SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.
Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.
One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.
Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.
Do you have a link to Curtice' article?
It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")
Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?
Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.
Tories - London only party and against independence Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say
SNP - Freedom for Ayrshire turnips - Scottish independence secondary to root vegetable emancipation.
SouthamObserver - I don't understand where Corbyn has changed the essence of the Labour movement that you no longer vote Labour? The previous Labour government seemed to me a bunch of entriests whose entire interest was to make money. Isn't Corbyn a better man than the £2000 suited Miliband brothers? I hated the middle class Labour of Miliband but could see myself voting for Corbyn.
Corbyn and McDonnell - and their advisers - hold views that I find repellant and nonsensical. Making money is not a bad thing. It's how you generate the tax revenues that pay for redistributive policies and better public services. What's more, Corbyn is clearly incapable of leadership. He can't even fill out a tax return.
There's nothing wrong with making money per se - my income is over £100K and I duly pay 40% tax on most of it and use the rest unapologetically and privately as I think fit, whether to give it away or spend it on riotous living - I do a bit of both. But making money as a priority in life seems to me an unfortunate life choice, and going out of your way to find devices to avoid paying your share to the community likewise, as I'm sure we agree.
Ideally, on the left we should seek both to maximise national income and to redistribute part of the top half to the bottom half, to even out the variations in fortune which are less our own doing than we like to think. How to do it is obviously a challenge, but if politicians don't even want to do it (as I don't think e.g. Osborne does), they aren't worth considering. If, conversely, they're notably indifferent to accumulating wealth themselves and don't bother to optimise their arrangements (Corbyn paid too much tax, not too little), that's a positive point, and nothing to do with leadership.
But I do think that the left needs competent economic management too, and I'm not sure which aspect of McDonnell's economic approach - balance the books in current spending and borrow at low interest rates for infrastructure investment - you disagree with.
I agree with a lot of that. But I don't see any recognition from the Labour leadership and its coterie of advisers that you need a flourishing business community to generate the tax revenues needed to do the stuff centre left governments should do. And I certainly don't see any policies to that that effect. What's more, and as discussed frequently on here, I just can't vote for a party led by people who are so closely connected to organisations such as Stop the War and who have spent years sharing platforms with, and failing to criticise the beliefs of, self-declared enemies of this country, anti-semites, believers in the subjugation of women and the killing of homosexuals. I just can't ignore or dismiss such things, I'm afraid.
Well, we have on topic a poll that tells us everything we already knew and a thread that leaves the quite strong hint that it's not so much "we're all in this together" but "we're all in this together but it'll be a lot easier for you if you vote Conservative".
Elsewhere, a terrible earthquake in Ecuador which will hopefully bring a positive response from the UK and the rest of the world in terms of the provision of help.
Further elsewhere, Ted Cruz mopped up the Wyoming GOP delegates as expected but New York will be very different and it's hard to see Trump failing to clean up though he has under performed his poll numbers and I wonder if Kasich will run him closer than the polls currently suggest.
On matters EU, the issue of Cameron's position post a LEAVE victory continues to resonate. It's long been my view Cameron and Osborne are trapped together at the top. Osborne effectively runs the Party but his personal unpopularity means he needs Cameron at No.10 to keep the Party in power. As long as Cameron retains (or is seen to retain) that popularity, he is useful to Osborne who has no alternative "front man".
Thus Cameron stays even if LEAVE wins because Osborne needs Cameron to stay prominent in the Government as his life expectancy under another leader would be very short.
Only two things will change this - either Cameron will walk (possible if LEAVE wins big) or the Party will turn on him (Osborne's patronage goes deep and I'm far from convinced there would be enough support for a challenge but that isn't the point).
A successful challenge is one thing and I think very unlikely - a failed challenge is something else. The problem for the failures (1989 and 1995) is that if you get 15-30% of the Party not supporting the leader, it re-enforces the perception of disunity and division and that would make the autumn Conference interesting.
I am sure the Scottish Tories (on course for their best result in years) will heed the welcome advice of the Zoomers on PB about how they could improve their fortunes...
Or not.
The Panelbase survey, conducted for The Sunday Times, reveals that Ruth Davidson’s party is now level pegging with Scottish Labour, led by Kezia Dugdale.
The analysis shows Dugdale’s approval ratings are the worst among Scotland’s five main political leaders.
How ironic , the fruitcake who can never post an original thought , can only put forward the Times as his position. Try and give us a personal position , something that you had in your own head for once rather than a twatter or story from someone else. Are you capable of any original thinking. I may not always be right but I have a brain that actually works, zoom that halfwit.
SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.
Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.
One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.
Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.
Do you have a link to Curtice' article?
It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")
Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?
Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.
Tories - London only party and against independence Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say
SNP - Freedom for Ayrshire turnips - Scottish independence secondary to root vegetable emancipation.
SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.
Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.
One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.
Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.
Do you have a link to Curtice' article?
It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")
Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?
Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.
Tories - London only party and against independence Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say
Fair enough- we shall have to see how it all shakes out (and I certainly don't disagree with your analysis of the Greens or RISE - tho that marmite vs peanut butter PPB is one to cherish)
I doubt Mr Curtice will be best pleased being misrepresented in that way mind you. He is usually very fair and reports, as he actually did here, facts rather than taking sides. Herald totally out of order.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.
Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.
One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.
Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.
Do you have a link to Curtice' article?
It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")
Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?
Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.
Tories - London only party and against independence Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say
SNP - Freedom for Ayrshire turnips - Scottish independence secondary to root vegetable emancipation.
Are you choking on one of your stale pies
Nah .... slight choke on your thin skin this morning.
A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'
The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.
This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.
I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.
SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.
Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.
One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.
Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.
Do you have a link to Curtice' article?
It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")
Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?
Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.
Tories - London only party and against independence Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say
SNP - Freedom for Ayrshire turnips - Scottish independence secondary to root vegetable emancipation.
Are you choking on one of your stale pies
Nah .... slight choke on your thin skin this morning.
Lighten up Chief Turnip of the Ayrshire Race ....
I was trying to match your great wit, obviously I will get my coat
A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'
The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.
This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.
I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.
Actually, despite probably being very europhile, I've never had the slightest smidgen of a row with David Herdson on the EU, and am full of respect for him.
He is possibly the most reasonable and measured Remainer on here. For example, he has also criticised Project Fear for being way OTT. He doesn't push attack lines: he concedes where his opponents have an argument, respectfully, and gently points out where he disagrees.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Osborne's comment could be interpreted as "I am incapable of negotiating a good deal for the UK". To which the obvious response is, "Well, piss off then and let us have a chancellor who is competent"
Yesterday Boris said that David Cameron will continue as PM post a leave vote and today on Marr both David Davis and Chris Grayling re-affirmed that Ken Clarke was wrong in his statement that David Cameron would be gone within 30 seconds of a leave vote and Chris Grayling went further by saying that his contacts throughout Europe would be invaluable as part of an exit team in negotiations with the EU. Is the leave campaign trying to re-assure the undecided conservatives that it is safe to vote leave and that a civil war will not follow any such vote
I think they are just calling it as they see it. To be honest it would probably serve their cause better if they could persuade the country that voting Leave was voting to get rid of Cameron but the fact that they are not playing that card shows me that they genuinely believe Cameron can and should stay. In spite of my occasional bouts of doubt and disdain for Cameron over the EU question it is a view I share.
Whatever they think in private, they cannot publicly say Cameron's job is on the line. They are members of the government, after all; or aspire to be, in Boris's case. In practice, how on earth could Cameron lead exit negotiations when he doesn't want to leave? It would be a recipe for permanent friction, at the very least. His authority would be utterly shot - both inside Parliament and with EU member states.
It is in vote LEAVE's best interest for the 2/3 or more of voters that do not want Cameron, to believe that voting LEAVE will kick Cameron out because some of them will use that as their main reason to vote LEAVE. The fact that Conservative LEAVE people are saying the opposite is down to party loyalty. Admirable, but not in best interests of LEAVE.
No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave in order to kick Cameron out when they will get Gove/Boris/Farage/IDS instead. It's a pipe dream.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'
The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.
This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.
I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.
The most realistic recognition of the EU's issues that we read and hear from REMAINers is a form of Gerald Ratner product truth along with a TINA. Yes we know the EU is a bit cr*p but There Is No Alternative.
Try and fit a sunny uplands to that? This belief is an acceptance that we are just managing the EU stagnation. Our civil servants used to say pre-Thatcher, that they were just managing our country's decline. So maybe being pro-EU is a more modern form of the post war mind set of our civil servants?
What has happened to Merkel, she has gone totally bonkers over the past few years. It all began with his response to Japanese Tsunami, with order to close all German Nuclear Power Plants, and gone downhill ever since.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'
The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.
This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.
I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.
There's another reason: people fear loss more than they crave gain.
Making leaving the EU something that *might* cause you and your family some loss is much better at getting you out to vote, than some dreaming aspirations of a European Superstate.
It's the same reason that US elections are full of negative campaigning. It's because it works. And our side is guilty of it too. If we stay in the EU, Turkey will become a member. If we stay in the EU, we'll be forced to join the Euro. If we stay in the EU, we'll have to join Schengen. If we stay in the EU, terrorists will come and kill us all.
We play Project Fear, too. And most of our Fear arguments are as specious and bullshit as three million jobs.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
Top post, Mr Stodge.
Agreed. I think a Brexit vote is in both our interests, and the EU's.
What has happened to Merkel, she has gone totally bonkers over the past few years. It all began with his response to Japanese Tsunami, with order to close all German Nuclear Power Plants, and gone downhill ever since.
Although the German nuclear power plants were going to close anyway: they were near the end of their economic lives, and maintenance bills were already mounting rapidly. Plus the ridiculous over-subsidies of renewables in Germany meant that the grid needs flexible power than can be turned on and off rapidly, not old baseload plants that took days to bring on- or off-line.
TCPoliticalBetting - it is odd, insn't it. He must have seen the complete collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland, the rejection of the internationalist leadership in Labour England, the collapse of the EU favouring (anybody except the English) Liberal Party - then says this. I have always voted Conservative because I thought they were on the country's side and I really didn't think Labour was. I don't vote Conservative to save a few thousand pounds of tax. There are cards to play in any trade negotiation - the 90 billion deficit - the 5 or 6 million EU nationals that will also lose their jobs. He is refusing to represent me, and I will not vote for him.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Yesterday Boris said that David Cameron will continue as PM post a leave vote and today on Marr both David Davis and Chris Grayling re-affirmed that Ken Clarke was wrong in his statement that David Cameron would be gone within 30 seconds of a leave vote and Chris Grayling went further by saying that his contacts throughout Europe would be invaluable as part of an exit team in negotiations with the EU. Is the leave campaign trying to re-assure the undecided conservatives that it is safe to vote leave and that a civil war will not follow any such vote
I think they are just calling it as they see it. To be honest it would probably serve their cause better if they could persuade the country that voting Leave was voting to get rid of Cameron but the fact that they are not playing that card shows me that they genuinely believe Cameron can and should stay. In spite of my occasional bouts of doubt and disdain for Cameron over the EU question it is a view I share.
Whatever they think in private, they cannot publicly say Cameron's job is on the line. They are members of the government, after all; or aspire to be, in Boris's case. In practice, how on earth could Cameron lead exit negotiations when he doesn't want to leave? It would be a recipe for permanent friction, at the very least. His authority would be utterly shot - both inside Parliament and with EU member states.
It is in vote LEAVE's best interest for the 2/3 or more of voters that do not want Cameron, to believe that voting LEAVE will kick Cameron out because some of them will use that as their main reason to vote LEAVE. The fact that Conservative LEAVE people are saying the opposite is down to party loyalty. Admirable, but not in best interests of LEAVE.
No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave in order to kick Cameron out when they will get Gove/Boris/Farage/IDS instead. It's a pipe dream.
"No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave..." That is a very emphatic view. no voter, not even one or two...? You cannot be serious.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
Top post, Mr Stodge.
I agree with stodge (for once) and stodge agrees with me (for once). Outside the sun shines, drying the grass ready for cutting. A sunny uplands view on life. Time to LEAVE (PB for the lawn).
I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.
Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.
Andrew Marr made the point to Grayling that negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU would be very difficult because the main EU countries have a very different mindset to us about Europe.
Neither of them followed up the consequential issue that this is perhaps the fundamental reason for a separation.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.
With freedom of movement retained and a contribution to the EU, just as George Osborne said (and was being criticised by your fellow Leavers downthread for saying).
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
Yesterday Boris said that David Cameron will continue as PM post a leave vote and today on Marr both David Davis and Chris Grayling re-affirmed that Ken Clarke was wrong in his statement that David Cameron would be gone within 30 seconds of a leave vote and Chris Grayling went further by saying that his contacts throughout Europe would be invaluable as part of an exit team in negotiations with the EU. Is the leave campaign trying to re-assure the undecided conservatives that it is safe to vote leave and that a civil war will not follow any such vote
I think they are just calling it as they see it. To be honest it would probably serve their cause better if they could persuade the country that voting Leave was voting to get rid of Cameron but the fact that they are not playing that card shows me that they genuinely believe Cameron can and should stay. In spite of my occasional bouts of doubt and disdain for Cameron over the EU question it is a view I share.
Whatever they think in private, they cannot publicly say Cameron's job is on the line. They are members of the government, after all; or aspire to be, in Boris's case. In practice, how on earth could Cameron lead exit negotiations when he doesn't want to leave? It would be a recipe for permanent friction, at the very least. His authority would be utterly shot - both inside Parliament and with EU member states.
It is in vote LEAVE's best interest for the 2/3 or more of voters that do not want Cameron, to believe that voting LEAVE will kick Cameron out because some of them will use that as their main reason to vote LEAVE. The fact that Conservative LEAVE people are saying the opposite is down to party loyalty. Admirable, but not in best interests of LEAVE.
No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave in order to kick Cameron out when they will get Gove/Boris/Farage/IDS instead. It's a pipe dream.
This is as deluded as it gets, I spent time with a leading member of Labour Leave yesterday, a charming man, just the type to revitalise Labour.
And you mention Farage, please explain (I've asked this many times) if we vote Leave, how do we "get" Farage?
Its only fair that Project Fear substantiate their nonsense.
An estimated 43,900 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales in 2014/15; the highest number since 1999/00, with 27% more people dying in the winter months compared with the non-winter months
The majority of deaths occurred among people aged 75 and over; there were an estimated 36,300 excess winter deaths in this age group in 2014/15, compared with 7,700 in people aged under 75
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Osborne's comment could be interpreted as "I am incapable of negotiating a good deal for the UK". To which the obvious response is, "Well, piss off then and let us have a chancellor who is competent"
Agreed and completes the assessment of him to be the next PM. Can now be rated with an E minus. Completely unsuitable for any Leadership role.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this.
I hope this proves the case, in the event of a Leave vote, but people do not always come together to create a deal, even if it is in all sides' interests to do so.
I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.
Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.
With freedom of movement retained and a contribution to the EU, just as George Osborne said (and was being criticised by your fellow Leavers downthread for saying).
George Osborne was conceding a point that he might have been negotiating for after a LEAVE vote. Very poor approach to negotiations or fighting for the UK's best interest. No wonder that renegotiation achieved so little with this attitude from Osborne. He could of course just chosen to STFU, but he and Cameron have lost their political senses.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
I think that is a misrepresentation of this position. The starting point was that the emerging European Community operating without British influence represented a substantial threat to British economic interests. And so the reluctant conclusion reached was that the best way to preserve British interests was to join it. Or at least that was what I took to be the Macmillan position as articulated in the programme on the BBC the other night.
It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.
AlastairMeeks - I suspect that you are not a natural Conservative voter - George Osborne should be much more worried about losing my vote.
He seems to have made no more than a statement of the obvious truth. If Conservatives can't deal with that, that's their problem at least as much as his.
Right now many Leave supporters seem to be in the market for simple perfect but unattainable solutions. Politicians who pander to them by pretending that they're possible are not just being intellectually dishonest, they're storing up problems for themselves should their claims ever be tested.
A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne "UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
The key term here is "mutually acceptable". What it doesn't mean is everything the UK demands. The unknowables are just how much we and the EU have to concede to get to a deal, the timeframe and the damage the uncertainty will do in the meantime. For example, could a UK government make concessions on free movement of people in order to safeguard free movement of capital for the City? How does making concessions for the City help Frankfurt and Paris? And so on.
An estimated 43,900 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales in 2014/15; the highest number since 1999/00, with 27% more people dying in the winter months compared with the non-winter months
The majority of deaths occurred among people aged 75 and over; there were an estimated 36,300 excess winter deaths in this age group in 2014/15, compared with 7,700 in people aged under 75
Presumably, you are going to produce the details of their finances to assert that it is 'reality'?
You are going to demonstrate that the year before, when deaths were lower, it was because the pensioners were richer?
Or perhaps this statistic reflects the difference in the weather, the virus strains, the NHS, the state of social care?
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
A question is whether we have more choices to buy things from than the EU has for the exports we provide them? My gut reaction is that the world is a bigger marketplace to buy from for us whereas what we sell to the EU is more specialised, more local (agricultural) and in relative decline compared to what we sell elsewhere.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
Would not Jaguar and Rover cars be a good substitute for BMW and Mercedes cars?
However, there may be tariffs either way on the components that go into British or German cars, not just on the finished car.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
I think that is a misrepresentation of this position. The starting point was that the emerging European Community operating without British influence represented a substantial threat to British economic interests. And so the reluctant conclusion reached was that the best way to preserve British interests was to join it. Or at least that was what I took to be the Macmillan position as articulated in the programme on the BBC the other night.
It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.
The comment about "only sourced from the EU" did not refer to cars, but to other goods ranging from, say, Champagne to specialist medical equipment. Before you put tariffs on stuff you need alternative sources of supply at lower cost.
Mr. Observer, do Iceland or Turkey face EU tariffs? Could've sworn I read Andrew Neil said that from Iceland to Turkey, and all points in between, there were no tariffs.
Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
I think that is a misrepresentation of this position. The starting point was that the emerging European Community operating without British influence represented a substantial threat to British economic interests. And so the reluctant conclusion reached was that the best way to preserve British interests was to join it. Or at least that was what I took to be the Macmillan position as articulated in the programme on the BBC the other night.
It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.
over the last months Ive seen lots of remainers make the statement. As for restriction of choice I seriously doubt it. Models are produced in many places.
All right hand drive BMW 3 series ( their biggest selling car ) are produced in S Africa not Germany. The japanese, produce the same cars as Europe in Japan, Peugeot and Renault ditto in China and Russia. VW produces worldwide as does Mercedes.
So where's the restriction in choice coming from ?
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Worrying about exam results, looking for a job, spaced out?
I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.
Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.
Yes, I know, Mr. Robert, but look at the context of that article. It is about money and even then it is not universally true - your own career as a serial entrepreneur creating new companies could not happen if it was.
If, as claimed in the article, "Humans are hardwired to be risk averse", then we would still be living in caves, probably somewhere in Africa. Every step in, to use Jacob Bronowski's immortal phrase, The Ascent of Man has required risk of loss (most commonly of life) but it has still been taken.
I should think the Volkswagen plants in Mexico are the principle reason why Mexico and the EU have free trade - but not free movement. Perhaps being the biggest market for BMW will move a few minds. Does Germany really care about Poland - "we will make a mountain of gold from England" - and its interests?
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.
The comment about "only sourced from the EU" did not refer to cars, but to other goods ranging from, say, Champagne to specialist medical equipment. Before you put tariffs on stuff you need alternative sources of supply at lower cost.
There are excellent English substitutes for champagne. Nyetimber for example beats champagne in blind tastings by the French. Global warming is helping. God on our side.
Do the Leavers call it Project Fear because they fear it so much? In a binary choice it is the obvious way to win. Dan Hodges is right that it will prevail in June. It usually does. See AV 2011 for the fear of perpetual minority governments. See Quebec for the fear of economic viability. See Scotland for the fear of Malcolm G. See GE 2015 for the fear of Miliband and over spending. Tune in again in November for the Democrat Project Fear of Trump or Cruz. Like it or not, it is the way to go. Get over it. By the way, on the AV fear project have the Irish got a government yet?
Do the Leavers call it Project Fear because they fear it so much?
Because the most effective way to neutralise it is to mock it and make it the subject of ridicule, a tactic which shows some promise given the government's lack of common sense in keeping their scare stories credible.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Worrying about exam results, looking for a job, spaced out?
Project fear - Turkey is going to join the EU, the EU makes terrorist attacks more likely, the only way to save the NHS is to leave the EU, the EU wants to subsume the UK into a European superstate. And so on.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Most university summer terms do not end until the beginning of July, so 1
If, as claimed in the article, "Humans are hardwired to be risk averse", then we would still be living in caves, probably somewhere in Africa. Every step in, to use Jacob Bronowski's immortal phrase, The Ascent of Man has required risk of loss (most commonly of life) but it has still been taken.
Remember those famous phrases:
George Mallory : "Why Everest ? Because it's there" "Everest ? Nah, looks a bit dangerous, better to stay at home and have a nice cup of tea"
Titus Oates : "I am just going outside and may be some time." "It's a bit nippy out there, someone put the kettle on"
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.
With freedom of movement retained and a contribution to the EU, just as George Osborne said (and was being criticised by your fellow Leavers downthread for saying).
Well I am happy with freedom of movement. And that contribution would be about 1/4 of our current net contribution.
More to the point the vast majority of EU rulings would no longer apply to us.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.
Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?
really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.
The comment about "only sourced from the EU" did not refer to cars, but to other goods ranging from, say, Champagne to specialist medical equipment. Before you put tariffs on stuff you need alternative sources of supply at lower cost.
There are excellent English substitutes for champagne. Nyetimber for example beats champagne in blind tastings by the French. Global warming is helping. God on our side.
Nyetimber! Pah! Nice, but overpriced for what it is. Ridgeview, Sir, Ridgeview. That is the stuff.
It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.
With freedom of movement retained and a contribution to the EU, just as George Osborne said (and was being criticised by your fellow Leavers downthread for saying).
Well I am happy with freedom of movement. And that contribution would be about 1/4 of our current net contribution.
More to the point the vast majority of EU rulings would no longer apply to us.
And outside the ECJ, which means no more "ever closer union" in fact, rather than the current fiction.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Worrying about exam results, looking for a job, spaced out?
Do the Leavers call it Project Fear because they fear it so much? In a binary choice it is the obvious way to win. Dan Hodges is right that it will prevail in June. It usually does. See AV 2011 for the fear of perpetual minority governments. See Quebec for the fear of economic viability. See Scotland for the fear of Malcolm G. See GE 2015 for the fear of Miliband and over spending. Tune in again in November for the Democrat Project Fear of Trump or Cruz. Like it or not, it is the way to go. Get over it. By the way, on the AV fear project have the Irish got a government yet?
It's called that because a hitherto anonymous member of the Better Together team named the strategy as such. He must be a bit miffed that he can't take credit for possibly the most widely quoted political meme of the past 2-3 years.
Yesterday Boris said that David Cameron will continue as PM post a leave vote and today on Marr both David Davis and Chris Grayling re-affirmed that Ken Clarke was wrong in his statement that David Cameron would be gone within 30 seconds of a leave vote and Chris Grayling went further by saying that his contacts throughout Europe would be invaluable as part of an exit team in negotiations with the EU. Is the leave campaign trying to re-assure the undecided conservatives that it is safe to vote leave and that a civil war will not follow any such vote
I think they are just calling it as they see it. To be honest it would probably serve their cause better if they could persuade the country that voting Leave was voting to get rid of Cameron but the fact that they are not playing that card shows me that they genuinely believe Cameron can and should stay. In spite of my occasional bouts of doubt and disdain for Cameron over the EU question it is a view I share.
Whatever they think in private, they cannot publicly say Cameron's job is on the line. They are members of the government, after all; or aspire to be, in Boris's case. In practice, how on earth could Cameron lead exit negotiations when he doesn't want to leave? It would be a recipe for permanent friction, at the very least. His authority would be utterly shot - both inside Parliament and with EU member states.
It is in vote LEAVE's best interest for the 2/3 or more of voters that do not want Cameron, to believe that voting LEAVE will kick Cameron out because some of them will use that as their main reason to vote LEAVE. The fact that Conservative LEAVE people are saying the opposite is down to party loyalty. Admirable, but not in best interests of LEAVE.
No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave in order to kick Cameron out when they will get Gove/Boris/Farage/IDS instead. It's a pipe dream.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Worrying about exam results, looking for a job, spaced out?
At Glastonbury Festival 22-26 June
The big names at Glastonbury do not first appear until the Friday night
Mr. Indigo, or, for that matter "The die is cast!" (Caesar).
I quite like Hannibal's "We shall find a way, or make one", which he reportedly said before leading an army of men, horses and elephants into the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)
Where will the university students be on June 23rd? 1. At university (with the register), 2. On holiday away (unable to vote) 3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
Most university summer terms do not end until the beginning of July, so 1
Are you sure Hyufd? Both universities I attended and all three that I worked in ended on or around the 1st June. I was told that was normal. You have two four month semesters- October-January and February-May - then four months off for examining/research.
It's private schools that end on the 1st July, by tradition.
Comments
Well, we have on topic a poll that tells us everything we already knew and a thread that leaves the quite strong hint that it's not so much "we're all in this together" but "we're all in this together but it'll be a lot easier for you if you vote Conservative".
Elsewhere, a terrible earthquake in Ecuador which will hopefully bring a positive response from the UK and the rest of the world in terms of the provision of help.
Further elsewhere, Ted Cruz mopped up the Wyoming GOP delegates as expected but New York will be very different and it's hard to see Trump failing to clean up though he has under performed his poll numbers and I wonder if Kasich will run him closer than the polls currently suggest.
On matters EU, the issue of Cameron's position post a LEAVE victory continues to resonate. It's long been my view Cameron and Osborne are trapped together at the top. Osborne effectively runs the Party but his personal unpopularity means he needs Cameron at No.10 to keep the Party in power. As long as Cameron retains (or is seen to retain) that popularity, he is useful to Osborne who has no alternative "front man".
Thus Cameron stays even if LEAVE wins because Osborne needs Cameron to stay prominent in the Government as his life expectancy under another leader would be very short.
Only two things will change this - either Cameron will walk (possible if LEAVE wins big) or the Party will turn on him (Osborne's patronage goes deep and I'm far from convinced there would be enough support for a challenge but that isn't the point).
A successful challenge is one thing and I think very unlikely - a failed challenge is something else. The problem for the failures (1989 and 1995) is that if you get 15-30% of the Party not supporting the leader, it re-enforces the perception of disunity and division and that would make the autumn Conference interesting.
How ironic , the fruitcake who can never post an original thought , can only put forward the Times as his position.
Try and give us a personal position , something that you had in your own head for once rather than a twatter or story from someone else. Are you capable of any original thinking.
I may not always be right but I have a brain that actually works, zoom that halfwit.
George Osborne ✔ @George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"
Lighten up Chief Turnip of the Ayrshire Race ....
two thirds of Germans think Merkel was wrong to allow the prosecution of the satirist Boehmermann.
Angie seems set on self destruction.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/fall-boehmermann-zwei-drittel-der-deutschen-halten-merkels-entscheidung-fuer-falsch-14183251.html
I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.
Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.
He is possibly the most reasonable and measured Remainer on here. For example, he has also criticised Project Fear for being way OTT. He doesn't push attack lines: he concedes where his opponents have an argument, respectfully, and gently points out where he disagrees.
Many other Remainers could learn from him.
This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.
The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.
If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.
I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.
In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.
Try and fit a sunny uplands to that? This belief is an acceptance that we are just managing the EU stagnation. Our civil servants used to say pre-Thatcher, that they were just managing our country's decline. So maybe being pro-EU is a more modern form of the post war mind set of our civil servants?
Making leaving the EU something that *might* cause you and your family some loss is much better at getting you out to vote, than some dreaming aspirations of a European Superstate.
It's the same reason that US elections are full of negative campaigning. It's because it works. And our side is guilty of it too. If we stay in the EU, Turkey will become a member. If we stay in the EU, we'll be forced to join the Euro. If we stay in the EU, we'll have to join Schengen. If we stay in the EU, terrorists will come and kill us all.
We play Project Fear, too. And most of our Fear arguments are as specious and bullshit as three million jobs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html
The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.
A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.
" people fear loss more than they crave gain"
I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.
Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.
Neither of them followed up the consequential issue that this is perhaps the fundamental reason for a separation.
Alternatively, there is reality.
And you mention Farage, please explain (I've asked this many times) if we vote Leave, how do we "get" Farage?
Its only fair that Project Fear substantiate their nonsense.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/201415provisionaland201314final
Sod it, I can't take it with me !! ....
People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.
It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4f5mkv/i_am_a_volunteer_election_monitor_and_activist/
Right now many Leave supporters seem to be in the market for simple perfect but unattainable solutions. Politicians who pander to them by pretending that they're possible are not just being intellectually dishonest, they're storing up problems for themselves should their claims ever be tested.
You are going to demonstrate that the year before, when deaths were lower, it was because the pensioners were richer?
Or perhaps this statistic reflects the difference in the weather, the virus strains, the NHS, the state of social care?
Causation, correlation etc.
However, there may be tariffs either way on the components that go into British or German cars, not just on the finished car.
The comment about "only sourced from the EU" did not refer to cars, but to other goods ranging from, say, Champagne to specialist medical equipment. Before you put tariffs on stuff you need alternative sources of supply at lower cost.
1. At university (with the register),
2. On holiday away (unable to vote)
3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)
All right hand drive BMW 3 series ( their biggest selling car ) are produced in S Africa not Germany. The japanese, produce the same cars as Europe in Japan, Peugeot and Renault ditto in China and Russia. VW produces worldwide as does Mercedes.
So where's the restriction in choice coming from ?
If, as claimed in the article, "Humans are hardwired to be risk averse", then we would still be living in caves, probably somewhere in Africa. Every step in, to use Jacob Bronowski's immortal phrase, The Ascent of Man has required risk of loss (most commonly of life) but it has still been taken.
Understatement of the day.
There are excellent English substitutes for champagne. Nyetimber for example beats champagne in blind tastings by the French. Global warming is helping. God on our side.
See AV 2011 for the fear of perpetual minority governments.
See Quebec for the fear of economic viability.
See Scotland for the fear of Malcolm G.
See GE 2015 for the fear of Miliband and over spending.
Tune in again in November for the Democrat Project Fear of Trump or Cruz.
Like it or not, it is the way to go. Get over it. By the way, on the AV fear project have the Irish got a government yet?
Project Fear ? Project Chicken Licken!
https://twitter.com/Henbell/status/721646220624732162
George Mallory : "Why Everest ? Because it's there" "Everest ? Nah, looks a bit dangerous, better to stay at home and have a nice cup of tea"
Titus Oates : "I am just going outside and may be some time." "It's a bit nippy out there, someone put the kettle on"
More to the point the vast majority of EU rulings would no longer apply to us.
Britain would be 'killed' in trade talks if it left EU, says French minister
Major powers such as China would have little interest
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/britain-killed-in-trade-talks-eu-french-minister-emmanuel-macron
I never knew that the Chines took their instructions from Paris. And as for 'Major Powers' - there are only two - The USA and China.
I quite like Hannibal's "We shall find a way, or make one", which he reportedly said before leading an army of men, horses and elephants into the Alps, in winter, in the teeth of hostile tribes.
It's private schools that end on the 1st July, by tradition.