O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.
What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.
I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
Is that legal ?
Employer's put all sorts of stuff in employment contracts they make you sign - quite a bit of it wouldn't necessarily stand up in the courts. It's there so you know what sort of stuff might piss them off and to structure your behaviour accordingly.
I'm supposed to not join any major competitor or client of my firm, if I resign, within 6 months to discourage poaching. In practice, this is so restrictive that it would deny me any real chance to earn a living.
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
I thought they were going to throw their support behind the Remain campaign...
They have already reportedly given several hundred thousand quid to Remain. They must been getting worried. They don't want to be seen supporting the losing side.
True, GS always plays both sides politically when it thinks that both sides could win.
True, but in a PR system that the Democrats use in their primary at this point Sanders needs to be racking wins with 60-65%+ of the vote to overcome it. Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th when his voters preferred to vote for Kasich to try to stop Trump.
Their system is designed to work with only 2 candidates though, if there was a 3rd candidate or a 4th one it would be impossible for anyone to get a majority at least without superdelegates
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
I doubt the Mayfair, Belgravia and Fitzrovia vote will be the key swing area on election night, even if GS staff still have the energy and time to canvass and deliver leaflets after working their hours!
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptable
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptable
Well write and tell someone, what are we supposed to do about it ?
Acceptable to whom anyway, pretty much everyone else seems to have clocked that Vote Leave is about LEAVING, it isn't their responsibility to decide what happens next, any more than it is the job of your demolition contractor to decide what you build next.
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
True, but in a PR system that the Democrats use in their primary at this point Sanders needs to be racking wins with 60-65%+ of the vote to overcome it. Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th when his voters preferred to vote for Kasich to try to stop Trump.
Their system is designed to work with only 2 candidates though, if there was a 3rd candidate or a 4th one it would be impossible for anyone to get a majority at least without superdelegates
True, but if Sanders were to win New York, Hillary's home state, he would still have a shout and the superdelegates would start switching to him pretty fast
I see that Cameron was talking up tax havens today at PMQ's.
As someone who has personally invested in offshore tax funds I can think of only three reasons why you would invest in one. You live in said territory- as I did, you generate illicit funds that need hiding, or you want to avoid paying taxes in your own country and do not declare your offshore funds at home on your tax returns.
The thing is the fund management costs and the returns are pretty crap in offshore funds- well in mine they are- and as someone with an MA in Economics, and MBA I am reasonably financially literate.If my pension fund deliberately chose offshore funds that cost more to deliver less, I would be seriously pissed- but there again I do not know what they invest in.
There is little point asking people to show off their tax returns- those who are hiding income offshore are hiding it from their tax return. That is the whole point of the thing.
I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptable
Well write and tell someone, what are we supposed to do about it ?
Acceptable to whom anyway, pretty much everyone else seems to have clocked that Vote Leave is about LEAVING, it isn't their responsibility to decide what happens next, any more than it is the job of your demolition contractor to decide what you build next.
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.
O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.
What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.
I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.
A couple of years ago I went to a talk by Captain Winkle Brown. It was supposed to be about aircraft, but he spent a fair while talking about the liberation of Bergen Belsen, where he acted as an interpreter.
I have yet to go to any museum about the Holocaust, but his words had more effect than any museum I can imagine. Likewise, at uni I had an emeritus professor who had been a Japanese POW. His testimony was incredibly powerful.
Sadly, I am probably the last generation to directly benefit from such personal memories.
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
Probably not but even if she won it by 1% she would be unbeatable
I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
Well you have flaunted your virtue around a bit, was it fun ? You said all of that a few days ago, no one believed you then, no harm in trying again I guess
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
How can they stop staff doing something in their private life? Provided that the person doesn't link what they have to say to GS I don't see the issue. Indeed, it seems to me interference with the electoral process. Staff in the UK are voters and are entitled to take as much interest in this vote as in any other.
If you work at Goldman Sachs, it's unlikely you'll have much time for a private life.
My sister instilled a decent drinking culture in her team when she was there.
I worked there for three and a half years. I remember my mother's horror when I went into work on Boxing Day,
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlock
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlock
The lucky thing for the Conservative Party is that the referendum campaign has only about 9 and a bit weeks to go.
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)
But Arizona has a significant (and growing) Hispanic population, where we know there is more room for a further swing to the Democrats, especially if Trump is the candidate.
In Georgia, the Democrats are mainly powered by the black vote, where they would already have been pretty much at their ceiling with Obama.
It's toxic for their party. Labour tore itself apart already, now Saint Daniel is calling the government incompetent. Fortunately this is merely a mild toxin whereas Labour has taken hemlock
The lucky thing for the Conservative Party is that the referendum campaign has only about 9 and a bit weeks to go.
I agree and I think that was why David Cameron wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. There are nearly 4 more years for a post referendum cabinet to re-establish itself and go on to win well in 2020
Please give me a good reason why people invest in offshore tax havens. Provide me a link of these wonderful funds that deliver great returns for lower management charges that are better than own own domestic funds and I will eat my words.
Folk with money just love paying more for a fund that is delivering less. That is obviously why they go offshore. It is something based on altruism- it is their form of charity to make the likes of Cameron's father and family rich. Bless. My heart melts.
I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
Well you have flaunted your virtue around a bit, was it fun ? You said all of that a few days ago, no one believed you then, no harm in trying again I guess
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
How can they stop staff doing something in their private life? Provided that the person doesn't link what they have to say to GS I don't see the issue. Indeed, it seems to me interference with the electoral process. Staff in the UK are voters and are entitled to take as much interest in this vote as in any other.
If you work at Goldman Sachs, it's unlikely you'll have much time for a private life.
My sister instilled a decent drinking culture in her team when she was there.
I worked there for three and a half years. I remember my mother's horror when I went into work on Boxing Day,
Likewise when I was at IBM when I went in on New Years Day, until I mentioned they were paying me triple-time and time-off in lieu for the pleasure of my company
According to YouGov 32 per cent of respondents felt the Tory leader would do a better job of holding the First Minister to account than Kezia Dugdale, who was preferred by just 13 per cent.
Roughly the same share favoured Davidson as the more competent, although the Labour leader was counted as more in touch with ordinary people
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
In fairness your description of leave is credible and I look forward to the campaign. I do have respect for Michael Gove and will listen to him intently and with an open mind
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
The idea that the post referendum government will have discretion over free movement of labour needs to be made clear in the campaign for it to be acceptable
It is clear. The official leave campaigns slogan is "Vote Leave Take Control". If we Vote Leave then the elected government will Take Control and have discretion over free movement of labour.
At the ballot box we will have control to elect a government that uses the control how we want to.
How much clearer can we be? Vote Leave, Take Control.
<<<blackburn63 said: » show previous quotes Brilliant question from Douglas as usual.
You see Dave lovers, he's going nowhere, vote Leave with your conscience clear.
Douglas is far cleverer than Cameron and Dave knows it. He called Reckless "fat arse", he never dared abuse Douglas.>>>
Given that the vast majority of those voting Leave are either confirmed fruitcakes or politically apathetic/ignorant*, I doubt the potential "cleverness" of Carswell's question will have little impact in helping Leave. If Cameron had said "No" or waffled, then that would surely be seized on by Leave campaigners as a "Vote Leave, Get Rid of Cameron" signal, because that is a much clearer and easier to sell message and would surely shift more votes their way, eg in stubbornly pro-EU areas like Scotland or the Welsh Valleys etc.
One suspects "Leave" might need to do a bit of "Get Rid of Cameron" dog whistling by June time anyway...
(*I recognise many Leave supporters are vocal on here and are not (all) fruitcakes, and I myself have had to make a finely balanced decision myself as to which side i come down on, but this is a website for the politically aware and engaged - not your "average voter". My comment is not directed to you!)
This reminds me of Dave's "closet racists mostly" comment which back fired, I'm sure Remainers won't be so stupid as to say something like that again. Also how can you say the majority are of leavers are "apathetic" given the oldies who are most likely to vote leave are also most likely to turn out? If anything the 18-24 year old are most ignorant/apathetic.
"Nunu" is the nickname my ex girlfriend gave to her vagina.
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
That's a total cop out. Cameron will resign and a Leaver will head the negotiations. Leave will not get away with prevaricating on immigration between now and June. Your problem is how to keep the anti-immigration voters fired up once they realise the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out and accept deal with free movement.
'I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty'
....a 'lose' agreement is exactly what we got in 1973
I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty
It's not on offer. Cameron tried his best (we are told) to get concessions out of the EU, and came back with nothing at all to speak of. The EU doesnt want to reform, it thinks things are fine, except that were are not federal enough yet. The only words on people's lips amount to "ever closer union". After Dave's agreement we wont see those words on any more documents, but that is the founding principle of the EU, and the ECJ so that is what will happen.
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
I've thought for quite a while that I am a convinced Leaver. Yesterday I realised that actually my head is a Don't Know.
It's only my heart that says Leave, and the only reason is that we were taken in on a lie. I realised this when someone posted on here a comment about the Sir Edward Heath interview admitting that he lied.
But that was then, this is now. Politicians always seem to have some subterfuge or other even if it doesn't amount to an outright lie. We are where we are, and my head doesn't know what would be the best route to take.
For starters, I am ignoring all the propaganda & unpleasant personalities on both sides.
Sir Edward left a legacy of poison for his cherished project, I'm afraid.
Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992 for the Dems and it went for Carter twice, Hillary's dream is Trump 2016, Cruz 2020
Yeah. If the Democrats were to win more states on top of Obama 2008 one day, Georgia would be one of the first on the list. But she is not going to beat Cruz by seven points there.
I would've thought Arizona would be higher than Georgia on that list.
Trump would likely poll better in Arizona than Georgia, Cruz the reverse. Arizona has only voted for a Democrat once since 1960, in 1996, Georgia has voted three times for a Democrat in that timescale (plus its EC votes went to Byrd in 1960 and Wallace in 1968)
But Arizona has a significant (and growing) Hispanic population, where we know there is more room for a further swing to the Democrats, especially if Trump is the candidate.
In Georgia, the Democrats are mainly powered by the black vote, where they would already have been pretty much at their ceiling with Obama.
Arizona has a libertarian tradition which favours Trump, they are not so libertarian on the borders though and the Hispanic population in Arizona is not yet as high as in California, New Mexico or Texas. Romney won Arizona by 9% in 2012, Georgia by 8% and Hillary does seem to be holding most of the black vote
Now Vote Leave have won designation am I correct in assuming they will accept free movement of labour as part of their new treaty
What new treaty is that?
The new deal they are going to broker with the EU
I'm beginning to think you're a spoof.
Leave won't be brokering anything, that will be the govt, led by Cameron.
I suspect you know that and you're chuckling at me.
No - it is a genuine question that needs a responsible answer and not prevarication. If it was honest and credible I could vote for leave. The reason I am not committed yet is that I think this referendum may be won by leave on a false promise of stopping free movement of labour
Is it a false promise ?
If the public voted say 60% out on the basis of thinking it was going to get no free movement, it would be political suicide to go for an EEA/EFTA solution, irrespective of what the Leave campaign says. That call is one the government of the day will have to make based on how the referendum goes, who it least cares about pissing off, and how much political capital it thinks it has.
And I sorry but what he says isn't prevarication, its how the world is. Leave can suggest what it wants, the government chooses what happens.
I don't believe you are a waver at all to be honest, your line of questioning has been conspicuously aimed at trying to drive a wedge between the different factions of the leave camp, Nabavi and Meeks were playing the same game a month or so ago, and sadly for them and you, the leave campaign is smart enough (so far) not to bite.
This is not a conspiracy by me. Just wanting a fair answer to free movement of labour
What part of that will be for the government to decide do you struggle to understand?
That's a total cop out. Cameron will resign and a Leaver will head the negotiations. Leave will not get away with prevaricating on immigration between now and June. Your problem is how to keep the anti-immigration voters fired up once they realise the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out and accept deal with free movement.
Cameron just told us this very day in PMQ that he won't resign, and will stay and oversee the implementation of Leave, should they win. Carswell asked him, and he said yes, some people thought it was a stupid question, but the value of that answer is here to see right now.
The Tory Leavers won't do anything, whatever is decided will have to be passed by parliament.
Sky News are reporting that Goldman Sachs has told staff in Europe that they are not allowed to campaign for either side in the referendum.
I thought they were going to throw their support behind the Remain campaign...
They have already reportedly given several hundred thousand quid to Remain. They must been getting worried. They don't want to be seen supporting the losing side.
Yes this is all a bit late, isn't it? They've already nailed their colours to the mast.
But note I did speculate the other day that 'Davos consensus' on Brexit might be starting to break up. If LEAVE is now considered a real possibility, then organisations like GS will be keen to ensure that even given LEAVE nothing (for them) will change too much.
In the event of LEAVE expect lots of mental gymnastics with previous prophets of economic doom telling us that actually things won't change much.
Romney won by 8 points in 12 and McCain by 5 in 08.
Sample only 400 so MoE higher. Under normal circumstances Georgia should be a comfortable hold but the times they ain't a normal.
It's a Democrat poll, not credible, at all. I have some magic beans for sale if you believe it.
In more worthwhile news Gingrich is tipping Kasich as VP. As he correctly notes Trump-Kasich brings in Florida and Ohio (also PA). Newt has been helping Trump behind the scene and promoting him in the media.
I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Great news that Vote Leave have been selected as the campaign. The further Farage and his mob are from leading this the better. He has a role to play in leading his team and appealing to his voters, his team and his voters will never be a majority of the votes in total.
I feel now like I'm 80% likely to Vote Leave after today.
I'm still waiting in the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
How about just a better return on investment? Is that not enough?
Comments
@Arron_banks · 9m9 minutes ago
Vote leave document is full of lies and misrepresentations we will consult but expect judicial review .
What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.
I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.
I'm supposed to not join any major competitor or client of my firm, if I resign, within 6 months to discourage poaching. In practice, this is so restrictive that it would deny me any real chance to earn a living.
Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th when his voters preferred to vote for Kasich to try to stop Trump.
Their system is designed to work with only 2 candidates though, if there was a 3rd candidate or a 4th one it would be impossible for anyone to get a majority at least without superdelegates
This means war. I've just ordered 1,000 leaflets from Vote Leave to deliver locally.
Acceptable to whom anyway, pretty much everyone else seems to have clocked that Vote Leave is about LEAVING, it isn't their responsibility to decide what happens next, any more than it is the job of your demolition contractor to decide what you build next.
As someone who has personally invested in offshore tax funds I can think of only three reasons why you would invest in one. You live in said territory- as I did, you generate illicit funds that need hiding, or you want to avoid paying taxes in your own country and do not declare your offshore funds at home on your tax returns.
The thing is the fund management costs and the returns are pretty crap in offshore funds- well in mine they are- and as someone with an MA in Economics, and MBA I am reasonably financially literate.If my pension fund deliberately chose offshore funds that cost more to deliver less, I would be seriously pissed- but there again I do not know what they invest in.
There is little point asking people to show off their tax returns- those who are hiding income offshore are hiding it from their tax return. That is the whole point of the thing.
I'm glad my father wasn't someone who made his living facilitating an offshore fund for criminals and tax avoiders.
I have yet to go to any museum about the Holocaust, but his words had more effect than any museum I can imagine. Likewise, at uni I had an emeritus professor who had been a Japanese POW. His testimony was incredibly powerful.
Sadly, I am probably the last generation to directly benefit from such personal memories.
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/scots-wartime-hero-describes-horror-of-notorious-nazi-concentration-camp-belsen/
Edit: another link:
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-14/british-war-veteran-tells-itv-news-of-the-horrors-he-saw-at-bergen-belsen-nazi-concentration-70-years-ago/
Our choices come down to
1) Remain - accept more Europe, accept the Eurozone federalising and starting to operate as a single entity, accept that they will outvote us on more or less anything they really care about.
2) Leave - Invoke Article 50. Negotiate leaving the EU. Regain control over everything. Then give some of it away again as we negotiate our trade agreements with the EU and everyone else, this may or may not include Free Movement.
In Georgia, the Democrats are mainly powered by the black vote, where they would already have been pretty much at their ceiling with Obama.
I agree and I think that was why David Cameron wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. There are nearly 4 more years for a post referendum cabinet to re-establish itself and go on to win well in 2020
Folk with money just love paying more for a fund that is delivering less. That is obviously why they go offshore. It is something based on altruism- it is their form of charity to make the likes of Cameron's father and family rich. Bless. My heart melts.
Roughly the same share favoured Davidson as the more competent, although the Labour leader was counted as more in touch with ordinary people
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/poll-reveals-voters-think-ruth-davidson-better-opposition-leader-kezia-dugdale/
Wales
Labour 35
PC 21
Tories 19
UKIP 17
LD 6
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2016/04/11/the-new-welsh-political-barometer-poll-2/
At the ballot box we will have control to elect a government that uses the control how we want to.
How much clearer can we be? Vote Leave, Take Control.
'I would accept a lose agreement with the EU that requires a reduced contribution, accepts free movement of labour, but allows us to recover sovereignty'
....a 'lose' agreement is exactly what we got in 1973
It's only my heart that says Leave, and the only reason is that we were taken in on a lie. I realised this when someone posted on here a comment about the Sir Edward Heath interview admitting that he lied.
But that was then, this is now. Politicians always seem to have some subterfuge or other even if it doesn't amount to an outright lie. We are where we are, and my head doesn't know what would be the best route to take.
For starters, I am ignoring all the propaganda & unpleasant personalities on both sides.
Sir Edward left a legacy of poison for his cherished project, I'm afraid.
I suspect because the Kippers know the Tory Leavers are going to sell them out on immigration
The Tory Leavers won't do anything, whatever is decided will have to be passed by parliament.
But note I did speculate the other day that 'Davos consensus' on Brexit might be starting to break up. If LEAVE is now considered a real possibility, then organisations like GS will be keen to ensure that even given LEAVE nothing (for them) will change too much.
In the event of LEAVE expect lots of mental gymnastics with previous prophets of economic doom telling us that actually things won't change much.
In more worthwhile news Gingrich is tipping Kasich as VP. As he correctly notes Trump-Kasich brings in Florida and Ohio (also PA). Newt has been helping Trump behind the scene and promoting him in the media.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/12/newt-gingrich-donald-trumps-ability-focus-unlike-anybody-else-politics
I feel now like I'm 80% likely to Vote Leave after today.