morning, methinks the govt, who will have more data and info than anybody, are worried. It's noticeable however that the name calling on here from certain Remainers has waned.
Amongst the public I never hear the EU discussed after from by committed Leavers, which is very rare.
Low turnout, narrow Leave win, only those that care will be bothered to vote and there's not enough Remainers who'll miss the European football to vote.
Sounds like an echo of Sindy ref. Apparently No had No supporters at all if you believed the frothers.
I hear supporters of Remain talking fairly often, at work, at social gatherings, even down the pub watching the footy.
Jacks ARSE was pretty close to the pb NOJAM consensus. I would be more confident of the former than the latter in terms of past prediction. Probing the internals of Jacks ARSE is not for the fainthearted, but it does seem quite weighted by demographic breakdown.
The game's up mate, no football fans ever use the word "footy". And if you're discussing the EU referendum whilst watching the football I imagine you have plenty of space to yourself.
Yeah. Leicester City are noted for empty stadiums and quiet crowds, especially this season!
You have to get to the pub early if trying to watch away games, difficult to get a view otherwise. People talk about many things while waiting for the games.
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings--
There's no reason why "protectionists and nationalisers" shouldn't support Leave. Beyond supporting the UK's withdrawal from the EU, there's no reason why Leave supporters should agree on anything else. I'm starting to see the heterogeneous nature of Leave as a strength, not a weakness.
That's the whole point of Leave: it opens up a plethora of national policy options, right across the political divide, and that's its greatest strength.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
We don't 'know' that. We may believe it's the case, or want to believe it, but there's no guarantee. Also, why would they want us, or give us a good deal, if it's 'medium'-term' and we're going to p*ss off soon?
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting. The government's secret contingency plan will be precisely for that.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
The fact you 'accept' that Leave EU/GO don't want it to rest there proves my point. Voters are being told many different things, which are often mutually exclusive.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
Nor is there any clarity about what Voting Remain means. Probably the only thing anyone can claim with any certainty is that the one thing we won't get is the current arrangement. Once we have voted to remain we will be signing up for further integration. You may not think that is what you are voting for but you can be damn sure the EU does and they will act accordingly.
The result of the referendum will mean whatever Mr Cameron wants it to mean. He will decide it.
But nobody knows what Mr Cameron really wants. Because he refuses to tell us.
What do you think Cameron really wants? Leave no conspiracy theory stone unturned. I am genuinely interested in what the concern is about what he wants vs what he transparently achieved articulated in the negotiated text.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
Indeed isn't the high cost of energy in the UK (driven partly by global warming fears) part of the reason that Port Talbot is threatened over other Tata plants?
People such as Leanne Wood would have us pay once for expensive green energy and twice for the jobs devastation it causes in energy intensive industries.
"In fact if we compare General Election turnout between constituencies, we find that turnout is not higher in more Eurosceptic areas – in fact it is slightly lower".
I really don't understand how this is relevant to the certainty to vote in the referendum. There is no comparator and if Leave supporters are more strongly motivated, and there seems some evidence for that, then they are more likely to vote in this referendum than they were in the general.
The motivation factors are on a different level but Sindy was an example of this. Poor run down areas, where turnout is traditionally very poor had much higher turnout than had ever been seen before. Many of these people were not even on the electoral register until shortly before Sindy, they were consistent non voters, and yet they turned out.
All of this makes the job of the Pollsters very difficult because there are no effective comparators but the idea that if we have 60% turnout for Brexit it will necessarily be the same dutiful ABs who bother to turn up in general and local elections seems to me to be a very uncertain base from which to work. A different approach, unfortunately subjective and relying on self assessment, would be to ask who cares enough to vote in the referendum. It might give a different answer.
Sindyref turnout was the highest in a very long time, but the lowest turnout areas were in Glsgow and Dundee, the only areas that broke for Yes.
Four 'regions' (I assume you mean council areas) broke for Yes. N. Lanarkshire had a higher turnout than Orkney, Edinburgh & Aberdeen, W. Dunbartonshire had the 7th highest turnout of all councils.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
Nor is there any clarity about what Voting Remain means. Probably the only thing anyone can claim with any certainty is that the one thing we won't get is the current arrangement. Once we have voted to remain we will be signing up for further integration. You may not think that is what you are voting for but you can be damn sure the EU does and they will act accordingly.
Remain, for the short to medium term, will be Cameron's renegotiation. Whatever you think of that. There will be enough going on in the EU for the next few years anyway to keep them busy without heavy alterations. What concerns me is the long term, which is why my position is as it is.
But any uncertainties over remain are nothing compared to the gaping chasm in leave.
(It should be remembered that the EU will not want other countries to leave, or use leaving as a ploy to get a better deal. That will be a major factor in what happens next.)
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Project Fear in full swing this morning, methinks the govt, who will have more data and info than anybody, are worried. It's noticeable however that the name calling on here from certain Remainers has waned.
Amongst the public I never hear the EU discussed after from by committed Leavers, which is very rare.
Low turnout, narrow Leave win, only those that care will be bothered to vote and there's not enough Remainers who'll miss the European football to vote.
Sounds like an echo of Sindy ref. Apparently No had No supporters at all if you believed the frothers.
I hear supporters of Remain talking fairly often, at work, at social gatherings, even down the pub watching the footy.
Jacks ARSE was pretty close to the pb NOJAM consensus. I would be more confident of the former than the latter in terms of past prediction. Probing the internals of Jacks ARSE is not for the fainthearted, but it does seem quite weighted by demographic breakdown.
The game's up mate, no football fans ever use the word "footy". And if you're discussing the EU referendum whilst watching the football I imagine you have plenty of space to yourself.
Yeah. Leicester City are noted for empty stadiums and quiet crowds, especially this season!
You have to get to the pub early if trying to watch away games, difficult to get a view otherwise. People talk about many things while waiting for the games.
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings--
Whereas in Barnsley pubs I gather the chat is mainly about Latin idioms.
There is in Yorkshire the legendary story of Gilbert Gray QC who was representing a working man from the town before a judge of particular pomposity who, at one point snootily interjected: "I take it Mr Gray your client is familiar with the maxim: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Indeed my Lord," responded the QC drily. "In Barnsley they talk of little else."
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Please don't do this, JJ has made clear many times he doesn't like the direction that the EU is heading in terms of integration, a valid reason to vote for Leave. It is absolutely fair to have criticisms of the campaign and on what Leave means. I think if we had a proper position and not Boris' possibly Canada, possibly something else it would be helpful.
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Indeed if war breaks out we nationalise the network and now we own it.
No, there's no lie. It's the outcome that Vote Leave are targeting.
Really?
So why do they say this:
"Sixth, we will have a sensible regime for the movement of people that allows us to replace the awful immigration policy we have now - a combination of an open door for low skilled labour and convicted criminals from the EU while simultaneously stopping highly skilled people from outside the EU coming to the UK to contribute."
Either they are deliberately lying, or they don't support the EEA option, or indeed any other option which includes signing up to the free movement principle.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Indeed if war breaks out we nationalise the network and now we own it.
Well right, this is my point. In fact the leverage works in the opposite direction, because ownership of British assets is a promise by the British government to pay future revenue to the Chinese, which the British are at liberty to honour or not.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Because it will change our policy towards them if they own loads of our industry and power generation. We already don't take them to task on human rights abuses and territorial skirmishes with neighbouring countries, it will get worse if we let them into our liberalised markets with no dissenting voices allowed.
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Yes you do so that is what will happen if we Leave. We vote Leave we leave the EU, case closed. We almost certainly join the EFTA in its place as that is what the incumbent government would negotiate (what the Leave campaigners argue is redundant).
Afterwards we have General Elections and if a party puts leaving the EFTA in its manifesto and wins the election then we leave the EFTA too.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Indeed if war breaks out we nationalise the network and now we own it.
Well right, this is my point. In fact the leverage works in the opposite direction, because ownership of British assets is a promise by the British government to pay future revenue to the Chinese, which the British are at liberty to honour or not.
I understood that was your point hence my agreement in the form of "Indeed ..."
Seventh, we will be able to spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and education.
A saving of £18bn a year!!!
Yet the Leave side have the nerve to accuse the government of being dishonest.
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
Different opposition parties often believe in different things, which are mutually exclusive. That is what democracy is for.
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
You vote for MPs who generally belong to a party, and if that party forms a government the manifesto policies should be implemented. The policies of parties that do not form government are fairly unimportant.
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
Yes you do so that is what will happen if we Leave. We vote Leave we leave the EU, case closed. We almost certainly join the EFTA in its place as that is what the incumbent government would negotiate (what the Leave campaigners argue is redundant).
Afterwards we have General Elections and if a party puts leaving the EFTA in its manifesto and wins the election then we leave the EFTA too.
Yes, it's quite simple really. EU exit opens the door to a menu of options which can be decided on by democratic votes (shock, horror!). Staying in means no options and our domestic policies being decided largely, and increasingly, abroad.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Because it will change our policy towards them if they own loads of our industry and power generation. We already don't take them to task on human rights abuses and territorial skirmishes with neighbouring countries, it will get worse if we let them into our liberalised markets with no dissenting voices allowed.
I think our view should be some way between the Chinese timescale ("...too early to tell....") and our own.
Since 1978 progress in China has been hugely encouraging. My analogy is that China is like a huge giant moving along a narrow corridor. The direction of travel is right, but there will be bumps along the way.
This is not to minimise ongoing human rights abuses but we are a long way from where we were and I don't see inward investment by the PRC in our country as doing anything other than continuing the beneficial process.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
Indeed isn't the high cost of energy in the UK (driven partly by global warming fears) part of the reason that Port Talbot is threatened over other Tata plants?
That is what Tata and the media keep parroting but it is a strange excuse. Port Talbot produces steel in blast furnaces, hence is mostly powered by coking coal rather than electricity. Coal is very cheap at the moment.
Yep coal may be cheap but coal isn't coking coal. That coking process is both time and energy intensive.
and it's the closure of the coking works that kills these factories. Once shut down as things cool the ovens collapse stopping the factory from ever reopening. It's the collapse of the coke works in Redcar that has made things permanent there nothing else.
"Another feature identified in the report is that those who respond to phone polls are more likely to give socially liberal responses than those online."
What does it tell us about the character of people who are so ashamed of their right wing views that they won't even confide in an anonymous telephone pollster?
Well right, this is my point. In fact the leverage works in the opposite direction, because ownership of British assets is a promise by the British government to pay future revenue to the Chinese, which the British are at liberty to honour or not.
Chance of a future British Gov't not honouring the payments ?
Practically zero - and it would cause all sorts of knock on credit effects if we did.
Because it will change our policy towards them if they own loads of our industry and power generation. We already don't take them to task on human rights abuses and territorial skirmishes with neighbouring countries, it will get worse if we let them into our liberalised markets with no dissenting voices allowed.
Chance of this type of influence extending ?
Practically 100%.
Hinkley point is an absolubte stinker anyway as @rcs1000 has pointed out.
Fraser Nelson Why is Gus O’Donnell misrepresenting EU rules? Britain needs to give 2yrs notice of leaving - can be given any time. Timing in our hands.
Hasn't Cameron said that he will immediately give notice of our intention to leave following a Leave vote?
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Because it will change our policy towards them if they own loads of our industry and power generation. We already don't take them to task on human rights abuses and territorial skirmishes with neighbouring countries, it will get worse if we let them into our liberalised markets with no dissenting voices allowed.
The same is true if Britain exports stuff to China. (Actually more so, for the reasons given by me and Philip_Thompson upthread.) Are you against exporting to China as well?
Seventh, we will be able to spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and education.
A saving of £18bn a year!!!
Yet the Leave side have the nerve to accuse the government of being dishonest.
Well the gross payment from HMG to the EU will be about that, the EU will then give the government a rebate worth 10% and fund around £7bn worth of CAP subsidies and development projects in the UK. It's technically correct, but I agree it shouldn't be characterised as £18bn. The £9-11bn figure is fair game though. Even if we join EFTA there is a £6-7bn saving in it.
Yes, it's quite simple really. EU exit opens the door to a menu of options which can be decided on by democratic votes (shock, horror!). Staying in means no options and our domestic policies being decided largely, and increasingly, abroad.
Except that you propose that we should immediately close off most of those options by applying to join the EEA agreement, resulting in many domestic policies still be decided abroad, and with us have no vote in them.
Mr. 1000, still choices to make within that. Gas (as someone, perhaps yourself, pointed out) would be far more cost-effective than the Hinkley shambles.
That's what the free market's for.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
There isn't a free market in energy. Competing our unsubsidised domestic energy against subsidised ti be cheaper foreign energy isn't a free market - it's a rigged market.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
And yet George seems happy for the Chinese state to own part of our power generation network (Hinkley) despite their hostile nature and unaligned global outlook.
I can follow the national security argument for actually having the physical factory in your country (although it's pretty obvious that it's bullshit covering for protectionism) but what's the argument for needing to _own_ that stuff? It's not like the Chinese get to tow the power station home if war breaks out.
Because it will change our policy towards them if they own loads of our industry and power generation. We already don't take them to task on human rights abuses and territorial skirmishes with neighbouring countries, it will get worse if we let them into our liberalised markets with no dissenting voices allowed.
The negotiations for this fantastic post-Brexit trade deal with China that Leave is promising us should be fun.
Comments
Which is why he is threatening to do so.
Ridiculous analogy.
Is North Korea a member of FIFA?
I don't think Hannan thinks of the EU as something so obviously necessary that it would have to be recreated if it disappeared.
The challenge Leave have is to square the circle with the short-term exit strategy and reassure on it. Because we know Remain are going to go in very, very hard on that and, if Leave still don't have a credible answer* by June, then that is going to be a problem.
(*of course, we all know it'd be EEA-EFTA in the medium-term)
The EU doesn't involve collaboration: at the end of the day QMV is majority voting. That might work for continental European countries that have a broadly similar political, philsophical and legal history. But our interests are fundamentally different on too many occasions - and we (plus the Scandis and the Baltics) are too often in a minority.
The balance of interests doesn't favour us, and the wins we get aren't sufficient to outweigh the losses
I am so terrified of Dan's BRILLIANT analogy I deliberately drew attention to it so nobody else would be aware of it and change their vote, swayed by the crushing logic of his argument.
Oh, wait...
Revealed: voters' turnout prediction for #EUref, & other things https://t.co/2fM91atvSo My blog for @electoralreform on @BMGResearch polling
Most people won't pay real attention until the final few weeks.
The most interesting thing for me in this campaign (from the point of view of a future social history of our national character) is whether or not the average voter will be able to stand up to all this battering and see through this charade for what it is.
In the past we have not been easily frightened or intimidated from doing what we believe to be right.
It's hardly a good negotiating position: "Let us in, but we're leaving soon."
Just another part of leave's big lie.
(And for the feeble of mind, I remind people that I'm probably going to vote leave for the reasons I've given before. But that shouldn't stop me being able to criticise leave. Or remain. Or the EU.).
U.K. Football clubs couldn't sign anyone from anyone from other FIFA member countries for starters.
As all international transfers are done via FIFA.
The difficulty is that Remain is strongest with AB (high voting) and the young (low voting), and Leave is strongest with C1 (low voting) and the elderly (high voting). As Charles suggests, to get a clear picture you need representative samples in each of the 4 mixtures.
You could quite reasonably have a case to make to quit, reform, or operate outside the existing structures to indulge and even progress that passion without them, so to draw the two as coterminous is bogus.
Just how good are they? Used to run a pregnancy testing service , and the caveat was always that the testee was “probably” pregnant. Think there was less than a 5% chance of being wrong, although medications and being too early could affect the results.
1. Hitachi have NOT set up their global or even EU base at Newton Aycliffe. No trains for export will ever be built there - they'll be built at the Ansaldo factory they bought in Italy which has a continental gauge connection to EU railways that Aycliffe does not. Ironically local MPs cheered the announcement from Great Western that they were bung from Hitachi - I had to point out these trains would be built in Italy
2. Buy British is simple. Start with food. Aldi are making a great play for domestic fresh produce. Move onto cars and give public vehicle contracts to something built here - parts may be imported now but expand operations and they won't be. Then we need to bring back tech companies - it's not like Dyson needs 3rd world wages as his products are premium priced anyway.
3. Are we so stupid as a nation that we think being reliant on foreign energy and steel is preferable to having domestic capacity? Imports may be a fraction cheaper in the short term but what about the medium and long term? What about national security and the infrastructure that requires - do UK governments nit have a duty to put our interests in 2050 ahead of their mates making a one off profit now?
If we vote leave this year there is still nearly 4 years to go before the next General Election. No government could seek reelection having failed to get a deal in place while claiming to represent "competence versus chaos".
Conversely having leave winning the referendum in 2016 but still not left by 2020 would cause the Tory party to be torn apart.
So realpolitik ensures a decision must not just be made but smoothly put in place reasonably far enough ahead of the general election to allow the government to then move on and set itself up for reelection.
As are the rehabilitation services offered.
We are already members of the EEA and it just involves joining EFTA.
I accept that Leave EU/GO don't want matters to rest there but even Farage has said the EEA is the holding position. A future vote or GE would deal with that.
You doth protest too much.
But I fear my point has merrily gone 'whoosh!' over your head. Please let me know if you catch up with it.
https://ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide
Essentially the levelling out of support across social groups in recent years was reversed, and the Tories did much better than in 2010 among AB voters (net Con minus Lab + 6) and the elderly (+11), the two hgihest-turnout groups, while Labour made big progress among DE voters (Lab-Con +11) and the young (+15). I don't remember ever seeing before such marked shifts in opposite directions in different social groups. Young women in particular had an enormous shift to Labour - plus 16 to the Tory -6 - perhaps the Milifan syndrome was stronger than we thought!
By contrast no-one (least of all Dan Hannan) sees an EU-like institution as a necessity that would have to be recreated if it went away.
Anyway, it has provoked some discussion.
Worse, if we don't go for EFTA/EEA then a bunch of people will cry foul. ( And vice-versa.)
We need a second question on the referendum itself.
Remain can point out that even after leaving, Britain cannot sit in splendid isolation and will be affected by decisions taken elsewhere. There is no such thing as complete freedom from interference.
Leave can point out that we have had over 40 years to try and shape our future in Europe and this has proved a spectacular failure.
Both claims are too easily shot down.
Why is Gus O’Donnell misrepresenting EU rules? Britain needs to give 2yrs notice of leaving - can be given any time. Timing in our hands.
There is no free lunch. Energy independence destroys a who bunch of other industries.
I'd feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing in voting leave if there was any clarity as to what it meant. There isn't. And this worries me.
It's been at least 18 years since emerging markets had it this good https://t.co/KuxvshXyxX https://t.co/b9vJb7p2e5
Not a view I share but one I have seen repeated a great deal over the last few years.
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/hitachi-move-rail-business-uk-6853960
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455
2) That's far from simple. RCS was arguing the opposite the other week when it came to Apple bringing production back to America, stating that too many parts are produced close to each other in China.
3) That comes to the questions I asked in my post below.
Edit for misremembering who said what.
It will end there.
On FIFA you might well want a very different governing body, with a light set of rules, or if that's not possible set up your own international football tournament operating outside its structures on a different set of rules and standards but preserving the essential heritage of the game too.
If you love football, that would be ok too.
But let's take your rationale on a few years. We shut all our steelworks now. We let north seat oil and gas shut down now. Because it's temporarily cheaper now. What happens to prices in a free market when there is no competition? What price will "cheaper" become when there is no alternative on offer?
And here's the rather basic point. What coat do you attribute to national security. Control of energy and basic industry is national security - wars have been fought for control of them
At 00:04 Fields can be seen extremely close to Donald Trump, even touching him I think (Trump states that she put her arm on him).
This gives Lewandowski the defence that he was protecting Mr Trump
"Non-Deadly Force in Defense of Others
Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using non deadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend another person (a third person) against the aggressor’s imminent use of unlawful force against that other person (third person). There is no duty to retreat."
It can be argued the action was proportionate (He pulled her away from Mr Trump after she placed her hand on Mr Trump).
That'll be the law I think, the politics/optics are another matter entirely.
This guy was on #EgyptAir flight when passengers thought they were on hijacked plane. What those passengers did next https://t.co/C1QHGJqPWp
But nobody knows what Mr Cameron really wants. Because he refuses to tell us.
Telegraph
Black woman attacks dreadlocked white man over 'cultural appropriation' https://t.co/NPMxdQGOvH https://t.co/GD7efSOkvU
The immediate clarity is that leaving the EU will mean joining the EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Depending upon the results of future general elections the future could change - but that's always been the case.
Go for it.
But any uncertainties over remain are nothing compared to the gaping chasm in leave.
(It should be remembered that the EU will not want other countries to leave, or use leaving as a ploy to get a better deal. That will be a major factor in what happens next.)
Your point is best for PR systems, where you cannot be sure what the policies of the resultant coalition will be (or in 2010 under FPTP).
As for your last paragraph: there is no clarity over EFTA membership and the EEA. None. Some leavers don't even want that. This is what pro-leavers should have been doing for the last two decades.
I'm baffled.
There is in Yorkshire the legendary story of Gilbert Gray QC who was representing a working man from the town before a judge of particular pomposity who, at one point snootily interjected: "I take it Mr Gray your client is familiar with the maxim: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Indeed my Lord," responded the QC drily. "In Barnsley they talk of little else."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/7035609/A-whopping-95-per-cent-of-people-cant-achieve-a-perfect-score-in-this-basic-memory-test-how-do-you-fare.html
So why do they say this:
"Sixth, we will have a sensible regime for the movement of people that allows us to replace the awful immigration policy we have now - a combination of an open door for low skilled labour and convicted criminals from the EU while simultaneously stopping highly skilled people from outside the EU coming to the UK to contribute."
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal
Either they are deliberately lying, or they don't support the EEA option, or indeed any other option which includes signing up to the free movement principle.
Afterwards we have General Elections and if a party puts leaving the EFTA in its manifesto and wins the election then we leave the EFTA too.
Seventh, we will be able to spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and education.
A saving of £18bn a year!!!
Yet the Leave side have the nerve to accuse the government of being dishonest.
But, wasn't this "yesterday" in 2001? Doesn't, however, make it any less of a stinker ...
EU tariff on Chinese steel 24%
USA tariff on Chinese steel 266%
Since 1978 progress in China has been hugely encouraging. My analogy is that China is like a huge giant moving along a narrow corridor. The direction of travel is right, but there will be bumps along the way.
This is not to minimise ongoing human rights abuses but we are a long way from where we were and I don't see inward investment by the PRC in our country as doing anything other than continuing the beneficial process.
(off topic as this is...)
and it's the closure of the coking works that kills these factories. Once shut down as things cool the ovens collapse stopping the factory from ever reopening. It's the collapse of the coke works in Redcar that has made things permanent there nothing else.
I am the 5%
What does it tell us about the character of people who are so ashamed of their right wing views that they won't even confide in an anonymous telephone pollster?
Practically zero - and it would cause all sorts of knock on credit effects if we did. Chance of this type of influence extending ?
Practically 100%.
Hinkley point is an absolubte stinker anyway as @rcs1000 has pointed out.
Govt say need months - not weeks - to find buyer for steel plants. Took more than a year to find buyer for Scunthorpe steel plant