I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
The comments are still there when you leave work, and if you read on the Vanilla site it even remembers how far you got.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.
A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.
The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.
This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.
Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.
The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.
Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
That would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that it's the leadership causing the split in the party.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
I feel for your impending deprivation ....
Exclusive Just4EU .... change is in the air ....
Tuesdays ARSE4EU was a 62% turnout and Remain on 55% as I recall.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.
A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.
The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.
This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.
Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.
The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.
Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
Except for the minor detail that as with the Euro they are going to be proved right, because the EU is heading in a different direction, we will be out within a decade anyway.
Fear works, as Roger points out. And it is working. But 'Leave', if it had the intelligence, would be using negative campaigning with much more credibility than the Remain side. If only it would use the evidence that the EU itself supplies, it would have a chance.
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
We also have the pronouncements of the Commission itself on issues like foreign security and defence policy, where it sees itself as the government of Europe and wants control of the resources of the nation states (military infrastructure and personnel).
We have the evidence of the judicial activism of the ECJ that is promoting the Federalist agenda, by over interpretation of the Treaties and other boundary pushing.
At the same time we have the positive message of EFTA, (and the EEA agreement that creates the single market as an interim phase). We know that joining EFTA rids us of most of the political structures of the EU, including CAP/CFP/ECJ/Security/Foreign Policy/Justice and home affairs/ Customs union/ ever closer union.
It can be achieved with no economic shock, full access to the single market, in two years, we are already in the EEA, and EFTA nations are making positive noises. It is largely risk free. For the current Remains, it reassures that no rights will change, Freedom of Movement will still be in place for a number of years and will only be modified gradually as we move past the EEA stage of Brexit.
Yet the main leave campaigns won't use it because it will mean that Immigration will not fall by about 50,000 a year (over the short term). And that's what I'm told the projection is if we were to remove freedom of movement by leaving the EEA. That's the whole reason that Leave is throwing this campaign away. 50,000.
So the minimum wage is jacked up by several times the inflation rate, the government is still spending millions more every hour than it raises in taxes, and clamour grows for nationalisation of an industry losing money hand over fist
Have I been in a coma and woken up to a Corbyn government?!
No, but when cabinet ministers resign saying the government's core message on austerity is a load of cobblers, and a large number of Tories presumably agree, there's no appetite to control spending beyond that already achieved.
Which tells you want some commentators have said for a while. The Liberals didn't lose they won, the current Conservative party isnt Tory in the slightest, its the Liberal Democrats with a blue rosette.
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
The comments are still there when you leave work, and if you read on the Vanilla site it even remembers how far you got.
I really should use Vanilla but I'm used to using the threads and I've not got started yet. I'm usually too knackered after work to go looking for things.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agree, sadly. The last line is especially memorable, though.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.
This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.
Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.
The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.
Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameronis heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
That would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that it's the leadership causing the split in the party.
The split is caused by major sections of the party virulently disagreeing with each other on an issue vital to it. The leadership may well have made it worse with their tactics, but the idea a split would not have happened anyway and thus was caused by the leadership is nonsense. I'm to believe if Cameron and co had done everything the leavers wanted - bar backing leave itself - there would not have been a split? Like hell there wouldn't have been.
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
Mr. kle4, a split may have been inevitable but it has been exacerbated by Cameron's arrogance and complacency, and by IDS' ill-judgement (resigning was debatable, but the manner of it was unwise).
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
last one, i believe was 56% remain on about 60% turnout
"The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."
It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)
The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!
Good thread roger.
This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
Another similarity with the Nats.....
The big difference is that the UK Government did not take the win in the Scottish Independence vote as a green light for closer integration and imposing their will further on Scotland. They respected the fact that close to 50% of the Scots voted for independence and acted accordingly afterwards.
There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
LOL, in your dreams Richard, a few more crumbs were thrown from the table. They have only delayed it a bit. If the crap UK was worth keeping together why not the EU.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.
A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.
The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.
This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.
Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.
The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.
Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Cameron knows he's destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel. Like Peel and the Corn Laws, Cameron will betray the party for what he sees as a bigger mission, and this has always been his intention.
Fear works, as Roger points out. And it is working. But 'Leave', if it had the intelligence, would be using negative campaigning with much more credibility than the Remain side. If only it would use the evidence that the EU itself supplies, it would have a chance.
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
(snip)
The weird thing is that for me if Cameron had come back with a more distant "associate membership" within the EU permanently "downgrading" British status as a non Euro country I would have been absolutely delighted and cheerfully voted for it. As he didn't I want EEA membership instead which I see as very similar.
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Cameron knows he's destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel. Like Peel and the Corn Laws, Cameron will betray the party for what he sees as a bigger mission, and this has always been his intention.
Ironic, then, that within about 3 years Disraeli, who did more than anyone to bring Peel down, fully adopted his position & there is a strong case to make that he believed in abolition at the time he opposed it for personal advantage
Fear works, as Roger points out. And it is working. But 'Leave', if it had the intelligence, would be using negative campaigning with much more credibility than the Remain side. If only it would use the evidence that the EU itself supplies, it would have a chance.
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
We also have the pronouncements of the Commission itself on issues like foreign security and defence policy, where it sees itself as the government of Europe and wants control of the resources of the nation states (military infrastructure and personnel).
We have the evidence of the judicial activism of the ECJ that is promoting the Federalist agenda, by over interpretation of the Treaties and other boundary pushing.
At the same time we have the positive message of EFTA, (and the EEA agreement that creates the single market as an interim phase). We know that joining EFTA rids us of most of the political structures of the EU, including CAP/CFP/ECJ/Security/Foreign Policy/Justice and home affairs/ Customs union/ ever closer union.
It can be achieved with no economic shock, full access to the single market, in two years, we are already in the EEA, and EFTA nations are making positive noises. It is largely risk free. For the current Remains, it reassures that no rights will change, Freedom of Movement will still be in place for a number of years and will only be modified gradually as we move past the EEA stage of Brexit.
Yet the main leave campaigns won't use it because it will mean that Immigration will not fall by about 50,000 a year (over the short term). And that's what I'm told the projection is if we were to remove freedom of movement by leaving the EEA. That's the whole reason that Leave is throwing this campaign away. 50,000.
Mr. kle4, a split may have been inevitable but it has been exacerbated by Cameron's arrogance and complacency, and by IDS' ill-judgement (resigning was debatable, but the manner of it was unwise).
Oh I agree, but I do think some in leave on the Tory side are living in a fairyland where they act like the party would not have had some major troubles regardless (given the split In The MPs and Tory voters on this issue), and that just is not credible. They don't even have to modulate their criticism of the leadership as mucking things up and principally at fault but they cannot, in my view, pretend strife of some sort was inevitable and thus the split was 'caused' by the leadership. Semantics can be important in being fair, I feel.
And quite frankly, as a non Tory leaver, seeing leave focus on acting upset at betrayal so called of a party im not in and have never voted for, just as much as putting across leave arguments, is a distraction I could do without.
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
So if Mr Cameron phoned up Mr Farage and agreed a set of policies with him, representing 51% of voters, but actually pleasing neither kipper voters nor Tory voters, that would be fine with you ?
Can we PLEASE stop this crap about not being popular because people didn't vote for you, I don't remember you saying the same when Blair had a larger majority of a smaller percentage of the vote! If people can't be bothered to get off the sofa once every five years, they deserve what they get. In any case since they didn't vote you don't know who they support, they could all be ardent Cameroons for all you know.
Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.
A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a bett.....uably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.
This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.
Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.
The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.
Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
Cameron knows he's destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel. Like Peel and the Corn Laws, Cameron will betray the party for what he sees as a bigger mission, and this has always been his intention.
No. Cameron does not think things through several moves ahead. He gets surprised by predictable outcomes time after time. Today his main objective is a smooth exit with as little damage to his reputation as possible. It used to include the objective/deal to hand over to Osborne.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
I feel for your impending deprivation ....
Exclusive Just4EU .... change is in the air ....
Tuesdays ARSE4EU was a 62% turnout and Remain on 55% as I recall.
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
More popular than any other party, evidently.
Sure , but that's not the point. Whilst you can win an election by appealing to about 25% of the electorate and will no doubt celebrate that your dramatic success over the other guy who got 22%. You are not popular. You just can win elections against someone even less popular than you.
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
More popular than any other party, evidently.
Sure , but that's not the point. Whilst you can win an election by appealing to about 25% of the electorate and will no doubt celebrate that your dramatic success over the other guy who got 22%. You are not popular. You just can win elections against someone even less popular than you.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
Yes and No.
It is certainly the case that the left and right most 10% of the Conservative were probably never going to agree with each other regardless of what Cameron did.
There are however probably about 50% in the middle of the party that trusted Cameron to make a solid effort to negotiate and come back with something worth wild. There are a lot of moderate middle of the road Tories (such as our own Mr Llama if I am not mistaken) who are just furious about the transparent disinterest of the leadership in holding a real negotiation over a period of a year or so, and instead tried to take the voters for fools.
If Cameron had made a credible effort, come back with a bit more, and not tried to bullshit the public, Remain would be on 75% now, not 55%. Dave should have listened to Lynton.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
Memory lapse there Jonathan, wasn't Ed fighting on his famous 35% core vote.
All you say about the Tories equally applies to Labour.
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
More popular than any other party, evidently.
Sure , but that's not the point. Whilst you can win an election by appealing to about 25% of the electorate and will no doubt celebrate that your dramatic success over the other guy who got 22%. You are not popular. You just can win elections against someone even less popular than you.
Politics has always been about least worst options it seems, doesn't seem a failure to be the relatively most popular, even if not actually popular. I'd like a new voting system, personally, but if people want to ensure genuine popularity in order to win, there's nothing stopping them.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
That would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that it's the leadership causing the split in the party.
The split is caused by major sections of the party virulently disagreeing with each other on an issue vital to it. The leadership may well have made it worse with their tactics, but the idea a split would not have happened anyway and thus was caused by the leadership is nonsense. I'm to believe if Cameron and co had done everything the leavers wanted - bar backing leave itself - there would not have been a split? Like hell there wouldn't have been.
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
The Tory party appears to me to fall into four groups, which I estimate in size as follows:
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan) 40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories) 30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi) 10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry)
Now, there are two things Cameron could have done: be seen to achieve substantial reform, or be seen not to; and two recommendations he could have made: Leave or Remain (I don't believe making no recommendation was a realistic option).
Leaving aside the absurd "be seen to achieve reform and recommend Leave anyway", there were three combinations:
Be seen to achieve reform, recommend Remain, win the Tory party 80/20 Be seen not to achieve reform, recommend Leave, win the Tory party 90/10 Be seen not to achieve reform, recommend Remain, lose the Tory party 60/40
I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
I feel for your impending deprivation ....
Exclusive Just4EU .... change is in the air ....
Tuesdays ARSE4EU was a 62% turnout and Remain on 55% as I recall.
I don't deny that we don't have some say. I've read bits here and there over the last several weeks regarding the pro's and cons of being in the EU, and I am still left wondering just how much of say we have in the EU.
I'm fairly close to this, since much of my time is spent trying to change policy on aspects of animal welfare policy (lab experiments) that are primarily determined at EU level. A few comparisons to Westminster:
* Governments can usually block something they really care about. The EU governments don't like using QMV if it's not essential, just as the British Cabinet rarely has formal votes - they will always look for a compromise/fudge. So if Britain or someone else says "No way!" then it tends not to happen.
* Conversely, achieving positive change is hard. You need to find something that none of the 28 countries hate. It's a bit easier if it's not a mainline issue for most (I doubt if e.g. many Romanian politicians ever give animal experiments a thought).
* The Commission is quite keen to do stuff - much more than the British Civil Service, whose default is to carry on with whatever current policy may be. The Commission are like managers in a large company, keen to show they are introducing good new ideas. But the current Commission in particular is averse to more bureaucracy and legislation and has bought into the "EU is too rule-heavy" idea - getting a new Directive is really hard unless it's to replace a bigger older one. Proposing a simplification gets a ready ear, proposing new restrictions doesn't - that's a specific Juncker effect and used to be different.
* Parliament is easier to lobby on detail - MEPs are willing to sit down for an hour and discuss a proposal paragraph by paragraph, which most Westminster MPs absolutely are not. Because of PR, nobody has a majority, so committee meetings are much more about persuasion than Westminster, where the priority is often to score points,both because there's more media coverage and because the outcome with a majority government is usually guaranteed.
In general, the EU is slow-moving and compromise-prone, but less given to media-oriented stunts than Westminster. It's quite a small-c conservative institution, but it's dominated by people actually trying to work out the right thing to do. There are worse decision-making bodies around.
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
Yes and No.
It is certainly the case that the left and right most 10% of the Conservative were probably never going to agree with each other regardless of what Cameron did.
There are however probably about 50% in the middle of the party that trusted Cameron to make a solid effort to negotiate and come back with something worth wild. There are a lot of moderate middle of the road Tories (such as our own Mr Llama if I am not mistaken) who are just furious about the transparent disinterest of the leadership in holding a real negotiation over a period of a year or so, and instead tried to take the voters for fools.
That's not yes and no, that's yes. Personally I think the difference is between caused and exacerbated. The latter is incontestable, the former not so.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
That would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that it's the leadership causing the split in the party.
It isn't. The issue of Europe is there like a festering sore, and the party is split. Whichever side the leadership came down on, there would be a split by definition.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
It is in their interest to have a free trade in cars, but not in financial services. Like us they will want a deal that favours their own interests.
But Slovenia or Estonia has the right to veto it anyway.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
Because, as the Brexiteers are so fond of pointing out, that's not how the EU works.
The question is, is it in Latvias's interest for Germany and France to have a free trading relationship with the UK?
Germany and France can't decide that unilaterally (or even bilaterally)
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
I'm sure there will eventually be a free trade relationship between the EU and the UK but it will be on their terms rather than ours.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Countries will of course act in their best interests and that is the point. Is it in Germany and France's best interests to have a free trading relationship with the UK? Of course it is. So why would they do differently?
It is in their interest to have a free trade in cars, but not in financial services. Like us they will want a deal that favours their own interests.
But Slovenia or Estonia has the right to veto it anyway.
Every trade deal includes a quid pro quo. And it is not true that Slovenia etc have a veto. Article 50 provides the new relationship can be approved by QMV.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
I am going to die laughing of a remain win causes a 10% shift to the kippers at the next GE.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
Memory lapse there Jonathan, wasn't Ed fighting on his famous 35% core vote.
All you say about the Tories equally applies to Labour.
Yes indeed. It's one of the biggest factors in Labour losing power. I am not making a party political point.
The point as Roger and Charles points out that you win a vote, without being popular or winning the argument with the majority. This has implications for what follows, whether that be a govt or a post referendum settlement.
Fear works, as Roger points out. And it is working. But 'Leave', if it had the intelligence, would be using negative campaigning with much more credibility than the Remain side. If only it would use the evidence that the EU itself supplies, it would have a chance.
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
We also have the pronouncements of the Commission itself on issues like foreign security and defence policy, where it sees itself as the government of Europe and wants control of the resources of the nation states (military infrastructure and personnel).
We have the evidence of the judicial activism of the ECJ that is promoting the Federalist agenda, by over interpretation of the Treaties and other boundary pushing.
At the same time we have the positive message of EFTA, (and the EEA agreement that creates the single market as an interim phase). We know that joining EFTA rids us of most of the political structures of the EU, including CAP/CFP/ECJ/Security/Foreign Policy/Justice and home affairs/ Customs union/ ever closer union.
It can be achieved with no economic shock, full access to the single market, in two years, we are already in the EEA, and EFTA nations are making positive noises. It is largely risk free. For the current Remains, it reassures that no rights will change, Freedom of Movement will still be in place for a number of years and will only be modified gradually as we move past the EEA stage of Brexit.
Yet the main leave campaigns won't use it because it will mean that Immigration will not fall by about 50,000 a year (over the short term). And that's what I'm told the projection is if we were to remove freedom of movement by leaving the EEA. That's the whole reason that Leave is throwing this campaign away. 50,000.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.
It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
Memory lapse there Jonathan, wasn't Ed fighting on his famous 35% core vote.
All you say about the Tories equally applies to Labour.
Yes indeed. It's one of the biggest factors in Labour losing power. I am not making a party political point.
The point as Roger and Charles points out that you win a vote, without being popular or winning the argument with the majority. This has implications for what follows, whether that be a govt or a post referendum settlement.
Clever politicians would recognise this in how they conduct themselves in the campaign and after the vote.
* Conversely, achieving positive change is hard. You need to find something that none of the 28 countries hate. It's a bit easier if it's not a mainline issue for most (I doubt if e.g. many Romanian politicians ever give animal experiments a thought).
When you have a moment you should have your team look at Romvac. They have a hideous reputation in the industry.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
The issue of the EU is wraped up in many other things, most notably immigration.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Pure MoE Jack.
Pure Modesty Otop Excellence
You should learn from those oh so reliable polling companies. Bigger changes= bigger headlines and more name awareness. Boost the volatility!
"Volatility" in my ARSE is most unwelcome and who could possibly doubt the name awareness of the mighty ARSE - The greatest political predictor in the history of mankind.
I agree with Roger that fear is more effective than going positive, however, I would add the key proviso that the fear has to be CREDIBLE for it to work. For example, the Miliband/Sturgeon poster worked because Miliband was seen as weak and Sturgeon strong. If it had been say Gordon Brown in Natalie Bennett's pocket then people would have laughed.
Some other examples of failure:
1997 - Blair "Demon eyes" - Didn't fit with people's perception of Blair at the time 2001 - Save the pound - wasn't seen as under threat. Some people probably didn't care 2010 - Save the NHS - people didn't believe the NHS was under threat under Cameron
So far remain seem to have gone for a scattergun approach - interrailing, Premiership footballers, budget airlines - and it's not worked for them. Certainly as a leaver I haven't seen anything to change my mind. If Remain wanted to make me think again, they would need to:
1) Convince me Leave was likely to win 2) Convinced me that my PERSONAL economic well being was under threat (not some vague waffle about x million jobs)
The other problem for Remain is that Leave has its own fear stories such as even more immigration, which are very credible.
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
Except for the minor detail that as with the Euro they are going to be proved right, because the EU is heading in a different direction, we will be out within a decade anyway.
Indeed - they were right. But their madness was not just over the Euro.
Is the aim to win the vote or win the argument? In the case of a referendum, the second is not a negligible consideration if the matter is to be put to bed.
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
This would be the obsessive THIRD of the electorate you are talking about. Your disingenuous attempt to marginalise people voting for out as a small bunch of obsessives huddling in the corner does you no credit at all, although it is rather typical of your approach at the moment.
It's the obsessive 5% who think the EU is the most important issue facing Britain. They're curiously heavily over represented among expats.
The issue of the EU is wraped up in many other things, most notably immigration.
Yet when you look for any correlation, either positive or negative, between the EU being named as an important issue and immigration being so named, you find none. It's as if the public see them as two separate things and it's only the monomaniacs who see them as inexorably linked.
Roger knows his trade and he makes some good points but as others have pointed out there is a tipping point when the negative falls into ridicule. Threats have to have some credibility and the extremists on both sides are making points that simply don't survive the first hint of analysis.
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
It isn't just the extremists though, is it? On the Remain side, it is the Prime Minister and other senior ministers who are using arguments that are demonstrably nonsense (and known by them to be so).
I like your second ppgh a lot, though. Perhaps it is quite appropriate that the people who so desperately want to stay in the EU are probably people who have plenty of experience of shallow and vindictive cliques (at school and and at work...).
Modern politicians winning elections/referenda at all costs reminds me of the A.I. in Monopoly for the ZX Spectrum.
The machine was, like most people, desperate to win a set. The only problem was that it was too desperate. It would trade anything to obtain the missing property it needed, including the two cards in the set it already owned. (discovering this, the game lost its appeal)
This seems to be the case in ScotRef, GE2015 and now EURef. One side has to win at all costs, including trading the benefits of victory.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
Yes and No.
It is certainly the case that the left and right most 10% of the Conservative were probably never going to agree with each other regardless of what Cameron did.
There are however probably about 50% in the middle of the party that trusted Cameron to make a solid effort to negotiate and come back with something worth wild. There are a lot of moderate middle of the road Tories (such as our own Mr Llama if I am not mistaken) who are just furious about the transparent disinterest of the leadership in holding a real negotiation over a period of a year or so, and instead tried to take the voters for fools.
If Cameron had made a credible effort, come back with a bit more, and not tried to bullshit the public, Remain would be on 75% now, not 55%. Dave should have listened to Lynton.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
Keeping back copies of the "Daily Mail" from as far back as 1991 is impressive Mr Dacre ....
Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).
It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
That would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that it's the leadership causing the split in the party.
It isn't. The issue of Europe is there like a festering sore, and the party is split. Whichever side the leadership came down on, there would be a split by definition.
See my post of 8.57. Cameron unnecessarily split the pragmatists from the loyalists. Any other course of action was better - yes, there would still have been a split, but the minority would have been much smaller and, crucially, have no major figures to lead it. If Cameron had come out for Leave after his failed renegotiation, who would have led Tory Remain? And if he had achieved a significant reform, who would have led Tory Leave?
When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, I will go on PB and not post about the EU, people are getting sick of having the same bloody discussion every single day.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
The German government is set to allocate €200 million to help tackle the issues of sexual abuse in refugee camps.
Migrant women and children have been targeted in a spate of attacks with one camp in the town of Gießen recording 15 cases of sexual assault in just a single month last year.
When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, I will go on PB and not post about the EU, people are getting sick of having the same bloody discussion every single day.
How about a nice bit of AV chat to cleanse the palate?
The German government is set to allocate €200 million to help tackle the issues of sexual abuse in refugee camps.
Migrant women and children have been targeted in a spate of attacks with one camp in the town of Gießen recording 15 cases of sexual assault in just a single month last year.
The German government is set to allocate €200 million to help tackle the issues of sexual abuse in refugee camps.
Migrant women and children have been targeted in a spate of attacks with one camp in the town of Gießen recording 15 cases of sexual assault in just a single month last year.
It costs 200million to arrest those committing these crimes?
I presume the number is bollocks, in that it is probably the cost of building lots of different accommodation, but they need to construct SAFE SPACEsssssssssss.
Effective April 1, 2016, the United States requires a valid e-Passport (passport with a chip) to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
Keeping back copies of the "Daily Mail" from as far back as 1991 is impressive Mr Dacre ....
If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.
But you are more popular than anyone else. And as for the 35% of the electorate that didn't vote - well they didn't vote AGAINST you and the legal position is that if you don't object you agree. So you are on 59% and have a clear mandate.
Effective April 1, 2016, the United States requires a valid e-Passport (passport with a chip) to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
It's been done before. In 1991 the Daily Mail ran an April Fool's article saying that Stonehenge was going to be moved because over thousands of years it had slipped out of alignment with the sun, and they wanted everything to be perfect for the new Millennium. However the plans were being delayed by arguments as to where to move it!
Comments
Remain, in my opinion, have an underlying problem in that a lot of their threat stories are based upon the other countries in the EU being of doubtful parentage who will treat us very badly if we leave. But who wants to be a part of a club of people like that? If it were true it would be like the sort of narrow, shallow, vindictive cliques my daughter used to aspire to be in in school. Until she grew up enough to realise that what the cliques thought really didn't matter because they were not worth knowing anyway.
In reality, I think the EU countries are much better than that and it is perfectly possible for us to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with them when we are not at every conference fighting for exceptions and opt outs and our leaders are not being judged by what they "get out of Europe" instead of what we are putting in. But that is a positive view so Roger tells us it will not fly.
I predict a further ARSE4EU movement to Remain..
We have the Bertlesman/Spinelli document that outlines 'Associate Membership' - the permanent downgrading of British membership of the EU outside the Euro.
We have the 5 Presidents report, which shows the determination to integrate to a full federal union.
We also have the pronouncements of the Commission itself on issues like foreign security and defence policy, where it sees itself as the government of Europe and wants control of the resources of the nation states (military infrastructure and personnel).
We have the evidence of the judicial activism of the ECJ that is promoting the Federalist agenda, by over interpretation of the Treaties and other boundary pushing.
At the same time we have the positive message of EFTA, (and the EEA agreement that creates the single market as an interim phase). We know that joining EFTA rids us of most of the political structures of the EU, including CAP/CFP/ECJ/Security/Foreign Policy/Justice and home affairs/ Customs union/ ever closer union.
It can be achieved with no economic shock, full access to the single market, in two years, we are already in the EEA, and EFTA nations are making positive noises. It is largely risk free. For the current Remains, it reassures that no rights will change, Freedom of Movement will still be in place for a number of years and will only be modified gradually as we move past the EEA stage of Brexit.
Yet the main leave campaigns won't use it because it will mean that Immigration will not fall by about 50,000 a year (over the short term). And that's what I'm told the projection is if we were to remove freedom of movement by leaving the EEA. That's the whole reason that Leave is throwing this campaign away. 50,000.
You couldn't make it up.
Alas, it's April's Fools Day, not Christmas.
The leadership of the Tory party has failed to deal with the split in the party, and in my view deciding it was impossible may have escalated it instead, but they did not cause it, as the split is longstanding.
Cameron knows he's destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel. Like Peel and the Corn Laws, Cameron will betray the party for what he sees as a bigger mission, and this has always been his intention.
And quite frankly, as a non Tory leaver, seeing leave focus on acting upset at betrayal so called of a party im not in and have never voted for, just as much as putting across leave arguments, is a distraction I could do without.
Good day all.
Can we PLEASE stop this crap about not being popular because people didn't vote for you, I don't remember you saying the same when Blair had a larger majority of a smaller percentage of the vote! If people can't be bothered to get off the sofa once every five years, they deserve what they get. In any case since they didn't vote you don't know who they support, they could all be ardent Cameroons for all you know.
It's not other countries being vindictive, it's governments prioritising actions that benefit their citizen. The countries of the EU don't owe us a living and will be quiet happy to make decisions that benefit their voters. The UK for the same when France hiked up their to tax rate and we ' rolled out the red carpet' for their higher earners.
Quite frankly, if other countries make stupid decisions I would want my government to take advantage so I don't see how we can complain if they do the same to us.
Finally his behaviour since the election makes sense
It is certainly the case that the left and right most 10% of the Conservative were probably never going to agree with each other regardless of what Cameron did.
There are however probably about 50% in the middle of the party that trusted Cameron to make a solid effort to negotiate and come back with something worth wild. There are a lot of moderate middle of the road Tories (such as our own Mr Llama if I am not mistaken) who are just furious about the transparent disinterest of the leadership in holding a real negotiation over a period of a year or so, and instead tried to take the voters for fools.
If Cameron had made a credible effort, come back with a bit more, and not tried to bullshit the public, Remain would be on 75% now, not 55%. Dave should have listened to Lynton.
All you say about the Tories equally applies to Labour.
20% Leave regardless (eg Dan Hannan)
40% Remain in a reformed EU, Leave otherwise (eg most PB Tories)
30% Leadership loyalists (eg most of the Cabinet, Richard Nabavi)
10% Remain regardless (eg Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry)
Now, there are two things Cameron could have done: be seen to achieve substantial reform, or be seen not to; and two recommendations he could have made: Leave or Remain (I don't believe making no recommendation was a realistic option).
Leaving aside the absurd "be seen to achieve reform and recommend Leave anyway", there were three combinations:
Be seen to achieve reform, recommend Remain, win the Tory party 80/20
Be seen not to achieve reform, recommend Leave, win the Tory party 90/10
Be seen not to achieve reform, recommend Remain, lose the Tory party 60/40
Oops.
* Governments can usually block something they really care about. The EU governments don't like using QMV if it's not essential, just as the British Cabinet rarely has formal votes - they will always look for a compromise/fudge. So if Britain or someone else says "No way!" then it tends not to happen.
* Conversely, achieving positive change is hard. You need to find something that none of the 28 countries hate. It's a bit easier if it's not a mainline issue for most (I doubt if e.g. many Romanian politicians ever give animal experiments a thought).
* The Commission is quite keen to do stuff - much more than the British Civil Service, whose default is to carry on with whatever current policy may be. The Commission are like managers in a large company, keen to show they are introducing good new ideas. But the current Commission in particular is averse to more bureaucracy and legislation and has bought into the "EU is too rule-heavy" idea - getting a new Directive is really hard unless it's to replace a bigger older one. Proposing a simplification gets a ready ear, proposing new restrictions doesn't - that's a specific Juncker effect and used to be different.
* Parliament is easier to lobby on detail - MEPs are willing to sit down for an hour and discuss a proposal paragraph by paragraph, which most Westminster MPs absolutely are not. Because of PR, nobody has a majority, so committee meetings are much more about persuasion than Westminster, where the priority is often to score points,both because there's more media coverage and because the outcome with a majority government is usually guaranteed.
In general, the EU is slow-moving and compromise-prone, but less given to media-oriented stunts than Westminster. It's quite a small-c conservative institution, but it's dominated by people actually trying to work out the right thing to do. There are worse decision-making bodies around.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 55% (-1) .. Leave 45% (+1)
Turnout Projection 61% (-0.5)
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Because of its incoherence, Leave has no chance of winning the argument (and if it wins the vote chaos will ensue as everyone then starts arguing about what the vote meant). But Remain is sufficiently unified with a clear enough prospectus that it could have won the argument if it had put forward an argument rather than unconnected scare stories of varying degrees of truthfulness. Since it hasn't, even if Remain wins all we'll get is the same obsessives quacking for the next X years about how the evil empire is stealing our birthright and crushing Britain under the jackboot of regulation.
It's an opportunity missed by both sides.
But Slovenia or Estonia has the right to veto it anyway.
The question is, is it in Latvias's interest for Germany and France to have a free trading relationship with the UK?
Germany and France can't decide that unilaterally (or even bilaterally)
The Daily Guido available outside Westminster tube station this morning https://t.co/GTYbcl9UaI
http://tinyurl.com/jz7vqk4
I am going to die laughing of a remain win causes a 10% shift to the kippers at the next GE.
The point as Roger and Charles points out that you win a vote, without being popular or winning the argument with the majority. This has implications for what follows, whether that be a govt or a post referendum settlement.
A clever politician would recognise this.
Now I'll promote any Leave message that seems coherent whatever its provenance.
The point as Roger and Charles points out that you win a vote, without being popular or winning the argument with the majority. This has implications for what follows, whether that be a govt or a post referendum settlement.
Clever politicians would recognise this in how they conduct themselves in the campaign and after the vote.
Never Knowingly Undersold ....
Some other examples of failure:
1997 - Blair "Demon eyes" - Didn't fit with people's perception of Blair at the time
2001 - Save the pound - wasn't seen as under threat. Some people probably didn't care
2010 - Save the NHS - people didn't believe the NHS was under threat under Cameron
So far remain seem to have gone for a scattergun approach - interrailing, Premiership footballers, budget airlines - and it's not worked for them. Certainly as a leaver I haven't seen anything to change my mind. If Remain wanted to make me think again, they would need to:
1) Convince me Leave was likely to win
2) Convinced me that my PERSONAL economic well being was under threat (not some vague waffle about x million jobs)
The other problem for Remain is that Leave has its own fear stories such as even more immigration, which are very credible.
I like your second ppgh a lot, though. Perhaps it is quite appropriate that the people who so desperately want to stay in the EU are probably people who have plenty of experience of shallow and vindictive cliques (at school and and at work...).
The machine was, like most people, desperate to win a set. The only problem was that it was too desperate. It would trade anything to obtain the missing property it needed, including the two cards in the set it already owned. (discovering this, the game lost its appeal)
This seems to be the case in ScotRef, GE2015 and now EURef. One side has to win at all costs, including trading the benefits of victory.
Sad.
Will the first feat be to keep Jezza as LotO until 2020?
Migrant women and children have been targeted in a spate of attacks with one camp in the town of Gießen recording 15 cases of sexual assault in just a single month last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518551/German-taxpayers-hit-200million-bill-remodelling-migrant-camps-women-children-protected-sex-attackers.html
New meaning to SAFFFFEEEEEEE SPACCCEEEEEEE.....
Apparently they're going to have a meeting to sort it out. On Sunday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/31/exclusive-england-to-face-euro-2016-ban-if-britain-votes-to-leav/
Loof Lirpa
Baby lettuce could be easily done, if dull. Baby seals would score differently on both criteria!
Effective April 1, 2016, the United States requires a valid e-Passport (passport with a chip) to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.
Be careful, Mr @JackW
Effective April 1, 2016, the United States requires a valid e-Passport (passport with a chip) to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program.
Mike has decided we will no longer discuss the EU Ref on PB. The only topics that we will discuss are AV/electoral reform and Scottish Independence.