Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Nonsense, when it is in the best interests of the country/is a matter of national importance, I always put the country ahead of the best interests of the Party/oppose what Cameron would like me to do.
#Tories4AV
"No, the COUNTRY cums first!" - Liz Kendall, 2015.
Do you have to spell it like that? I mean, really?
Ooops. I blame autocorrect :blushes:
I really don't want to have to visualise Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall in a political orgy debating whether it's Labour, or the country, that would climax first.
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
My recollection is he supposedly nominated Richard, but I don't recall how certain that is.
Oliver Cromwell had risen from unknown member of Parliament in his 40s to being commander of the New Model Army, which emerged victorious from the English Civil War. When he returned from a final campaign in Ireland, Oliver Cromwell became disillusioned at inconclusive debates in the Rump Parliament between Presbyterians and other schools of thought within Protestantism. Parliamentarian suspicion of anything smacking of Catholicism, which was strongly associated with the Royalist side in the war, led to enforcement of religious precepts that left moderate Anglicans barely tolerated. A Puritan regime strictly enforced the Sabbath, and banned almost all form of public celebration, even at Christmas. Cromwell attempted to reform the government through an army-nominated assembly known as Barebone's Parliament, but the proposals were so unworkably radical that he was forced to end the experiment after a few months. Thereafter, a written constitution created the position of Lord Protector for Cromwell and from 1653 until his death in 1658, he ruled with all the powers of a monarch, while Richard took on the role of heir.
On his father's death Richard became Lord Protector, but lacked authority. He attempted to mediate between the army and civil society, and allowed a Parliament which contained a large number of disaffected Presbyterians and Royalists. Suspicions that civilian councilors were intent on supplanting the army were brought to a head by an attempt to prosecute a major-general for actions against a Royalist. The army made threatening show of force against Richard, and may have had him in detention; he formally renounced power nine months after succeeding. Without a king-like figure, such as Cromwell, as head of state the government lacked coherence and legitimacy. Although a Royalist revolt was crushed by recalled civil war figure General John Lambert, who then prevented the Rump Parliament reconvening and created a Committee of Safety, he found his troops melted away in the face of general George Monck's advance from Scotland. Monck then presided over the Restoration of 1660. Richard Cromwell subsisted in straitened circumstances after his resignation, he went abroad and lived in relative obscurity for the remainder of his life. He eventually returned to his English estate, dying in his eighties. None of his children had offspring of their own and he has no descendants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cromwell
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
It is worth remembering that any politician attempting to defend a doomed currency peg will make all kinds of ridiculous statements
I don't think the ERM was the problem. Pegging sterling at 2.95 to the DM was the problem. Remember Major "talking up" the pound before we joined.
I agree. I remember it well. Although Thatcher wasn't in favour of joining the ERM, she was very much in favour of the strong pound. See http://bit.ly/1YBCwgZ
It meant that many UK exports were unprofitable and it created the recession of the early 1990s that leaving the ERM eventually reversed.
I'm not sure whether Thatcher liked the "strong pound" because it was patriotic - a rather naive view - or whether she knew the consequences and liked them.
Exports of North Sea oil had strengthened sterling and weakened the economy causing mass unemployment which made dealing with the unions a lot easier. We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
Yes to lose three crowns was unfortunate.
I was actually thinking how those opposing the King for the most part didn't want to remove him as King, hence so much sitting around arguing with each other when they did beat him the first time.
Leavers should take heart however - despite that lack of a plan and a fight against the status quo, the Parliamentarians still triumphed. Though that victory did end up causing further open conflict with the Scots, which is surely where the comparison falls down...
I feel like with Boris not formally the head of Vote Leave but clearly the most prominent and powerful single figure, he's the Cromwell in this scenario, who using VoteLeave will sweep away his opponents in the Rump (Tory party).
Yes I knew you were. Many in Parliament did not want to remove him as King , but they had to beat him everytime he raised an Army, or they had no future after they had fought against him. Shame Cromwell did not listen to the levellers more.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Nonsense, when it is in the best interests of the country/is a matter of national importance, I always put the country ahead of the best interests of the Party/oppose what Cameron would like me to do.
#Tories4AV
"No, the COUNTRY cums first!" - Liz Kendall, 2015.
Do you have to spell it like that? I mean, really?
Ooops. I blame autocorrect :blushes:
I really don't want to have to visualise Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall in a political orgy debating whether it's Labour, or the country, that would climax first.
Liz has a cracking set of pins on her. I was admiring them when I watched TW on catch up this afternoon.
It is worth remembering that any politician attempting to defend a doomed currency peg will make all kinds of ridiculous statements
I don't think the ERM was the problem. Pegging sterling at 2.95 to the DM was the problem. Remember Major "talking up" the pound before we joined.
I agree. I remember it well. Although Thatcher wasn't in favour of joining the ERM, she was very much in favour of the strong pound. See http://bit.ly/1YBCwgZ
It meant that many UK exports were unprofitable and it created the recession of the early 1990s that leaving the ERM eventually reversed.
I'm not sure whether Thatcher liked the "strong pound" because it was patriotic - a rather naive view - or whether she knew the consequences and liked them.
Exports of North Sea oil had strengthened sterling and weakened the economy causing mass unemployment which made dealing with the unions a lot easier. We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
The best of it for the EU may not be a new positive relationship. From the EU's perspective it might be better to show that Britain had made a bad decision.
Though to my mind the bigger risk is that the renegotiation will be complex and politically fraught, and so will simply drift down the EU's priority list, leaving Britain in limbo.
Antifrank (you'll always be that to me), you may be right and, as someone seriously considering LEAVE, this is the aspect which worries me most.
As I said this morning, it might take our withdrawal to initiate the fundamental reform of the EU institution that all (even the REMAIN side) consider necessary. On the other hand, the other EU countries may simply steam on toward full economic and political union without us.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
"The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal. In the longer run (Stage 2), a full-time presidency of the Eurogroup could be considered."
A eurozone President
"Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making"
A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer
"This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report."
A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025, at the latest. A federal eurozone bloc, which will have a permanent QMV majority inside the EU.
This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
It is worth remembering that any politician attempting to defend a doomed currency peg will make all kinds of ridiculous statements
I don't think the ERM was the problem. Pegging sterling at 2.95 to the DM was the problem. Remember Major "talking up" the pound before we joined.
I agree. I remember it well. Although Thatcher wasn't in favour of joining the ERM, she was very much in favour of the strong pound. See http://bit.ly/1YBCwgZ
It meant that many UK exports were unprofitable and it created the recession of the early 1990s that leaving the ERM eventually reversed.
I'm not sure whether Thatcher liked the "strong pound" because it was patriotic - a rather naive view - or whether she knew the consequences and liked them.
Exports of North Sea oil had strengthened sterling and weakened the economy causing mass unemployment which made dealing with the unions a lot easier. We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
That sounds like a fair assessment. It's interesting to hear talk of the Pound coming under pressure, I thought we'd left that all behind. I seem to remember someone chortling about Brown's quote about a weak currency coming from a weak economy and therefore a weak government during 2008. But in all seriousness it was more a recognition that what will be will be and there's no point getting too upset about the currency losing its value.
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
I might do a Tory civil war thread along those lines.
The Divine Rights of unelected EU Bureaucrats
Oh I do hope you do.
So Charles I is the EU, unelected, convinced of his own moral and legal superiority and supremacy in a divine sense, intent upon imposing a uniform code upon all his different territories (though in his case more religious than bureaucratic) provoking defiance from his people which he at times attempted to offer concessions to, but without ever truly believing he had done wrong.
Labour and to a lesser extent the LDs are the members of the Long Parliament who remained loyal after they felt the Grand Remonstrance (the referendum to leave) went too far, so despite misgivings with the King/EU they rose up to defend it to the death.
The Tories are the Parliamentarians, still mostly intending to keep the King(EU), but with a hard core of radicals which increased over time which wanted him/it dead and his regime removed.
Cameron and co are the Presbyterian interest, not willing to kill the king/leave the EU despite having been in open conflict with it, working with anyone, even the perfidious Scots/the perfidious Scots to win.
Gove and Boris are the Independent interest, too far gone and unwilling to compromise further after Charles/EU just insists upon provoking resentment and conflict despite the divine signs he should desist/democratic votes against it, and they are trying to have the public be the army, pushing aside the designs of the majority of parliament to put the king to death/leave the EU.
Then Boris/Cromwell as the most powerful ends up taking over, the lack of a plan and competing factions in Leave/Parliament cause ongoing difficulty, and they end up widely hated and having to purge their own side further, and when Boris goes no one can hold the chaotic mess together and it all collapses, leading to restoration/Corbynite government.
The only flaw* is if we do leave, we aren't being let back in in 11 years time should we change our minds. Otherwise, a foolproof analogy
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
"The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal. In the longer run (Stage 2), a full-time presidency of the Eurogroup could be considered."
A eurozone President
"Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making"
A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer
"This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report."
A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025, at the latest. A federal eurozone bloc, which will have a permanent QMV majority inside the EU.
This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
Yes; although that seems to refer entirely to the (continued) federalising of the Eurozone
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
"The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal. In the longer run (Stage 2), a full-time presidency of the Eurogroup could be considered."
A eurozone President
"Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making"
A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer
"This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report."
A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025, at the latest. A federal eurozone bloc, which will have a permanent QMV majority inside the EU.
This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
Yes; although that seems to refer entirely to the (continued) federalising of the Eurozone
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Have we? Can someone provide the evidence that we have? AFAIK A quick read of the PR stuff from the EC implies that the 5 Preseidents report embraces the eurozone and all states. But please explain why Gisela a member of various EC committees and bodies thinks the 5 Presidents Report is more wide ranging and fundamental. She does not strike me as some foaming spittle flecked loon.
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
"The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal. In the longer run (Stage 2), a full-time presidency of the Eurogroup could be considered."
A eurozone President
"Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making"
A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer
"This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report."
A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025, at the latest. A federal eurozone bloc, which will have a permanent QMV majority inside the EU.
This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
It is worth remembering that any politician attempting to defend a doomed currency peg will make all kinds of ridiculous statements
I don't think the ERM was the problem. Pegging sterling at 2.95 to the DM was the problem. Remember Major "talking up" the pound before we joined.
I agree. I remember it well. Although Thatcher wasn't in favour of joining the ERM, she was very much in favour of the strong pound. See http://bit.ly/1YBCwgZ
It meant that many UK exports were unprofitable and it created the recession of the early 1990s that leaving the ERM eventually reversed.
I'm not sure whether Thatcher liked the "strong pound" because it was patriotic - a rather naive view - or whether she knew the consequences and liked them.
Exports of North Sea oil had strengthened sterling and weakened the economy causing mass unemployment which made dealing with the unions a lot easier. We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
The strong pound policy of the early eighties, in part because of North Sea oil and in part the high interest rate policy to squeeze out inflation made for a lot of problems for British manufacturing.
Though a devaluing currency brings its own miseries.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
I agree. Just another party follower, give him his blue rosette. Only thing that makes them happy. You would not want him on your side in 1642.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Have we? Can someone provide the evidence that we have? AFAIK A quick read of the PR stuff from the EC implies that the 5 Preseidents report embraces the eurozone and all states. But please explain why Gisela a member of various EC committees and bodies thinks the 5 Presidents Report is more wide ranging and fundamental. She does not strike me as some foaming spittle flecked loon.
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
"Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear" according to a google search for "four freedoms".
Remainians don't believe in the last of these.
As usual, Remainers have to educate Leavers.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Have we? Can someone provide the evidence that we have? AFAIK A quick read of the PR stuff from the EC implies that the 5 Preseidents report embraces the eurozone and all states. But please explain why Gisela a member of various EC committees and bodies thinks the 5 Presidents Report is more wide ranging and fundamental. She does not strike me as some foaming spittle flecked loon.
Sounds like Leave engaging in project Fear to me.
I'm fairly certain John Major got us an opt out.
As Robert says The Eurozone doesn't equal The EU.
Most Project Fear stories have been run by REMAINERs
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Also with regard to the Five Presidents Report are we really going to be untouched by the aims of that Report? Gisela Stuart says not.
"The Five Presidents also propose strengthening the role of the Eurogroup. In the short run, this may require a reinforcement of its presidency and the means at its disposal.." A eurozone President "Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary ... A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025... This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
Yes; although that seems to refer entirely to the (continued) federalising of the Eurozone
Gisela Stuart "She argued that the future is highly uncertain, but pointed to the "Five Presidents’ report" as presenting a clear indication of the direction of travel if we choose to remain. That report, published last summer, mapped out a clear path to be completed by 2025: a political union including ideas such as a euro-area treasury and unified external EU representation. She characterised this as: 'An EU where the priorities of the eurozone will gradually and inevitably take over Brussels institutions.".... "Let us be charitable and suppose the EU sticks to the commitment it gave David Cameron in the renegotiation that the eurozone will not discriminate against non-members. We may be able to fend off some negative change, but our ability to bring positive reform will wither . At the same time we will remain subject to all the restrictions on our sovereignty and economy that Brussels imposes."
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
"Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear" according to a google search for "four freedoms".
Remainians don't believe in the last of these.
As usual, Remainers have to educate Leavers.
Yes but you are only a Remainer today. Tomorrow or next week you will be a Leaver again.
If past experience is anything to go by anyway.
.
Ah, 1642, a war in which one side definitely had no plan for what would happen if they won.
I would have been so awesome and in my element in 1642.
Despite being one of life's cavaliers, I would have been a Roundhead.
I would see abolishing the Monarchy as a stepping stone to becoming England's first Directly Elected Dictator.
Ah, but if we REMAIN you will just be a Governor of a EU Province
We'll still be a sovereign country.
Ever closer union will be on the cards.
Dave got us an opt out from ever closer union.
But does it exclude the "structural convergence" to "deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages as of July 2015 and complete it by 2025 at the latest" as set out in the Five Presidents Report? Can someone clarify that please?
Have we? Can someone provide the evidence that we have? AFAIK A quick read of the PR stuff from the EC implies that the 5 Preseidents report embraces the eurozone and all states. But please explain why Gisela a member of various EC committees and bodies thinks the 5 Presidents Report is more wide ranging and fundamental. She does not strike me as some foaming spittle flecked loon.
Sounds like Leave engaging in project Fear to me.
I'm fairly certain John Major got us an opt out.
As Robert says The Eurozone doesn't equal The EU.
Most Project Fear stories have been run by REMAINERs
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
The FT advocated: 1) Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
The FT advocated: 1) Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
It is not an editorial - it is comments by various contributors. It does seem that those that want to leave just dismiss all comments that doesn't fit their narrative as scare stories. Leave do need to accept that there will be some disruption to markets on a leave vote but that the longer term benefits of their vision outway the short term negatives
QMV means that the Eurozone can control the EU though.
Yes but it can't further the interests of the, um, eurozone at the expense of EU members who aren't in the eurozone.
God you surely are not that naive
1. Dave's doc states it pretty clearly that there will be no discrimination either way between eurozone members and non-eurozone members. 2. Dave's doc also contains a formal opt-out of ECU. 3. The two together combine to protect moves towards ECU whatever ECU measure QMV throws up. 4. If you believe Dave's doc is a cunning subterfuge by the other 27 EU leaders to get us to stay in and then impose a government upon us made up entirely of accession state politicians...vote Leave.
FT "Property prices across the UK are still at historic highs, but the growth in central London, traditionally a target of foreign investors, from French bankers to Russian oligarchs, has slowed sharply."
So the numerous tax changes of Osborne have had no effect on top end london prices.....Oh really... a WTF. There is no sense of context or alternative reasons for those things in the FT article. It is as if everything is down to the threat of Brexit a real chicken licken view of the world by what pretends to be a serious newspaper. They need to meet Cocky-locky......
QMV means that the Eurozone can control the EU though.
Yes but it can't further the interests of the, um, eurozone at the expense of EU members who aren't in the eurozone.
God you surely are not that naive
1. Dave's doc states it pretty clearly that there will be no discrimination either way between eurozone members and non-eurozone members. 2. Dave's doc also contains a formal opt-out of ECU. 3. The two together combine to protect moves towards ECU whatever ECU measure QMV throws up. 4. If you believe Dave's doc is a cunning subterfuge by the other 27 EU leaders to get us to stay in and then impose a government upon us made up entirely of accession state politicians...vote Leave.
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
The FT advocated: 1) Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
It is not an editorial - it is comments by various contributors. It does seem that those that want to leave just dismiss all comments that doesn't fit their narrative as scare stories. Leave do need to accept that there will be some disruption to markets on a leave vote but that the longer term benefits of their vision outway the short term negatives
But for example on the issue of London property prices we have had a mini boom to avoid the stamp duty changes from Osborne prior to 1st April followed by reduced prices thereafter probably caused by the need to shift property that missed the 1st April changes. I say probably the FT quotes people all blaming the threat of Brexit. Quality journalism? The FT Editor, Lionel Barber was rightly castigated in The Guilty Men!
James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole James Delingpole Retweeted Red Zebra Maybe it's time we scrapped the Rhodes scholarship if it wastes Oxford's time with losers like this guy...
QMV means that the Eurozone can control the EU though.
Yes but it can't further the interests of the, um, eurozone at the expense of EU members who aren't in the eurozone.
God you surely are not that naive
1. Dave's doc states it pretty clearly that there will be no discrimination either way between eurozone members and non-eurozone members. 2. Dave's doc also contains a formal opt-out of ECU. 3. The two together combine to protect moves towards ECU whatever ECU measure QMV throws up. 4. If you believe Dave's doc is a cunning subterfuge by the other 27 EU leaders to get us to stay in and then impose a government upon us made up entirely of accession state politicians...vote Leave.
Why does Gisela Stuart believe otherwise?
You'll have to ask her. I rarely trust Labour politicians to know what they are talking about, even though it must be said that Leave have two of the smartest female ones. But they are still in the party of Jezza so I wouldn't go conferring oracle status on them.
I am not embarrassed by my belief that cabinet ministers, lords, knights of the realm, senior business people and newspaper editors are part of the Establishment.
Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by 'establishment'. Which is that it is an amorphous but recognisable entity to which people belong and which within a loose structure provides preferment and patronage in exchange for loyalty. You can't just fend off accusations of the establishment gunning for a particular outcome by pointing someone 'on the other side' who has been successful and saying that they are 'just as establishment'. Is Mohammed Al Fayed establishment, with his Royal Warrants stripped as soon as Diana died? Is Richard Desmond establishment? Is Nigel Farage establishment?
It does sound rather like "the military industrial complex".
It can sound like whatever you like. If it's just a word for people with more than a million in liquid assets who can handle a fish fork then it has no meaning. If it isn't an establishment, it's not the establishment.
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne: Tomorrow's Treasury analysis looks at the impact to GDP of Brexit with Canadian-style deal. Concludes hit per household of £4,300/y
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne in Times takes aim at Tory Brexit colleagues. "They claim it's all part of an international conspiracy called ‘Project Fear’." Ow
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
The FT advocated: 1) Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
It is not an editorial - it is comments by various contributors. It does seem that those that want to leave just dismiss all comments that doesn't fit their narrative as scare stories. Leave do need to accept that there will be some disruption to markets on a leave vote but that the longer term benefits of their vision outway the short term negatives
But for example on the issue of London property prices we have had a mini boom to avoid the stamp duty changes from Osborne prior to 1st April followed by reduced prices thereafter probably caused by the need to shift property that missed the 1st April changes. I say probably the FT quotes people all blaming the threat of Brexit. Quality journalism? The FT Editor, Lionel Barber was rightly castigated in The Guilty Men!
I still believe that it is necessary for leave to accept there will be a short term issue in the markets. It is going to happen and it would be an honest position to take
@SamCoatesTimes: Writing in The Times, Osborne says: "Every time you cry wolf about Project Fear, you only expose how weak and friendless your case is."
See the Morning Star is lamenting the lack of coverage of the hard left's demo in London on Saturday. Wonder when they will realise they are irrelevant
@SamCoatesTimes: Writing in The Times, Osborne says: "Every time you cry wolf about Project Fear, you only expose how weak and friendless your case is."
Osborne, a Man with ratings in the toilet thinks he can speak with authority on this. Does he not read what the polls say about him? REMAIN seems to have no control over who speaks for it. Good from the perspective of LEAVE.
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
Are you really foolish enough to imagine that it isn't conceivable? Honestly?
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
Never mind, we have differing view points on the electorate.
Sometime - probably within the next decade - we are going to have a Labour Government again no matter how much you or I might not like it. Are you so sure of yourself that you can say with certainty that they will not give away many of our opt outs and drag us even further into the ever closer union? It is not a matter of if it will happen but when - at least as long as we remain a member of the EU.
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
Are you really foolish enough to imagine that it isn't conceivable? Honestly?
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
Never mind, we have differing view points on the electorate.
Sometime - probably within the next decade - we are going to have a Labour Government again no matter how much you or I might not like it. Are you so sure of yourself that you can say with certainty that they will not give away many of our opt outs and drag us even further into the ever closer union? It is not a matter of if it will happen but when - at least as long as we remain a member of the EU.
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
I have much more faith in the public on how they would react if their government tried to change their currency, especially without a referendum.
The Polls said he wouldn't be Chancellor right now...
There's 'out as much as the GE' polls, and 'Osborne is not well regarded' polls. The former were pretty wrong. The latter would have to be very very very very wrong.
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne: Tomorrow's Treasury analysis looks at the impact to GDP of Brexit with Canadian-style deal. Concludes hit per household of £4,300/y
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne in Times takes aim at Tory Brexit colleagues. "They claim it's all part of an international conspiracy called ‘Project Fear’." Ow
You do have to wonder how long it will be before 'project fear' does start to cause problems for leave. It seems that there is a different story every day, today's being the concern of the Irish and the issues of cross border security. Believe the nationalist's are calling for unification in the event of leave. Should interest Jeremy
This is all very reminiscent of the Nats saying the Scots won't believe what a English Tory Chancellor says during the Indyref, because of his and his party's rating in Scotland.
When is evidence of hiring and investment being on hold and European groups delaying investment 'project fear'. It seems to be the reality and is best recognised as the price the Country has to pay for a democratic decision by the British people.
Or it could be other reasons - like national living wage.
The FT article makes it clear that it is the referendum.
The FT advocated: 1) Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
It is not an editorial - it is comments by various contributors. It does seem that those that want to leave just dismiss all comments that doesn't fit their narrative as scare stories. Leave do need to accept that there will be some disruption to markets on a leave vote but that the longer term benefits of their vision outway the short term negatives
But for example on the issue of London property prices we have had a mini boom to avoid the stamp duty changes from Osborne prior to 1st April followed by reduced prices thereafter probably caused by the need to shift property that missed the 1st April changes. I say probably the FT quotes people all blaming the threat of Brexit. Quality journalism? The FT Editor, Lionel Barber was rightly castigated in The Guilty Men!
I still believe that it is necessary for leave to accept there will be a short term issue in the markets. It is going to happen and it would be an honest position to take
OK that is your view but the folk running LEAVE will decide what is best for LEAVE. IMHO how can anyone predict what will happen 3 months from now with certainty. It is all a risk and many of us bet on those risks.
@SamCoatesTimes: Writing in The Times, Osborne says: "Every time you cry wolf about Project Fear, you only expose how weak and friendless your case is."
Osborne, a Man with ratings in the toilet thinks he can speak with authority on this. Does he not read what the polls say about him? REMAIN seems to have no control over who speaks for it. Good from the perspective of LEAVE.
'Crying wolf' is an odd phrase to use in the context he uses it. It almost seems to have popped into his head unbidden when he talks of Project fear - it's rather Freudian.
This is all very reminiscent of the Nats saying the Scots won't believe what a English Tory Chancellor says during the Indyref, because of his and his party's rating in Scotland.
As we said this morning.
Again what is interesting is the folk who said he was absolutely right last time, but wrong this time, despite being entirely consistent...
"Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick Monday's Telegraph front page - Osborne: Brexit will lead to NHS cuts"
Man with ratings in the toilet thinks he can speak with authority on this.
I think Project Fear is spent. I imagine 10/11 Downing Street are perplexed that around 50% the British public have more confidence in themselves as a public and a nation than the Government do.
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
Are you really foolish enough to imagine that it isn't conceivable? Honestly?
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
Never mind, we have differing view points on the electorate.
Sometime - probably within the next decade - we are going to have a Labour Government again no matter how much you or I might not like it. Are you so sure of yourself that you can say with certainty that they will not give away many of our opt outs and drag us even further into the ever closer union? It is not a matter of if it will happen but when - at least as long as we remain a member of the EU.
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
I have much more faith in the public on how they would react if their government tried to change their currency, especially without a referendum.
Then I am afraid you are being very naive. And there are lots of things the EU can do to ruin our economy and destroy the City before we get to that point.
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne: Tomorrow's Treasury analysis looks at the impact to GDP of Brexit with Canadian-style deal. Concludes hit per household of £4,300/y
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne in Times takes aim at Tory Brexit colleagues. "They claim it's all part of an international conspiracy called ‘Project Fear’." Ow
You do have to wonder how long it will be before 'project fear' does start to cause problems for leave. It seems that there is a different story every day, today's being the concern of the Irish and the issues of cross border security. Believe the nationalist's are calling for unification in the event of leave. Should interest Jeremy
If it works on us remaining,then this country will never be free of the EU and if it works on this,just watch in future of project fear on our full sign up to a European superstate.
This is all very reminiscent of the Nats saying the Scots won't believe what a English Tory Chancellor says during the Indyref, because of his and his party's rating in Scotland.
As we said this morning.
Again what is interesting is the folk who said he was absolutely right last time, but wrong this time, despite being entirely consistent...
I mean a few weeks ago, one of the Leavers on PB accused me of ignoring a bad poll for Leave. (Leave had a 4% lead)
It is true, I didn't do a thread on that poll, nor did I do a thread on a poll showing Remain with a 5% lead that came out the same time.
Mike and I had to deal with similarly stupid allegations during the Indyref
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
Are you really foolish enough to imagine that it isn't conceivable? Honestly?
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
Never mind, we have differing view points on the electorate.
Sometime - probably within the next decade - we are going to have a Labour Government again no matter how much you or I might not like it. Are you so sure of yourself that you can say with certainty that they will not give away many of our opt outs and drag us even further into the ever closer union? It is not a matter of if it will happen but when - at least as long as we remain a member of the EU.
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
I have much more faith in the public on how they would react if their government tried to change their currency, especially without a referendum.
Then I am afraid you are being very naive. And there are lots of things the EU can do to ruin our economy and destroy the City before we get to that point.
This is all very reminiscent of the Nats saying the Scots won't believe what a English Tory Chancellor says during the Indyref, because of his and his party's rating in Scotland.
As we said this morning.
Again what is interesting is the folk who said he was absolutely right last time, but wrong this time, despite being entirely consistent...
Scotland - a country too small for independence, without own currency or diversified economy UK - 5th largest economy in the world, with dominant and historically established currency and a diversified economy.
Consistent it may be; but the impact of Project Fear will be lesser this time, not least because of the circumstances.
Brexiteers invoking Project Fear to try and invalidate every inconvenient fact is having diminishing returns, and making them look slightly paranoid.
No - I mean the opposite. It strikes many that the Fear is being ramped up way beyond any reality. British pride and prevailing doubt in the words of authority means it simply is not having the impact they expected.
Chris Grayling is sounding like the voice of reason. This is a worrying development for DC....
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
Are you really foolish enough to imagine that it isn't conceivable? Honestly?
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
Never mind, we have differing view points on the electorate.
Sometime - probably within the next decade - we are going to have a Labour Government again no matter how much you or I might not like it. Are you so sure of yourself that you can say with certainty that they will not give away many of our opt outs and drag us even further into the ever closer union? It is not a matter of if it will happen but when - at least as long as we remain a member of the EU.
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
I have much more faith in the public on how they would react if their government tried to change their currency, especially without a referendum.
Then I am afraid you are being very naive. And there are lots of things the EU can do to ruin our economy and destroy the City before we get to that point.
Project Fear? Oh the irony.
Sauce for the Goose. Besides, I actually believe what I say.
Persisting with the Tory civil war theme, for no reason other than I personally enjoy it, is Osborne going to be in the group equivalent to the regicides, left unprotected by the Act promising a clean slate following the civil war to everyone else? The 'crimes' of some may be too much to be ignored even during attempted reconciliations, particularly if you are incompetent.
Or will he contrive the be John Thurloe, so in deep with the enemy that by rights he should be punished, but allowed to live on the condition he helped out the new authorities from time to time because they are just too useful?
Lying and wrong. Very bad for the Conservative party's Chancellor to be regarded in that way. Osborne is just inviting blue on blue attacks. Bad for the Conservatives, bad for Conservative councillors seeking election right now, but good for LEAVE. This is because it will use up media time this week on the rows and not focus on the Labour voters who will IMHO decide this referendum. After all is said and done. Osborne is disliked by Labour voters even more than they dislike Cameron.
Comments
Also with regard to the Five Presidents Report are we really going to be untouched by the aims of that Report? Gisela Stuart says not.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm
On his father's death Richard became Lord Protector, but lacked authority. He attempted to mediate between the army and civil society, and allowed a Parliament which contained a large number of disaffected Presbyterians and Royalists. Suspicions that civilian councilors were intent on supplanting the army were brought to a head by an attempt to prosecute a major-general for actions against a Royalist. The army made threatening show of force against Richard, and may have had him in detention; he formally renounced power nine months after succeeding. Without a king-like figure, such as Cromwell, as head of state the government lacked coherence and legitimacy. Although a Royalist revolt was crushed by recalled civil war figure General John Lambert, who then prevented the Rump Parliament reconvening and created a Committee of Safety, he found his troops melted away in the face of general George Monck's advance from Scotland. Monck then presided over the Restoration of 1660. Richard Cromwell subsisted in straitened circumstances after his resignation, he went abroad and lived in relative obscurity for the remainder of his life. He eventually returned to his English estate, dying in his eighties. None of his children had offspring of their own and he has no descendants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cromwell
It meant that many UK exports were unprofitable and it created the recession of the early 1990s that leaving the ERM eventually reversed.
I'm not sure whether Thatcher liked the "strong pound" because it was patriotic - a rather naive view - or whether she knew the consequences and liked them.
Exports of North Sea oil had strengthened sterling and weakened the economy causing mass unemployment which made dealing with the unions a lot easier. We could have banked the proceeds of North Sea oil as Norway has done. Instead we used it to cut taxes and pay unemployment benefits. We consumed it instead of investing it. It was a one-off gift. The Norway fund is worth $800 billion. We've spent ours.
Many in Parliament did not want to remove him as King , but they had to beat him everytime he raised an Army, or they had no future after they had fought against him.
Shame Cromwell did not listen to the levellers more.
Zac Goldsmith Retweeted Shane Warne
Thank you Shane!
Shane WarneVerified account
@ShaneWarne
@ZacGoldsmith is a very thoughtful & caring man. He has wonderful vision & will follow through… http://instagram.com/p/BETY8AfOAQ5/
Kevin Pietersen Retweeted Shane Warne
Yep! Get around him! I know him & he's a top top man! @ZacGoldsmith
No, we really couldn't.
As I said this morning, it might take our withdrawal to initiate the fundamental reform of the EU institution that all (even the REMAIN side) consider necessary. On the other hand, the other EU countries may simply steam on toward full economic and political union without us.
Zac's sister was in a relationship with Hugh Grant, Hugh Grant used to date Liz Hurley*, Liz Hurley bumped uglies with Shane Warne.
*Ohhhhhhhh that dress.
A eurozone President
"Finally, while euro area Member States will continue to decide on taxation and the allocation of budgetary expenditures along national political choices, some decisions will increasingly need to be made collectively while ensuring democratic accountability and legitimacy. A future euro area treasury could be the place for such collective decision-making"
A eurozone federal Chancellor of the Exchequer
"This means in particular that labour markets and welfare systems need to function well and be sustainable in all euro area Member States. Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report."
A federal welfare policy for eurozone states. And all of it by 2025, at the latest. A federal eurozone bloc, which will have a permanent QMV majority inside the EU.
This is written down in EU gold and blue: there is no status quo.
So Charles I is the EU, unelected, convinced of his own moral and legal superiority and supremacy in a divine sense, intent upon imposing a uniform code upon all his different territories (though in his case more religious than bureaucratic) provoking defiance from his people which he at times attempted to offer concessions to, but without ever truly believing he had done wrong.
Labour and to a lesser extent the LDs are the members of the Long Parliament who remained loyal after they felt the Grand Remonstrance (the referendum to leave) went too far, so despite misgivings with the King/EU they rose up to defend it to the death.
The Tories are the Parliamentarians, still mostly intending to keep the King(EU), but with a hard core of radicals which increased over time which wanted him/it dead and his regime removed.
Cameron and co are the Presbyterian interest, not willing to kill the king/leave the EU despite having been in open conflict with it, working with anyone, even the perfidious Scots/the perfidious Scots to win.
Gove and Boris are the Independent interest, too far gone and unwilling to compromise further after Charles/EU just insists upon provoking resentment and conflict despite the divine signs he should desist/democratic votes against it, and they are trying to have the public be the army, pushing aside the designs of the majority of parliament to put the king to death/leave the EU.
Then Boris/Cromwell as the most powerful ends up taking over, the lack of a plan and competing factions in Leave/Parliament cause ongoing difficulty, and they end up widely hated and having to purge their own side further, and when Boris goes no one can hold the chaotic mess together and it all collapses, leading to restoration/Corbynite government.
The only flaw* is if we do leave, we aren't being let back in in 11 years time should we change our minds. Otherwise, a foolproof analogy
Ok, not the only one.
Play nicely.
(I see Robert beat me to it.)
Though a devaluing currency brings its own miseries.
I'm fairly certain John Major got us an opt out.
As Robert says The Eurozone doesn't equal The EU.
QMV means that the Eurozone can control the EU though.
"She argued that the future is highly uncertain, but pointed to the "Five Presidents’ report" as presenting a clear indication of the direction of travel if we choose to remain.
That report, published last summer, mapped out a clear path to be completed by 2025: a political union including ideas such as a euro-area treasury and unified external EU representation.
She characterised this as: 'An EU where the priorities of the eurozone will gradually and inevitably take over Brussels institutions."....
"Let us be charitable and suppose the EU sticks to the commitment it gave David Cameron in the renegotiation that the eurozone will not discriminate against non-members.
We may be able to fend off some negative change, but our ability to bring positive reform will wither . At the same time we will remain subject to all the restrictions on our sovereignty and economy that Brussels imposes."
early 1990s; 2) it opposed the Falklands war in 1982; 3) endorsed Neil Kinnock as prime minister in the 1992 general election and 4) advocated us being part of the Euro and wailed for years after that we had made a big mistake not joining it..
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/republican-rules-clash-convention-222063
I love the name Reince Priebus.
Though I see London now holds that trophy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crap_Towns?wprov=sfla1
What's to stop a future UK PM doing the same?
1) Will give away our EMU opt out?
2) Will take us into the single currency without a referendum?
Don't tell me that you're that silly. Please.
2. Dave's doc also contains a formal opt-out of ECU.
3. The two together combine to protect moves towards ECU whatever ECU measure QMV throws up.
4. If you believe Dave's doc is a cunning subterfuge by the other 27 EU leaders to get us to stay in and then impose a government upon us made up entirely of accession state politicians...vote Leave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591
So the numerous tax changes of Osborne have had no effect on top end london prices.....Oh really... a WTF. There is no sense of context or alternative reasons for those things in the FT article. It is as if everything is down to the threat of Brexit a real chicken licken view of the world by what pretends to be a serious newspaper. They need to meet Cocky-locky......
A UK PM permitted unfettered access to the UK for most of Eastern Europe, They went to war after telling everyone there were WMDs.
You need to open your mind to the concept that a Labour government will eventually be re-elected. The current incumbent is promising a 'Socialist EU'.
Imagine it.
I imagine that one year ago you would have thought it silly/inconceivable that Jeremy Corbyn could be leader of HM Opposition.
(PS. poor Eddie the Eagle!)
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/160416/clipid/160416_EU
@SamCoatesTimes: Osborne in Times takes aim at Tory Brexit colleagues. "They claim it's all part of an international conspiracy called ‘Project Fear’." Ow
Monday's Telegraph front page -
Osborne: Brexit will lead to NHS cuts"
Man with ratings in the toilet thinks he can speak with authority on this.
Where did it go?
Also ask yourself how long the EU will be prepared to continue with the most important financial centre in the whole organisation outside the control of the Eurozone. It is an untenable position in the medium term.
Treasury to claim economy will be smaller by equivalent of £4,300 per household if we leave the EU
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak
Publication of document and speech by Osborne a big moment in the campaign
'Why can't we make the numbers bigger?'
'What would be a big number that would really scare people?'
'Let's take any estimates we can find out there and double them...or maybe triple them'
Again what is interesting is the folk who said he was absolutely right last time, but wrong this time, despite being entirely consistent...
It is true, I didn't do a thread on that poll, nor did I do a thread on a poll showing Remain with a 5% lead that came out the same time.
Mike and I had to deal with similarly stupid allegations during the Indyref
Brexiteers invoking Project Fear to try and invalidate every inconvenient fact is having diminishing returns, and making them look slightly paranoid.
UK - 5th largest economy in the world, with dominant and historically established currency and a diversified economy.
Consistent it may be; but the impact of Project Fear will be lesser this time, not least because of the circumstances.
Chris Grayling is sounding like the voice of reason. This is a worrying development for DC....
But that has absolutely no relevance to this debate.
Or will he contrive the be John Thurloe, so in deep with the enemy that by rights he should be punished, but allowed to live on the condition he helped out the new authorities from time to time because they are just too useful?
This is because it will use up media time this week on the rows and not focus on the Labour voters who will IMHO decide this referendum. After all is said and done. Osborne is disliked by Labour voters even more than they dislike Cameron.
Both of these statements are true, but some people like one and not the other.