"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
On the leaflet, the government needs to protect itself against the potential charge that 'Nobody warned us that the economy would tank if we voted Leave'.
And the "No one warned us about the massive increase in EU legislation that will be applied should we vote remain."
The refusal of the Leave side to face up to the certainty of economic turmoil if the result is Leave is one of the most striking and worrying aspects of the whole debate. I'm not sure if it's naivety or deliberate dishonesty, but a responsible government can't ignore it.
Mr. Eagles, vicious bastard is someone like Francis Urquhart (House of Cards chap, not the PBer).
Cameron's coming across as a slippery weasel. A dodgy geezer. A Blair.
Cameron is coming across very much as a Blair. And liable to go down in history about as well.
It quite noticeable the number of Tory voters, members and even activists on this forum that seems to have gone right off Dave. Probably just as well he is off, the bulk of the voluntary party is going to be very pissed off with him, excepting the Nabavi Apologists obviously
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
There are a lot of people who are "up in arms" about the lies being told by leave. At the end of the day the leave side are just either xenophobic or plain racist.
Don't be silly! Xnophobic? Moi?
Remember the positive message of the Be Leave campaign:
On the leaflet, the government needs to protect itself against the potential charge that 'Nobody warned us that the economy would tank if we voted Leave'.
And the "No one warned us about the massive increase in EU legislation that will be applied should we vote remain."
The refusal of the Leave side to face up to the certainty of economic turmoil if the result is Leave is one of the most striking and worrying aspects of the whole debate. I'm not sure if it's naivety or deliberate dishonesty, but a responsible government can't ignore it.
Well, you see, many organisations have said that there will be minimal economic turmoil - with some suggesting an overall improvement in GDP over the forthcoming years. So your "certainty" is rather an exaggeration.
We DO certainly know that the EU is holding back on legislation deliberately before the referendum however.
Afternoon ladies & gentlemen. Has anyone come across an organisation whose website is www.eureferendumfacts.org from whom I have this morning had a leaflet which purports to set out "the facts” about the UK and the EU, but which is clearly Leave propaganda. On the back of the leaflet is a two part form.... "Do you want to know more about the EU referendum; if so fill in name & adress and send pack to (a Freepost” address and How will you vote in the refendum and offers the five options Def. stay, Prob. stay, D/K yet and Prob leave and Def. leave. Leaflet came via Royal Mail with this mornings adverts.
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
From sitting on the fence you seem to have gone out for the remain cause with real zeal and fervour !
Perhaps Boris could learn a lesson from you, Mr Meeks
As Conservatives contemplate the unfairness of the press and the cynical opportunism of their rivals in the referendum, think of it as an experiment - this is what it's ALWAYS like to be a Labour supporter...
Well, you see, many organisations have said that there will be minimal economic turmoil - with some suggesting an overall improvement in GDP over the forthcoming years. So your "certainty" is rather an exaggeration..
No, I don't think there has been any reputable organisation which has clamed there won't be short-term turmoil. It's not exactly economic rocket-science that uncertainty will hit the economy and the markets.
You are right that a few - but a very small minority - have suggested that, in the long term, the could possibly be an economic benefit, depending on which option we end up with.
Afternoon ladies & gentlemen. Has anyone come across an organisation whose website is www.eureferendumfacts.org from whom I have this morning had a leaflet which purports to set out "the facts” about the UK and the EU, but which is clearly Leave propaganda. On the back of the leaflet is a two part form.... "Do you want to know more about the EU referendum; if so fill in name & adress and send pack to (a Freepost” address and How will you vote in the refendum and offers the five options Def. stay, Prob. stay, D/K yet and Prob leave and Def. leave. Leaflet came via Royal Mail with this mornings adverts.
Not here in sunny Bishop Auckland. However organisations can send out what they want, providing they have their own money to do so.
Mr. Pubgoer, Iraq makes that unlikely, but I agree he's at risk of enjoying temporary success and purchasing a legacy of loathing.
Mr. Eagles, you can call Cameron Caesar if you like. He's got the ego, and he may end up meeting a similarly sharp decline to his leadership. All he's lacking are the ability and the achievements.
Hah, Cameron's got no achievements and ability.
Really? I mean really?
Sadly the vanilla word limit permits me from posting all of his achievements and abilities.
On the leaflet, the government needs to protect itself against the potential charge that 'Nobody warned us that the economy would tank if we voted Leave'.
And the "No one warned us about the massive increase in EU legislation that will be applied should we vote remain."
The refusal of the Leave side to face up to the certainty of economic turmoil if the result is Leave is one of the most striking and worrying aspects of the whole debate. I'm not sure if it's naivety or deliberate dishonesty, but a responsible government can't ignore it.
'certainty' - oh please. You really can't help yourself, can you?
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
Horseshit Mr Meeks. If it was plain factual information there would be a lot less complaint. But since a lot of it is at least arguable, if not downright dubious, and couched as fear mongering propaganda, it should be paid for out of campaign funds.
Don't pretend for one second that if the boot was on the other foot and Dave had decided to promote out, that you wouldn't be bloody furious about the government using public funds to "inform" the public that the sky was going to fall in unless they voted to leave.
All that is require to make things feel fair and above board is for both sides of the argument to have access to the same level of funding. You were the man as I recall hoping people would let this subject drop after the referendum and move on to something else. While there is an (apparently wide) perception that the government has rigged things, it's not going to go away. Hell even some Remain supporters are becoming embarrassed by it.
Well, you see, many organisations have said that there will be minimal economic turmoil - with some suggesting an overall improvement in GDP over the forthcoming years. So your "certainty" is rather an exaggeration..
No, I don't think there has been any reputable organisation which has clamed there won't be short-term turmoil. It's not exactly economic rocket-science that uncertainty will hit the economy and the markets.
You are right that a few - but a very small minority - have suggested that, in the long term, the could possibly be an economic benefit, depending on which option we end up with.
If (say) 364 economists say we are better off staying as we are, and taking a risk to create a better future would be wrong, would you believe them?
On the leaflet, the government needs to protect itself against the potential charge that 'Nobody warned us that the economy would tank if we voted Leave'.
And the "No one warned us about the massive increase in EU legislation that will be applied should we vote remain."
The refusal of the Leave side to face up to the certainty of economic turmoil if the result is Leave is one of the most striking and worrying aspects of the whole debate. I'm not sure if it's naivety or deliberate dishonesty, but a responsible government can't ignore it.
This would be the economic turmoil that "may" according so some of the most pessimistic commentators be about a quarter as bad as the worst year of Gordon Brown, at which point strangely enough the country didn't implode, or the sky catch fire. Possibly we think the risk, such as it is, is worth it to get our country back.
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
Horseshit Mr Meeks. If it was plain factual information there would be a lot less complaint. But since a lot of it is at least arguable, if not downright dubious, and couched as fear mongering propaganda, it should be paid for out of campaign funds.
Don't pretend for one second that if the boot was on the other foot and Dave had decided to promote out, that you wouldn't be bloody furious about the government using public funds to "inform" the public that the sky was going to fall in unless they voted to leave.
All that is require to make things feel fair and above board is for both sides of the argument to have access to the same level of funding. You were the man as I recall hoping people would let this subject drop after the referendum and move on to something else. While there is an (apparently wide) perception that the government has rigged things, it's not going to go away. Hell even some Remain supporters are becoming embarrassed by it.
"Hell even some Remain supporters are becoming embarrassed by it."
As a staunch Remainer I think ..... subject to actually seeing the thing ..... that’s it’s ill-advised at best!
@Pulpstar The government communicates about its policies and it has a clear policy on the EU referendum. I don't see why it can't communicate about that specific policy. It's not as though it doesn't have other controversial policies where it also has a clear view. The only difference on this occasion is that it's a different group of people who strongly disagree with this policy.
"This Government narrative sets out the four main themes of the Government’s work...
Bringing the country together
Whether it’s through closing the economic gap between the North and South or tackling head on the big questions about our identity and union, we are determined to unite our country as one.
We will build a Northern Powerhouse and give our cities more control over transport, housing, skills and healthcare with elected metro mayors. We will devolve more power within our family of nations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and introduce English Votes for English Laws to ensure a fair deal for every part of the UK.
And we will hold a EU Referendum to allow the British people to decide if Britain should be in or out of the European Union."
"Securing real change in our relationship with Europe
The public wants to see a real change in our relationship with Europe. In the coming months, we will provide communications support to the renegotiation of our country’s ties with the EU to secure the best deal possible for the UK and plan for the EU Referendum by the end of 2017."
What it is doing is consistent with its plan, communicating about one part of one of its four main themes of government work.
Well, you see, many organisations have said that there will be minimal economic turmoil - with some suggesting an overall improvement in GDP over the forthcoming years. So your "certainty" is rather an exaggeration..
No, I don't think there has been any reputable organisation which has clamed there won't be short-term turmoil. It's not exactly economic rocket-science that uncertainty will hit the economy and the markets.
You are right that a few - but a very small minority - have suggested that, in the long term, the could possibly be an economic benefit, depending on which option we end up with.
I think you have to decide what you mean by 'turmoil'. Most large organisations will have already planned ahead as to their actions depending on the result (as they did with the Scottish Referendum - although some of that may have been scaremongering) and, no doubt in the last two weeks before the referendum there will be 5000 opinion polls (not that they did much good last year). 'Turmoil' will only happen if the result is totally unexpected.'
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
It is a pretty blatant attempt to avoid the cap on expenditure in the Referendum.
This would be the economic turmoil that "may" according so some of the most pessimistic commentators be about a quarter as bad as the worst year of Gordon Brown, at which point strangely enough the country didn't implode, or the sky catch fire. Possibly we think the risk, such as it is, is worth it to get our country back.
Yes, if the Remain side said that, it would be fair enough (although I think you are being extremely optimistic as to the magnitude of the potential economic disruption).
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
It is a pretty blatant attempt to avoid the cap on expenditure in the Referendum.
For clarity, would the Gov't be able to use say £10 million of public funds to clarify that it believes a continuation of the Gov't is the best position for Britain in say March 2020 ?
@Pulpstar The government communicates about its policies and it has a clear policy on the EU referendum. I don't see why it can't communicate about that specific policy. It's not as though it doesn't have other controversial policies where it also has a clear view. The only difference on this occasion is that it's a different group of people who strongly disagree with this policy.
"This Government narrative sets out the four main themes of the Government’s work...
Bringing the country together
Whether it’s through closing the economic gap between the North and South or tackling head on the big questions about our identity and union, we are determined to unite our country as one.
We will build a Northern Powerhouse and give our cities more control over transport, housing, skills and healthcare with elected metro mayors. We will devolve more power within our family of nations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and introduce English Votes for English Laws to ensure a fair deal for every part of the UK.
And we will hold a EU Referendum to allow the British people to decide if Britain should be in or out of the European Union."
"Securing real change in our relationship with Europe
The public wants to see a real change in our relationship with Europe. In the coming months, we will provide communications support to the renegotiation of our country’s ties with the EU to secure the best deal possible for the UK and plan for the EU Referendum by the end of 2017."
What it is doing is consistent with its plan, communicating about one part of one of its four main themes of government work.
It's like the Government producing and distributing material, just before the Short Campaign, which recommends a vote for the governing party.
If (say) 364 economists say we are better off staying as we are, and taking a risk to create a better future would be wrong, would you believe them?
I don't know what you mean.
I am comparing Brexit with the Thatcher reforms.
Yes of course, I got that reference, but I didn't understand what you were asking me.
If you are asking me whether the consensus of economic opinion might be wrong, my answer would be that I think there is zero chance that the consensus is wrong in the short term (i.e. there will definitely be a quite severe economic hit over 1 to 2 years in the event of a Leave result).
The longer term is much less clear, of course, and economists are more divided on that. Quite apart from anything else, we have no idea what the deal with the EU will be.
It is my genuine opinion that the pamplet will actually be counter productive. Right of centre voters, sub consciously at least, still have austerity writ large in their minds which given the national debt has increased every year under the Cameron premiership might not be surprising. And a thick glossy booklet dripping through their doors is symbolic of ongoing government (and EU) profligacy. Meanwhile many left of centre voters with a different set of priorities will simply consider this money is better spent elsewhere.
I can see Matthew Elliott using that for the LEAVE camp changing it to £200 million a day, having led the way with it when Campaign Director for no2AV. We can also look forward to TSE admiring it.... and then wearing sensible shoes.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
I have to say I'm struggling to see the constitutional outrage in the government informing the public of its position on the referendum. It is a matter of interest to those weighing their decision.
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
It is a pretty blatant attempt to avoid the cap on expenditure in the Referendum.
For clarity, would the Gov't be able to use say £10 million of public funds to clarify that it believes a continuation of the Gov't is the best position for Britain in say March 2020 ?
Isn't the referendum unusual in that the Government actually has a position? For your scenario, I'm sure they believe a continuation of government is the best position for Britain in March 2020, just the flavour is up for debate
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
It is obliged to set out soberly and dryly the facts as it sees it, and the recommendation it is going to make, or is it obliged to blow £10m quid on a glossy brochure full of discredited scaremongering bullshit like 3 million jobs.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
That's best case, I would think. Worst case - which could happen if we don't get a deal with access to the Single Market in place as the two-year deadline approaches - could be comparable to 2008/9, perhaps. But no-one really knows, I quite accept that this is extremely hard to assess. There are various models, but showing a wide range of outcomes.
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
That's best case, I would think. Worst case - which could happen if we don't get a deal with access to the Single Market in place as the two-year deadline approaches - could be comparable to 2008/9, perhaps. But no-one really knows, I quite accept that this is extremely hard to assess. There are various models, but showing a wide range of outcomes.
Strangely 60,000 jobs seems perfectly acceptable in the context of the Living Wage (its the number of job losses projected by the OBR on the basis of the announced policy) but not for regaining control of our country, funny old world.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
The Dutch did not vote overwhelmingly yday to not ratify an EU agreement . They overwhemingly did not vote at all !!!!
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
They were noted.
They say the government is following the rules.
Not exactly a shocker since the government wrote them.
How it is seen in the country might be a different matter entirely. When committed europhiles like OKC of this parish feel the propaganda brochure might be ill advised, there is a chance that you are not seeing the whole picture.
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
The Dutch did not vote overwhelmingly yday to not ratify an EU agreement . They overwhemingly did not vote at all !!!!
Not sure Remainers like yourself should draw a comforting parallel from that.
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
That shows a misunderstanding of the Dutch referenda process. Under Dutch law any law passed can be subject to a referendum provided that within four weeks after its passed there is a sufficiently large petition to start the process.
The government did not ratify the agreement in advance, the government ratified the agreement and only AFTER that did the petition to have a referendum even start. As a result of this referendum (which is only consultative legally) the ratification is legally suspended and the Dutch government must now decide to either confirm ratification or revoke it.
Either way the entire process and the government's decision is due to the Dutch legal system, not the EU.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
@Indigo: Not comparable. The 60,000 job losses (if it is that low) in the event of Leave would be in addition to other negative developments.
In any case, I've already said that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the short-term hit (or even, a longer-term hit) is worthwhile to 'regain control of our country'. I have absolutely no problem with that argument.
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
The Dutch did not vote overwhelmingly yday to not ratify an EU agreement . They overwhemingly did not vote at all !!!!
95% of the UK electorate didn't vote for the LibDems in 2015!
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
The Dutch did not vote overwhelmingly yday to not ratify an EU agreement . They overwhemingly did not vote at all !!!!
This is another of those Blair The Tories only got elected by 25% of the population bits of disingenuity, and should be treated with the same contempt. People that can't be bothered to vote, don't get their view heard, and must be considered to be content with whatever outcome arises.
Let's see, can we frame a bet on this? I sense some free money.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
So you would view say a 60,000 temporary rise in unemployment as "economic turmoil" would you... ?
The thing is - the claim is disingenuous - you would have to have a parallel world where Remain wins as well as the one where Leave wins to decide whether the change in unemployment AKA turmoil was due to the referendum result.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
The Dutch did not vote overwhelmingly yday to not ratify an EU agreement . They overwhemingly did not vote at all !!!!
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
The treaty hasn't been ratified by all yet though so the spokesman is wrong. Dutch ratification was suspended by the referendum and is until the government responds to the referendum. As such the Dutch have NOT legally ratified this yet. As this treaty has not been ratified yet by all parties, the Dutch no longer having ratified it stands.
Mr. Eagles, the Electoral Commission can say whatever it likes. I'm not going to suspend my critical faculties because a quango (or whatever organisation the EC technically is) has decided something blatantly dubious is ok. That's the mentality of doing what the shaman says because he's the shaman.
Arguments are won or lost on merit, not on what The Important People say.
I signed it earlier - whether I was Remain or Leave - I simply think it's anti democratic. HMG have been hobbling Leave at every stage, this is a fundamental issue that deserves better than sticking your thumb on scales because you can.
It's almost at 50,000. Pushing it over 100,000 will require the Government to explain why it won't be debated in the Commons, prolonging the embarrassment.
Thanks, have added mine. Now over 50,000.
With mine; 50,138
That number is going up quickly. With mine, it stood at 51, 222.
Anecdote alert: My husband came home from work saying how everyone was "up in arms" about the Government spending money on the Remain letter. He says that just about everyone there is talking about voting "Leave", even though most expect will probably cause chaos for them at work in the short-term (he works in a software house which targets the Funds industry).
I do think the Government has shot themselves in the foot with this pre-purdah attempt at rigging the vote in their favour and outspending the leave side by 2:1 by using tax payers money to push the remain propaganda giving the remain side a £9 million pound advantage in spending terms. British people don't like being bullied into a decision and believe in fairness. Cameron is coming across as a schoolyard bully who will bend the rules to give him the advantage. He reminds me of Dick Dastardly (with Osborne as Mutley!) but I think this dastardly plan will blow up in his face and be counter-productive. It makes people more determined to vote leave just to give him a bloody nose.
EU politics seems to be like that, it was only about six months ago Cameron was telling us that if he didn't get a slightly larger bit of tinsel than the one currently on offer from the EU he was perfectly happy to leave... and now apparently leaving is going to be a complete disaster, famine is going to grip the country, and people are going to lock themselves in their houses as the four horsemen ride by.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Mr. W, I don't think it's necessarily the bullying aspect that's the real problem, it's the taking people for fools.
Claiming propaganda is neutral, or that this is fair, appears to be insulting the electorate's intelligence at a time when they're not well-disposed towards Cameron et al. anyway.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
The treaty hasn't been ratified by all yet though so the spokesman is wrong. Dutch ratification was suspended by the referendum and is until the government responds to the referendum. As such the Dutch have NOT legally ratified this yet. As this treaty has not been ratified yet by all parties, the Dutch no longer having ratified it stands.
Ah, thanks for the clarification Mr Thompson – must admit I keep reading that the Dutch Gov had ratified. What are the chances the Dutch Gov will press ahead regardless of the result?
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
If you really want to wind them up (and I know you do), you could argue that some of them are acting like Ted Heath is alleged to have done: proposing an EEA-style option because they think it is more likely to be acceptable, but secretly planning to use that merely as a step towards full departure.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
Perhaps the PM would have preferred a ballot paper like this one
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
If you really want to wind them up (and I know you do), you could argue that some of them are acting like Ted Heath is alleged to have done: proposing an EEA-style option because they think it is more likely to be acceptable, but secretly planning to use that merely as a step towards full departure.
Oooh.
I've told Alastair of one of my upcoming EURef thread plans, he said I was going to need a tin helmet for that thread.
I suspect I'm going to need a fall out shelter if I follow your idea.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
Really I wouldn't bother, its the most fatuous and dishonest argument ever, its the same as saying the country voted to elect Labour in 1997 (by a landslide) so we should accept the will of the people and all Tories should tear up their membership cards and go home, never to suggest an alternative political view again.
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
No one is arguing the legality. We are arguing the morality.
Needless to say the more the Government pulls stunts like this the less likely it is that Cameron will be able to reunite his party after the referendum.
In a change of heart from the start of the campaign I am honestly starting to look forward to the angst that will cause you and the other Cameroons on here.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
Really I wouldn't bother, its the most fatuous and dishonest argument ever, its the same as saying the country voted to elect Labour in 1997 (by a landslide) so we should accept the will of the people and all Tories should tear up their membership cards and go home, never to suggest an alternative political view again.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
Assuming Remain does win. Do you really think that there will never be another eurosceptic Tory in the party ever again? I admire your optimism fellah.
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
No one is arguing the legality. We are arguing the morality.
Needless to say the more the Government pulls stunts like this the less likely it is that Cameron will be able to reunite his party after the referendum.
In a change of heart from the start of the campaign I am honestly starting to look forward to the angst that will cause you and the other Cameroons on here.
I was pointing from the 'selected propaganda' that some were giving about the Electoral Commission's views.
As for your final sentence, Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
April is bowel cancer awareness month. Good to see you're doing your bit to make sure Dave is all in the clear.
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
If you really want to wind them up (and I know you do), you could argue that some of them are acting like Ted Heath is alleged to have done: proposing an EEA-style option because they think it is more likely to be acceptable, but secretly planning to use that merely as a step towards full departure.
Oooh.
I've told Alastair of one of my upcoming EURef thread plans, he said I was going to need a tin helmet for that thread.
I suspect I'm going to need a fall out shelter if I follow your idea.
I signed it earlier - whether I was Remain or Leave - I simply think it's anti democratic. HMG have been hobbling Leave at every stage, this is a fundamental issue that deserves better than sticking your thumb on scales because you can.
It's almost at 50,000. Pushing it over 100,000 will require the Government to explain why it won't be debated in the Commons, prolonging the embarrassment.
Thanks, have added mine. Now over 50,000.
With mine; 50,138
That number is going up quickly. With mine, it stood at 51, 222.
Anecdote alert: My husband came home from work saying how everyone was "up in arms" about the Government spending money on the Remain letter. He says that just about everyone there is talking about voting "Leave", even though most expect will probably cause chaos for them at work in the short-term (he works in a software house which targets the Funds industry).
I do think the Government has shot themselves in the foot with this pre-purdah attempt at rigging the vote in their favour and outspending the leave side by 2:1 by using tax payers money to push the remain propaganda giving the remain side a £9 million pound advantage in spending terms. British people don't like being bullied into a decision and believe in fairness. Cameron is coming across as a schoolyard bully who will bend the rules to give him the advantage. He reminds me of Dick Dastardly (with Osborne as Mutley!) but I think this dastardly plan will blow up in his face and be counter-productive. It makes people more determined to vote leave just to give him a bloody nose.
Its worse than that, even during the campaign its rigged.
However, because the Government and each individual political party is able to spend money on the campaign, it means that the total Remain spend will be £26.6million – compared to just £11.7million for the Leave campaign.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
Assuming Remain does win. Do you really think that there will never be another eurosceptic Tory in the party ever again? I admire your optimism fellah.
If Remain wins, Euroscepticism will be alive and kicking in the Tory Party for years and decades to come, however the more sensible Eurosceptics like Michael Gove know if they hold another referendum on it, and lose, it really will settle UK membership of the EU for a generation.
Plus, Gove also knows, wanting to re-run the referendum so soon again will give succour to the SNP.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
A bit like UK referendums?
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
The more you try to fix the referendum the less likely that becomes.
I for one will certainly not stop campaigning against the EU if Remain win. I will take huge pleasure in pointing out every time they do something that Remain claimed would not or could not happen due to Dave's amazing negotiating skills.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
Assuming Remain does win. Do you really think that there will never be another eurosceptic Tory in the party ever again? I admire your optimism fellah.
If Remain wins, Euroscepticism will be alive and kicking in the Tory Party, however the more sensible Eurosceptics like Michael Gove know if they hold another referendum on it, and lose, it really will settle UK membership of the EU for a generation.
Plus, Gove also knows, wanting to re-run the referendum so soon again will give succour to the SNP.
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
No one is arguing the legality. We are arguing the morality.
Needless to say the more the Government pulls stunts like this the less likely it is that Cameron will be able to reunite his party after the referendum.
In a change of heart from the start of the campaign I am honestly starting to look forward to the angst that will cause you and the other Cameroons on here.
I was pointing from the 'selected propaganda' that some were giving about the Electoral Commission's views.
As for your final sentence, Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement.
I didn't say I hated them. I have consistently said that the best result for me would be a Leave win and Dave staying on. That has now changed because of Dave's behaviour. But that certainly doesn't mean I hate him. Scorn him and pity him is more accurate. His legacy will not be the one he wished.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
A bit like UK referendums?
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
The more you try to fix the referendum the less likely that becomes.
I for one will certainly not stop campaigning against the EU if Remain win. I will take huge pleasure in pointing out every time they do something that Remain claimed would not or could not happen due to Dave's amazing negotiating skills.
Dave's "deal" is worse than that between Darth Vader and Lando Calrissian in "The Empire Strikes Back"!
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
A bit like UK referendums?
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
The more you try to fix the referendum the less likely that becomes.
I for one will certainly not stop campaigning against the EU if Remain win. I will take huge pleasure in pointing out every time they do something that Remain claimed would not or could not happen due to Dave's amazing negotiating skills.
That's fine, that's democracy, and were UKIP to put in their manifesto for 2020, were they to win a majority they would take us out of the EU, sans referendum, I would be fine with that too.
I wonder how farmers will end up voting? Many of them absolutely detest the EU, and understandably so given the nightmare of the Rural Payments Agency plus all the regulatory stuff they have to put up with. But on the other hand there's no guarantee they'll get so much loot if we do leave the CAP; it would obviously depend on what view UK governments took in the future.
"Business as usual in Brussels despite Dutch ‘no’ to Ukraine
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
Not surprised by this, once a treaty is ratified by all, a referendum after the event is worthless.
A bit like UK referendums?
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
The more you try to fix the referendum the less likely that becomes.
I for one will certainly not stop campaigning against the EU if Remain win. I will take huge pleasure in pointing out every time they do something that Remain claimed would not or could not happen due to Dave's amazing negotiating skills.
One of the great things about this forum is that all the hugely optimistic views of the rampant Europhiles are down for the record in black and white. When they are wrong about this, like they were wrong about the Euro, there is going to be so much egg on faces we will be dining on omelette for months. I agree its rather little comfort when your country is shackled to a decaying corpse, but we have to enjoy the small pleasures in life as they come along.
Odd no one has been mentioning these quotes from the electoral commission.
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
They were noted.
They say the government is following the rules.
Not exactly a shocker since the government wrote them.
How it is seen in the country might be a different matter entirely. When committed europhiles like OKC of this parish feel the propaganda brochure might be ill advised, there is a chance that you are not seeing the whole picture.
According to today's YouGov poll of 4,000 people, 40% thought it was fair that the Government was sending out a leaflet supporting REMAIN, and 46% thought it was unfair.
I suspect all the 40% were REMAINERS, though some of the 46% may also be REMAINERS with a sense of fair play.
@Sean_F This is a referendum on a question of policy, not a general election. The government is entitled (indeed morally obliged) to have a view on the subject in its capacity as a government. It is entitled (and arguably morally obliged) to communicate that view on a question of policy to the public.
If the government is morally obliged to spend over £9 million on one leaflet alone in order to get its message across, why is the opposition capped at spending £7 million?
It's a bit reminiscent of the electoral process in a typical African republic.
After the referendum Dave's going to change his title from Prime Minister to
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
Assuming Remain does win. Do you really think that there will never be another eurosceptic Tory in the party ever again? I admire your optimism fellah.
If Remain wins, Euroscepticism will be alive and kicking in the Tory Party for years and decades to come, however the more sensible Eurosceptics like Michael Gove know if they hold another referendum on it, and lose, it really will settle UK membership of the EU for a generation.
Plus, Gove also knows, wanting to re-run the referendum so soon again will give succour to the SNP.
If the EU wasn't a moving target I would be inclined to agree with you. As the EU creaks ever forward, new opportunities will present themselves.
Comments
The Dutch ‘no’ vote in Wednesday’s referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine will have no impact on the implementation of the agreement, a spokesman for the European Commission told broadcaster Nos. The treaty has already been signed and unanimously accepted by all EU leaders and the Dutch ‘no’ will not change that, the spokesman is quoted as saying."
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/04/business-as-usual-in-brussels-despite-dutch-no-to-ukraine/
The real concern of those jumping up and down seems to revolve around the position that it has taken.
Remember the positive message of the Be Leave campaign:
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
We DO certainly know that the EU is holding back on legislation deliberately before the referendum however.
How will you vote in the refendum and offers the five options Def. stay, Prob. stay, D/K yet and Prob leave and Def. leave.
Leaflet came via Royal Mail with this mornings adverts.
Perhaps Boris could learn a lesson from you, Mr Meeks
You are right that a few - but a very small minority - have suggested that, in the long term, the could possibly be an economic benefit, depending on which option we end up with.
Really? I mean really?
Sadly the vanilla word limit permits me from posting all of his achievements and abilities.
Don't pretend for one second that if the boot was on the other foot and Dave had decided to promote out, that you wouldn't be bloody furious about the government using public funds to "inform" the public that the sky was going to fall in unless they voted to leave.
All that is require to make things feel fair and above board is for both sides of the argument to have access to the same level of funding. You were the man as I recall hoping people would let this subject drop after the referendum and move on to something else. While there is an (apparently wide) perception that the government has rigged things, it's not going to go away. Hell even some Remain supporters are becoming embarrassed by it.
How about: UK unemployment higher in the 2nd quarter of 2017 than the 2nd quarter 2016, bet void on a Remain result?
If (say) 364 economists say we are better off staying as we are, and taking a risk to create a better future would be wrong, would you believe them?
As a staunch Remainer I think ..... subject to actually seeing the thing ..... that’s it’s ill-advised at best!
And yet, he's still the best of the realistic candidates for PM. It's depressing.
The government has a communications plan:
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GCS-Government-Communications-Plan-1516.pdf
This includes the following:
"This Government narrative sets out the four main themes of the Government’s work...
Bringing the country together
Whether it’s through closing the economic gap between the North and South or tackling head
on the big questions about our identity and union, we are determined to unite our country as one.
We will build a Northern Powerhouse and give our cities more control over transport, housing, skills and healthcare with elected metro mayors. We will devolve more power within our family of nations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and introduce English Votes for English Laws to ensure a fair deal for every part of the UK.
And we will hold a EU Referendum to allow the British people to decide if Britain should be in or out of the European Union."
"Securing real change in our relationship with Europe
The public wants to see a real change in our relationship with Europe. In the coming months, we will provide communications support to the renegotiation of our country’s ties with the EU to secure the best deal possible for the UK and plan for the EU Referendum by the end of 2017."
What it is doing is consistent with its plan, communicating about one part of one of its four main themes of government work.
https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/why-the-government-believes-we-should-remain/eu-referendum-leaflet/
I am comparing Brexit with the Thatcher reforms.
Warning: NSFW
http://www.attn.com/stories/7073/virtual-reality-mens-sex-suit-eliminates-need-women
If anything, it proves that wearing a VR kit makes you look a dick ...
If you are asking me whether the consensus of economic opinion might be wrong, my answer would be that I think there is zero chance that the consensus is wrong in the short term (i.e. there will definitely be a quite severe economic hit over 1 to 2 years in the event of a Leave result).
The longer term is much less clear, of course, and economists are more divided on that. Quite apart from anything else, we have no idea what the deal with the EU will be.
BTW the Dutch voted overwhelmingly in a referendum yesterday about not ratifying an EU agreement with Ukraine (after the Government had already ratified it in advance). The EU do NOT like referenda.
(Petition up to 58000)
Speaking of sexy videogames, Fear Effect may be making an unexpected return (first two games were for the original Playstation, I think).
But the Electoral Commission this afternoon backed the Government's decision to send out the leaflet, noting in a statement:
"The regulated spending period for the referendum comes into force on 15 April. The commission recommended after the referendum on Scottish independence that during the regulated period, the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising activity.
"However, parliament decided not to put any legal restrictions on government activity until 28 days before the poll, which are the same rules that were in place for other recent referendums."
They say the government is following the rules.
Not exactly a shocker since the government wrote them.
How it is seen in the country might be a different matter entirely. When committed europhiles like OKC of this parish feel the propaganda brochure might be ill advised, there is a chance that you are not seeing the whole picture.
The government did not ratify the agreement in advance, the government ratified the agreement and only AFTER that did the petition to have a referendum even start. As a result of this referendum (which is only consultative legally) the ratification is legally suspended and the Dutch government must now decide to either confirm ratification or revoke it.
Either way the entire process and the government's decision is due to the Dutch legal system, not the EU.
http://thetab.com/us/indiana/2016/04/05/last-night-white-robed-priest-mistaken-armed-kkk-klansman-1804
In any case, I've already said that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the short-term hit (or even, a longer-term hit) is worthwhile to 'regain control of our country'. I have absolutely no problem with that argument.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-06/european-continental-crisis-hinges-critical-threshold-dutch-referendum
Arguments are won or lost on merit, not on what The Important People say.
EU politics = taking the voters for fools.
I mean this is the second referendum on leaving our continental partners.
Oooh, I've got an idea for a thread.
Were Leave to lose, they must stop acting like the EU/Scot Nats, and respect the will of the people.
Claiming propaganda is neutral, or that this is fair, appears to be insulting the electorate's intelligence at a time when they're not well-disposed towards Cameron et al. anyway.
L is for Leave. L is for Lice.
"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Doctor David Cameron, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Eurosceptics in Great Britain in General and the Tory Party in Particular"
https://thesparkspread.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/stimmzettel-anschluss.jpg
I've told Alastair of one of my upcoming EURef thread plans, he said I was going to need a tin helmet for that thread.
I suspect I'm going to need a fall out shelter if I follow your idea.
Needless to say the more the Government pulls stunts like this the less likely it is that Cameron will be able to reunite his party after the referendum.
In a change of heart from the start of the campaign I am honestly starting to look forward to the angst that will cause you and the other Cameroons on here.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116762
Do you really think that there will never be another eurosceptic Tory in the party ever again?
I admire your optimism fellah.
As for your final sentence, Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement.
Plus, Gove also knows, wanting to re-run the referendum so soon again will give succour to the SNP.
I for one will certainly not stop campaigning against the EU if Remain win. I will take huge pleasure in pointing out every time they do something that Remain claimed would not or could not happen due to Dave's amazing negotiating skills.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/05/brexit-will-leave-uk-farmers-up-to-34000-worse-off-study-finds
I suspect all the 40% were REMAINERS, though some of the 46% may also be REMAINERS with a sense of fair play.
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/198e9610-fca0-11e5-a405-005056900127
As the EU creaks ever forward, new opportunities will present themselves.
Not sure that one's a winner.