politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s biggest EURef error could be diverting from Wilso

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s biggest EURef error could be diverting from Wilson’s winning 1975 template

Up to the point of announcing the date of the referendum, Cameron had been following the example set by Harold Wilson.  In 1975 Wilson was faced with a split in his party and cabinet over the European EC question.  To address this problem, Wilson’s response was to have a renegotiation of our terms with the EC and then have a referendum to decide whether we remained or left.  The Wilson cabinet was …

Read the full story here

Innocent_Abroad

First?

TheScreamingEagles

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

Richard_Nabavi

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the fact that Ken Clarke always says what he thinks.

NickPalmer

It's an interesting point. As a Europhile I wouldn't dream of voting no just to get rid of Cameron (it's not as though we'd thereby be removing the Tories - they'd just produce someone else). But if I could remove Cameron by voting to ban potholing or something else I didn't care about, I'd be tempted, and lots of people don't care or aren't sure, so might be tempted.

But my recollection of the Wilson referendum is that it was still seen as a Government initiative of doubtful virtue since the renegotiation was seen as a token effort). What was different is that the Government didn't bother to rubbish the "No" campaigners so much, since they were clearly a bit fringe-like (Powell, Benn) anyway.

TheScreamingEagles

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

It firms up Tory voters to back Remain if Leave try and make it about Cameron quitting.

Despite the hype on here, Cameron still retains popularity/likeability among 2015 Tory voters/Those that intend to vote Tory.

Even after his most horrific weeks as PM, he still leads in most polls.

Morris_Dancer

Other dummy variables that failed to make the list:
BONGOBONGO - is a dummy variable where the value is 1 if the origin and destination countries have anti-EU populist parties and 0 if not
BUNGABUNGA - is a dummy variable where the value is 1 if the origin and destination countries have excessively frisky heads of government and 0 if not
HANDEHOCH - is a dummy variable where the value is 1 if the origin and destination countries were on the Allied side and 0 if not

On-topic: an interesting post. Osborne would seem to be more liability than asset (he's unpopular, but that was a given. His credibility has declined in recent weeks).

Cameron could also be an issue, though he's more persuasive than Osborne.

SouthamObserver

The problem with this Mike's argument is that the alternative to Cameron is an even more right wing Tory PM and government than we have now. I'd say it's much more likely that many Labour voters just won't bother turning out. But those that do will largely vote remain.

Cameron's bigger headache is that with each day he is making himself and George Osborne more unpopular inside his own party. Even more than with the Scottish referendum, their political futures and legacies are now on the line. He can't row back from here. And it's all self-inflicted wounds.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

AndyJS

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

He's got to the age where he says what he honestly thinks without considering the political consequences.

TCPoliticalBetting

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.
I can only presume that Clarke is either
1. Gaga or
2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s Or am I missing something?

I think Clarke is just thinking about the circa 35% audience of Conservative voters. The first half of this referendum campaign has, apart from brief parts of last week, been all about the battle for the hearts and minds of this 35%. IMHO this is a 55/45 split with 55% of the Con voters being for REMAIN. Shifting a few % of those from one camp to the other is a tough challenge and why it is getting very bitter. Ignoring UKIP circa 17% for obvious reasons, Off the radar is the circ 48% of the rest of the voters. Folk that in the main have little time for Cameron and Osborne IMHO.

Cyclefree

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?

Britain's approach to many questions, particularly, that of the EU is that of the merchant. I don't criticise this in any sense – trade was behind much of the impulse behind the Empire's growth. Even in the time of Elizabeth the First we were accused of being little better than pirates. But it does mean that we tend to ignore or downplay the very different motivations of other players. We assume that they too will look primarily at the economic arguments behind an issue. This - as the euro and Greece, for instance, show us - is mistaken.

In one sense this is an example of what @rcs100 and others have described: the UK's whole approach and basic outlook is fundamentally very different to most of the European Continent. On one level we appear to prioritise economics over politics, probably because politics in Britain (the political structure/the rules of the game) have been relatively stable and uncontroversial for quite some time and certainly not as violent and murderous and vicious as has happened in much of the Continent.

I fear that by ignoring during this campaign the political aspects of the EU which, to my mind at least, are far more important than the economic aspects, we will – even if we vote Remain – still find ourselves baffled, infuriated and out of touch with how the EU will develop and will end up infuriating fellow EU states. And some of the Remainers' objections to the Leave arguments are, as Mr Meeks has said, primarily about the politics for Britain if Leave were to win.

Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……

Indigo

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

Massive wishful thinking. If its 51/49 or close is going to devolve into a massive finger pointing blame game, not just in the parliamentary party, but in the constituencies where Leave constituency parties are going to be incandescent with candidates that assured them off their eurosceptic credentials and now have helped take away their dream. If you end up only losing a third of the voluntary party out of this you should be counting yourself lucky.

Alanbrooke

SouthamObserver said:

The problem with this Mike's argument is that the alternative to Cameron is an even more right wing Tory PM and government than we have now. I'd say it's much more likely that many Labour voters just won't bother turning out. But those that do will largely vote remain.

Cameron's bigger headache is that with each day he is making himself and George Osborne more unpopular inside his own party. Even more than with the Scottish referendum, their political futures and legacies are now on the line. He can't row back from here. And it's all self-inflicted wounds.

It's certainly the more noticeable outcome of the last couple of weeks. I really don't get where Cameron is coming from, sure it's a vote but he seems to be causing more damage than I expected along the way to his own side. If PB over the last week is a guide, I can;t see the great love-in of 24th June being that amourous.

The problem with the scare tactics is they are letting it get very personal.

taffys

It's 'sovereignty' vs 'jobs and money'.

I cannot see how any country without sovereignty can expect or deserve lasting prosperity. But there it is.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

No it really won't.

Innocent_Abroad

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

That's an opinion. There are others.

Luckyguy1983

AndyJS said:

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

He's got to the age where he says what he honestly thinks without considering the political consequences.

I think TSE's explanation makes more sense.

TCPoliticalBetting

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

One brief picture is not an effective way of addressing the circa 48% of the non-Conservative and non UKIP voters. Ashdown also carries (I suspect ) a lot of baggage with other voters. kinnock may even lose some tories from REMAIN. But seriously very few voters will have noticed the picture.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Abroad, well, yes. I tend to write my opinion

MikeK

Good morning Morris, here's your alter ego:
https://twitter.com/sffworld/status/721816044436893696
....and good luck with your books.

TheScreamingEagles

Luckyguy1983 said:

AndyJS said:

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

He's got to the age where he says what he honestly thinks without considering the political consequences.

I think TSE's explanation makes more sense.

Leave know it too, I think Boris Johnson, Theresa Villiers, and Chris Grayling all said this weekend were Leave to win they would want Cameron to carry on.

Luckyguy1983

Innocent_Abroad said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

That's an opinion. There are others.

I've not heard them.

Plato_Says

I'm assuming a mix of two

1. He thinks it could be true

2. More likely, he's trying to scare the horses who believe Cameron is worth keeping post referendum

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref YES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

Pulpstar

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

No it really won't.

The referendum in Scotland has clearly settled discourse there for a generation.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

If leaving the EU leads to the break-up of the UK it will be one hell of a double whammy.

It's always worth remembering that we are where we are today because Dave was worried that he might not beat Ed Miliband. He allowed himself to be spooked by the Tory right and UKIP.

Richard_Tyndall

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

No it really won't.

The referendum in Scotland has clearly settled discourse there for a generation.

LOL. Yes indeed.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

No it really won't.

If Leave wins that its, the issue will be about what deal we get, there'll be no appetite to take us back into the EU.

If Remain wins, are Leave really going to say, we hate the EU because it ignores the wishes of the voters, so we're going to ignore the wish of voters who have just voted to Remain?

Asking the country to take part in a third referendum in a short space of time might be pushing it.

TCPoliticalBetting

AndyJS said:

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

He's got to the age where he says what he honestly thinks without considering the political consequences.

Yes probably true in that Ken Clarke does not see the wider national context. He also pronounced in the GE campaign that the Conservative offering at the GE was too right wing and they would not win....

chestnut

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

Indeed.

The level of emotional and social integration is considerably lower.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. K, thanks

Hope you give it a look (and enjoy it if you do).

I'm still toying with the idea of sending copies to politically correct persons/organs to try and drum up some outrage-driven publicity. Unfortunately, I'm too pure and virtuous for that sort of thing.

MaxPB

@TOPPING - does it not worry you that the EU could (and probably will) end up as one huge superstate formed of 27 "states" who all use the Euro and us on the side? This is the natural destination of the EU, to integrate into a single country. The failed EU constitution was supposed to lay the groundwork for it but got rejected and now the EU is just going to go at a slower pace so as not to arouse suspicion from sceptical countries like France and the UK. That's what worries me. If the EU completely abandoned the idea of "ever closer union" I wouldn't mind staying in, but it never will, the drive to become a single country is central to the EU, the "opt-out" that Dave got is going to mean nothing when all the other 27 nations have merged into a single superstate.

Isn't it better to extricate ourselves from this inevitability by Leaving when the cost of doing so is still relatively low? There is also a huge cost (not just fiscal) of staying in, it is something that a lot of people on the Remain side want to ignore, but given that the EU is heading down the superstate road, a road we wouldn't travel, isn't the cost to our sovereignty, culture and economy going to be much higher if we stay in the EU? Even if our opt-out to ever closer union is, against all odds, respected by the other nations, we have no way of forcing the others not to integrate and not to adhere to ever closer union. That surely will put us into a weaker and weaker position as the 440m residents of the single country vastly outnumber the 70m residents of the other one in the EU? How would a European Parliament looks with EU-wide parties dominating the seats, or having a single EU government run from Brussels with national Parliaments relegated to federal or state level functions? Would our Conservative party be worth anything in this, given that we have opted out of the ever closer union?

This one foot in and one foot out of the door approach is fraught with danger and I have said before that we are either better off out or better of in. I would put the option of going all in, adopting the Euro and becoming a full member of the EU as a better idea than the "status-quo" because the status-quo is a doomed position in the long term and by the time we realise we will face the choice of joining the superstate at an extremely high cost or leaving the EU at an even higher one.

Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, just some food for thought...

Richard_Nabavi

Cyclefree said:

....

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?
...

Ms Cyclefree, a very good post as ever, much of which I agree with. But I'd take issue with the paragraph above. The chances of a common justice system or single EU defence policy and army being implemented in our lifetime are zero. You are right of course that some EU politicians might strive towards such things, but they ain't gonna happen, and cannot happen without our consent, which would never be forthcoming (nor, for that matter, would the consent of some other key members).

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

I really think you are misreading this.

That single photo did more than anything to turn me against Cameron.

It's not just me saying it. Three friends, and my father, have mentioned it to me since it happened. My father is a Tory loyalist and yesterday had the look of disappointment on his face he'd have if he'd caught me smoking cannabis behind the garden shed.

I don't think anything will be resolved by the vote.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, that's a legitimate counter-point. Depends how the result pans out, of course (both with the decision generally and how Scotland votes, and if the SNP wins the next election).

scotslass

This is a very good post from TC and very astute. Cameron is running enormous risks with his conduct. I saw this raised at foreign office questions by Alex Salmond last week much to the disapproval of the Government front bench. However the point is correct. The key messages of the referendum thus far is he internal dispute in the Tory party which means that everyone who wants to give Cameron a kicking has an incentive to vote OUT.

Hopefully once the elections are over then he Labour and SNP machines will kick into full gear. However even this timing of elections and then referendum was Cameron's disastrous choice

MikeK

@SouthamObserver
"The problem with this Mike's argument is that the alternative to Cameron is an even more right wing Tory PM and government than we have now."

This is a a Right Wing government? Surely you're joking, or worse, you are having delusions, again?

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

Your last line. CHORTLE.

It's a bit more than a chortle. 24th June is when it starts to get really interesting. If Leave wins, there will be a leadership election to go through and the negotiations to get done. Both promise huge falling out potential. If Remain wins, the leave side will cry Betrayal at every turn. The Tories remain exceedingly lucky that they are up against the Stupid party.

TOPPING

FPT for Mr Angry Tyndall

Huh? You said "A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement." Or a Tory one for that matter.

The EU passes laws which are then incorporated or not into the EEA agreement. You are saying that for those laws to be incorporated into the EEA agreement an absolute majority is required. So if they support our national interest and Liechtenstein doesn't approve, they don't get included in the EEA agreement, but we could adopt them anyway?

No wonder you are so angry.

Plato_Says

Without the Tory eurosceptics and soft Kippers, Cameron wouldn't have won.

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

If leaving the EU leads to the break-up of the UK it will be one hell of a double whammy.

It's always worth remembering that we are where we are today because Dave was worried that he might not beat Ed Miliband. He allowed himself to be spooked by the Tory right and UKIP.

geoffw

About not following Wilson – DC and GO campaigning for In may give some people the idea that Out means out for DC and GO too, but in any event DC and GO are out even if In wins. The PCP will ensure that.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?

Britain's approach to many questions, particularly, that of the EU is that of the merchant. I don't criticise this in any sense – trade was behind much of the impulse behind the Empire's growth. Even in the time of Elizabeth the First we were accused of being little better than pirates. But it does mean that we tend to ignore or downplay the very different motivations of other players. We assume that they too will look primarily at the economic arguments behind an issue. This - as the euro and Greece, for instance, show us - is mistaken.

In one sense this is an example of what @rcs100 and others have described: the UK's whole approach and basic outlook is fundamentally very different to most of the European Continent. On one level we appear to prioritise economics over politics, probably because politics in Britain (the political structure/the rules of the game) have been relatively stable and uncontroversial for quite some time and certainly not as violent and murderous and vicious as has happened in much of the Continent.

I fear that by ignoring during this campaign the political aspects of the EU which, to my mind at least, are far more important than the economic aspects, we will – even if we vote Remain – still find ourselves baffled, infuriated and out of touch with how the EU will develop and will end up infuriating fellow EU states. And some of the Remainers' objections to the Leave arguments are, as Mr Meeks has said, primarily about the politics for Britain if Leave were to win.

Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……

Go for it. I think that'd make a great thread.

(And I agree with you too.)

Morris_Dancer

Miss Scotslass, it's a slightly odd situation, where the Conservative Party is leading both the Remain and Leave campaigns, and Labour are effectively nowhere.

CD13

Osborne has spoken. I do wish the Plebs would do what they're told and obey their betters who understand. Remain are correct because the people who know best have said so.

How does the phrase go ....?

"Yes'm Massa. Dem damn Yankees, dey burn all de cotton."

MikeK

Plato_Says said:

I'm assuming a mix of two

1. He thinks it could be true

2. More likely, he's trying to scare the horses who believe Cameron is worth keeping post referendum

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref YES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

No. Clarke is a druggee with EU poison in his veins.

JohnO

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

@TOPPING - does it not worry you that the EU could (and probably will) end up as one huge superstate formed of 27 "states" who all use the Euro and us on the side? This is the natural destination of the EU, to integrate into a single country. The failed EU constitution was supposed to lay the groundwork for it but got rejected and now the EU is just going to go at a slower pace so as not to arouse suspicion from sceptical countries like France and the UK. That's what worries me. If the EU completely abandoned the idea of "ever closer union" I wouldn't mind staying in, but it never will, the drive to become a single country is central to the EU, the "opt-out" that Dave got is going to mean nothing when all the other 27 nations have merged into a single superstate.

Isn't it better to extricate ourselves from this inevitability by Leaving when the cost of doing so is still relatively low? There is also a huge cost (not just fiscal) of staying in, it is something that a lot of people on the Remain side want to ignore, but given that the EU is heading down the superstate road, a road we wouldn't travel, isn't the cost to our sovereignty, culture and economy going to be much higher if we stay in the EU? Even if our opt-out to ever closer union is, against all odds, respected by the other nations, we have no way of forcing the others not to integrate and not to adhere to ever closer union. That surely will put us into a weaker and weaker position as the 440m residents of the single country vastly outnumber the 70m residents of the other one in the EU? How would a European Parliament looks with EU-wide parties dominating the seats, or having a single EU government run from Brussels with national Parliaments relegated to federal or state level functions? Would our Conservative party be worth anything in this, given that we have opted out of the ever closer union?

This one foot in and one foot out of the door approach is fraught with danger and I have said before that we are either better off out or better of in. I would put the option of going all in, adopting the Euro and becoming a full member of the EU as a better idea than the "status-quo" because the status-quo is a doomed position in the long term and by the time we realise we will face the choice of joining the superstate at an extremely high cost or leaving the EU at an even higher one.

Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, just some food for thought...

y I see your point. In brief, because I must away, I see the agreement as de facto associate membership as it exempts us from lots we don't like and protects us from other stuff also. I think a lot of people would accept associate membership.

taffys

CD13 said:

Osborne has spoken. I do wish the Plebs would do what they're told and obey their betters who understand. Remain are correct because the people who know best have said so.

How does the phrase go ....?

"Yes'm Massa. Dem damn Yankees, dey burn all de cotton."

It really is a quite breathtakingly noxious attitude.

Plato_Says

Congrats to TC for an interesting pithy thread header, I remember when guest posts were a few paragraphs, not a dozen.

NickPalmer

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. [snip for length]

Interesting post. But the EU doesn't really have a consensus on that - there are more Europhiles like me across the Channel, but they're still a minority, and most of the time European business and debate is all about finance and trade. My second job is translation of EU documents from German and Danish, and I'd say around 99% are things like "German opinion on draft Austrian legislation on seat belts", chewing over whether a new law impedes free movement of goods or people. None of that gets reported, so the impression is that the EU is mostly about things like the ECJ and joint migration policy. Things only really get escalated to the EU political level when they really are pressing continental crises, like mass migration - and if the EU didn't exist, it would still be important to have a joint policy on that, rather than 28 different ones, don't you think?

A reason why business tends to be against withdrawal is not that they think we'd suddenly develop different seat belt standards etc., but that they think it would all get more complicated and bureaucratic, as the standard procedure for approving new standards would need to have an add-on taking additional time before it applied here. It would just be a nuisance for them, and if we actually left the EEA as well (to enable us to have our own immigration rules) it would become a major nuisance. A consideration not yet much explored is that if Leave wins, the whole Remain arm of the Tories will be thoroughly discredited, and we risk getting a real anti-EEA headbanger in charge.

MikeK

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I didn't realise you'd gone off your old hero, JohnO.

TOPPING

Plato_Says said:

Without the Tory eurosceptics and soft Kippers, Cameron wouldn't have won.

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, must disagree. Leaving the EU is a far smaller step than presiding over the break-up of the UK (as it currently stands) by the separation of Scotland.

If leaving the EU leads to the break-up of the UK it will be one hell of a double whammy.

It's always worth remembering that we are where we are today because Dave was worried that he might not beat Ed Miliband. He allowed himself to be spooked by the Tory right and UKIP.

If Devon Loch...

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref RES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

It firms up Tory voters to back Remain if Leave try and make it about Cameron quitting.

Despite the hype on here, Cameron still retains popularity/likeability among 2015 Tory voters/Those that intend to vote Tory.

Even after his most horrific weeks as PM, he still leads in most polls.

The trend is not his friend.

rottenborough

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Morning all,

My reading of Cameron from a distance is that he will try and stick this out. If he does it would be a disgrace. As you say this would represent a spectacular failure. He has to go.

taffys

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Quite. IF there's a very narrow remain win, I really fear for the party. It could make the corn laws look like a mild disagreement.

JohnO

MikeK said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I didn't realise you'd gone off your old hero, JohnO.

I haven't and one of my reasons for voting Remain is for his premiership to continue for the next 3 years and then an orderly succession. But I'm also a realist, and if he loses next month, he, like the country, is out.

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?



In one sense this is an example of what @rcs100 and others have described: the UK's whole approach and basic outlook is fundamentally very different to most of the European Continent. On one level we appear to prioritise economics over politics, probably because politics in Britain (the political structure/the rules of the game) have been relatively stable and uncontroversial for quite some time and certainly not as violent and murderous and vicious as has happened in much of the Continent.

I fear that by ignoring during this campaign the political aspects of the EU which, to my mind at least, are far more important than the economic aspects, we will – even if we vote Remain – still find ourselves baffled, infuriated and out of touch with how the EU will develop and will end up infuriating fellow EU states. And some of the Remainers' objections to the Leave arguments are, as Mr Meeks has said, primarily about the politics for Britain if Leave were to win.

Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……

The political arguments are plainly more important than the economic. The economic argument is whether ten to fifteen years from now, our GDP will be one very big number, versus another very big number, which might be slightly bigger or smaller.

rottenborough

MikeK said:

Plato_Says said:

I'm assuming a mix of two

1. He thinks it could be true

2. More likely, he's trying to scare the horses who believe Cameron is worth keeping post referendum

SeanT said:

I still don't understand why Clarke said that crazy thing about Cameron having to resign, which gives Tory-haters every reason to vote LEAVE. It's obviously true (as it was true about him resigning after an indyref YES) but it's foolish to point it out, if you are a europhile.

I can only presume that Clarke is either

1. Gaga

or

2. A very very very deeply planted double agent, working for LEAVE, who went undercover in the 1960s

Or am I missing something?

No. Clarke is a druggee with EU poison in his veins.

Or, he has carefully honed a message to a group of wavering tory voters who want Cameron to remain in No.10 and are not too wild about the idea of chaos and then possibly Boris.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Scotslass, it's a slightly odd situation, where the Conservative Party is leading both the Remain and Leave campaigns, and Labour are effectively nowhere.

Not really. Labour is a complete irrelevance. The only show in town is the Tories. They form the government, they will handle the Brexit negotiations if it comes to that and given the Corbyn crew they will win the next GE too.

Pulpstar

https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/722012704823750656

MaxPB

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I think, and hope, that Cameron will stay on and Osborne will be the fall guy for for Brexit. Cameron could probably continue if he promoted a few big beasts from the Leave side into prominent positions. Gove, Boris and Patel replacing Osborne, Hammond and Javid would probably be enough for the PM to gain the initiative, especially given those would be the three key Cabinet positions that relate to Brexit and May is already pretty hardline on immigration and may welcome Brexit.

Plato_Says

Cameron has behaved in an inexplicable way to me. He's burning down his own Party before my eyes.

It's his Iraq in terms of loss of trust and WTF.

I'd never ever believe this could happen within a year of the GE victory. I'm very sad and disappointed by it all.

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

watford30

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

I really think you are misreading this.

That single photo did more than anything to turn me against Cameron.

It's not just me saying it. Three friends, and my father, have mentioned it to me since it happened. My father is a Tory loyalist and yesterday had the look of disappointment on his face he'd have if he'd caught me smoking cannabis behind the garden shed.

I don't think anything will be resolved by the vote.

Cameron chortling with Leftie and arch EU trougher Kinnock. Seriously misjudged.

Indigo

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ms Cyclefree, a very good post as ever, much of which I agree with. But I'd take issue with the paragraph above. The chances of a common justice system or single EU defence policy and army being implemented in our lifetime are zero. You are right of course that some EU politicians might strive towards such things, but they ain't gonna happen, and cannot happen without our consent, which would never be forthcoming (nor, for that matter, would the consent of some other key members).

You appear not to be keeping up with current events, the paving vote for the EU Army and Common Defense Policy went through the European Parliament last week.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-0120&language=EN

11. Believes that a principal objective should be to move towards permanently pooled multinational military units, joint defence forces and the framing of a common defence policy which should ultimately lead to a European Defence Union; demands, in this regard, the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters to improve military crisis management capability, and ensure contingency planning and the interoperability of forces and equipment; calls on the Member States to reinforce defence cooperation collectively, bilaterally and in regional clusters; supports the adoption of a White Paper on EU Defence, based on the EU Global Strategy;

nigel4england

TSE, just wondering if you have seen this:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/here-why-political-betting-ramped-up.html?m=1

TheScreamingEagles

JohnO said:

MikeK said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I didn't realise you'd gone off your old hero, JohnO.

I haven't and one of my reasons for voting Remain is for his premiership to continue for the next 3 years and then an orderly succession. But I'm also a realist, and if he loses next month, he, like the country, is out.

I wonder what happens if Leave wins, there's a vote of no confidence, which Dave wins comfortably.

Richard_Nabavi

Indigo said:

You appear not to be keeping up with current events, the paving vote for the EU Army and Common Defense Policy went through the European Parliament last week.

So what?

TCPoliticalBetting

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I agree. The part I do not understand is why Cameron thought it essential that he diverged away from the Wilson Plan. This may have been more to do with his "loyalty" to Osborne's future and Cameron's inner circle of pro-EU people? 9 more weeks of blue on blue fighting will wreak havoc on the party.

Richard_Tyndall

TOPPING said:

FPT for Mr Angry Tyndall

Huh? You said "A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement." Or a Tory one for that matter.

The EU passes laws which are then incorporated or not into the EEA agreement. You are saying that for those laws to be incorporated into the EEA agreement an absolute majority is required. So if they support our national interest and Liechtenstein doesn't approve, they don't get included in the EEA agreement, but we could adopt them anyway?

No wonder you are so angry.

I am not angry at all. Just disappointed that you seem to be quite so ignorant of the way the EEA and EFTA work when you are happy to spend so much time rubbishing them as an option. It does rather destroy your credibility.

The EEA agreement covers a very specific and limited set of areas where EU law is transposed into EEA law and applies to all members. Basically that is the Single Market legislation and it covers around 15% of the total EU Acquis. No EU laws for areas outside of that are covered by the EEA agreement. Any decision within those areas of legislation covered by the EEA agreement also have to be decided with unanimity by the EFTA members. Given that they are all signed up to the Single Market legislation anyway it is very rare that you will get anyone not agreeing although it has happened twice in recent years with Norway voting down single market legislation on Postal Services and Railways.

Outside of the EEA agreement there is nothing to stop an individual country from adopting EU laws in areas where they want to. Norway does this for example in some areas as they find it easier to coordinate their laws with their neighbours but this is not binding on any other EFTA members nor is it binding on a future Norwegian Government if they decide for whatever reason that they no longer wish to comply with the EU legislation. Since this is outside of the EEA agreement there is no effect on EFTA whether Norway adopts this additional legislation or not.

EFTA is a trade organisation and the EEA is a trade agreement. As such it is vastly superior to the EU which is primarily a political and economic project.

Pulpstar

watford30 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

I really think you are misreading this.

That single photo did more than anything to turn me against Cameron.

It's not just me saying it. Three friends, and my father, have mentioned it to me since it happened. My father is a Tory loyalist and yesterday had the look of disappointment on his face he'd have if he'd caught me smoking cannabis behind the garden shed.

I don't think anything will be resolved by the vote.

Cameron chortling with arch EU trougher Kinnock. Seriously misjudged.

Win or lose that photo/Dave's actrions are going to have the same sort of effect the whole "Better together" stuff did on alot of Scottish politico's careers.

JohnO

SeanT said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Of course.

It's exactly the same situation as indyref, only more so, as Cameron has already announced he is resigning before 2020.

So he's not going to complete the negotiations with the EU, even if he starts them

It's ludicrous. He will resign, as you say, within weeks, for all the reasons you adduce.

At this rate, we be sharing a fine Barolo in what remains of my colestomy bag. Cheers. Or bottoms up.

Plato_Says

https://twitter.com/allanholloway/status/721644605767344128

taffys said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Quite. IF there's a very narrow remain win, I really fear for the party. It could make the corn laws look like a mild disagreement.

Casino_Royale

taffys said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Quite. IF there's a very narrow remain win, I really fear for the party. It could make the corn laws look like a mild disagreement.

So do I. And that's what I expect, although a big swing to Remain in the final two weeks is still possible.

I also expect, as SeanT first postulated, that the EU will start to do outrageous things shortly after our vote which will very rapidly sour the milk inside the party, and lead to feelings of regret amongst reluctant Remainers.

Personally, I think the only person capable of uniting the party is Michael Gove.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

MikeK said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I didn't realise you'd gone off your old hero, JohnO.

I haven't and one of my reasons for voting Remain is for his premiership to continue for the next 3 years and then an orderly succession. But I'm also a realist, and if he loses next month, he, like the country, is out.

I wonder what happens if Leave wins, there's a vote of no confidence, which Dave wins comfortably.

Echoes of 1995......

MP_SE

Hmm...

https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/722011893477609472

john_zims

@Cyclefree


'The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.'

Even assuming & it's a huge assumption (based on previous performance) the Treasury forecast is accurate,agree it's surely not just about economics.
Similar to, let's have another runway at Heathrow for the convenience of overseas visitors, takes priority over the quality of life of the residents of west London.

If the alternative to the £4,300 claim is the ability to get a GP / hospital appointment when your ill, a school for your kids that's not bursting at the seams, affordable housing and roads that are not permanently gridlocked.

TCPoliticalBetting

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?



In one sense this is an example of what @rcs100 and others have described: the UK's whole approach and basic outlook is fundamentally very different to most of the European Continent. On one level we appear to prioritise economics over politics, probably because politics in Britain (the political structure/the rules of the game) have been relatively stable and uncontroversial for quite some time and certainly not as violent and murderous and vicious as has happened in much of the Continent.

I fear that by ignoring during this campaign the political aspects of the EU which, to my mind at least, are far more important than the economic aspects, we will – even if we vote Remain – still find ourselves baffled, infuriated and out of touch with how the EU will develop and will end up infuriating fellow EU states. And some of the Remainers' objections to the Leave arguments are, as Mr Meeks has said, primarily about the politics for Britain if Leave were to win.

Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……

The political arguments are plainly more important than the economic. The economic argument is whether ten to fifteen years from now, our GDP will be one very big number, versus another very big number, which might be slightly bigger or smaller.

Cyclefree - your post warrants its own thread. The Vote LEAVE people will I believe keep returning to these themes of the political, legal and "euro army" factors.

TheScreamingEagles

nigel4england said:

TSE, just wondering if you have seen this:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/here-why-political-betting-ramped-up.html?m=1

I have, it has given me, Betfair and others a great laugh. There's so many things wrong with that, plus it also ignores all the profitable tips Mike and I did post that did cost the bookies/Betfair money.

Poor Sam, he really is obsessed about me. He should seek help.

JackW

Indigo said:

JackW said:

Jezza has as much chance of becoming PM as OGH has of growing a full head of hair over lunchtime today or for that matter any day leading to the 2020 election.

It ain't happening.

Still complacent, if he gets replaced, or falls under a bus, or even dies of old age (we can't all live to 124) the Tories on current showing are toast.

Er ... If Jezza's replaced he still has as much chance of being PM as he does as LotO - Zilch.

Who is the Labour party white knight that the £3 mob will vote for? .... some Jezza-lite bod who will have a 1% more chance of becoming PM than Jezza.

The Tories could elect Peter Bone or John Redwood as Con leader and rout the present Labour rabble with the SNP as the cover bogey men. Labour are in a hole and seemingly can't decide whether they need to dig deeper to ensure they emulate Michael Foot as the most dire opposition since Aston Villa lost to the three legged blind ladies team who had ten players sent of in the first five minutes.

NickPalmer

I see one poll has Sanders closing the gap (to 6) in New York:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/bernie-sanders-brooklyn-hillary-clinton-new-york

I still think Hillary will win it, but there could be a turnout difference.

Pulpstar

john_zims said:

@Cyclefree


'The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.'

Even assuming & it's a huge assumption (based on previous performance) the Treasury forecast is accurate,agree it's surely not just about economics.
Similar to, let's have another runway at Heathrow for the convenience of overseas visitors, takes priority over the quality of life of the residents of west London.

If the alternative to the £4,300 claim is the ability to get a GP / hospital appointment when your ill, a school for your kids that's not bursting at the seams, affordable housing and roads that are not permanently gridlocked.

The entire £4300 heads into house price inflation I reckon tbh.

runnymede

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

....

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. For instance, are we happy to pay the price of far greater political / social integration e.g. a common justice system (with, say, the abolition of trial by jury and the principle of innocent until proven guilty) in order to maintain the City's position in financial services with the single passport? Are we happy to have a single EU defence policy and army in order to develop the single market in services?
...

Ms Cyclefree, a very good post as ever, much of which I agree with. But I'd take issue with the paragraph above. The chances of a common justice system or single EU defence policy and army being implemented in our lifetime are zero. You are right of course that some EU politicians might strive towards such things, but they ain't gonna happen, and cannot happen without our consent, which would never be forthcoming (nor, for that matter, would the consent of some other key members).

blah blah Richard.

This is exactly what people like you were saying about a common currency years ago as well. And the end of national vetoes.

Of course, we could have stopped both of those things happening and had we done so we might not be having a referendum now.

The common justice system is already developing. We had a chance to opt out of it entirely. We chose instead to opt in to crucial parts of it.

British governments don't have the will to stop the EU developing in directions the public dislike. The top echelons are still dreaming that one day we can be persuaded to join in everything.

They can't be trusted, and nor can their cheerleaders.

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

I fear that by ignoring during this campaign the political aspects of the EU which, to my mind at least, are far more important than the economic aspects, we will – even if we vote Remain – still find ourselves baffled, infuriated and out of touch with how the EU will develop and will end up infuriating fellow EU states. And some of the Remainers' objections to the Leave arguments are, as Mr Meeks has said, primarily about the politics for Britain if Leave were to win.

Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……

That's a very interesting post, but as I see it if the EU tries to impose the end of trial by jury or the creation of an EU army - or crosses any other line over which we just cannot compromise - then we know we have the ability to withdraw. This referendum demonstrates that. In fact, we would not even need a referendum, we could just do it.

MaxPB

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

MikeK said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I didn't realise you'd gone off your old hero, JohnO.

I haven't and one of my reasons for voting Remain is for his premiership to continue for the next 3 years and then an orderly succession. But I'm also a realist, and if he loses next month, he, like the country, is out.

I wonder what happens if Leave wins, there's a vote of no confidence, which Dave wins comfortably.

He might struggle to win if Osborne isn't dumped. He was the architect of the awful renegotiation and timetable AIUI. If it is Brexit on the 24th, on the 25th Dave should reshuffle to promote Gove, Boris and Patel and on the 26th win a vote of confidence and put to bed any notion of having to stand down.

Casino_Royale

JohnO said:

SeanT said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

Of course.

It's exactly the same situation as indyref, only more so, as Cameron has already announced he is resigning before 2020.

So he's not going to complete the negotiations with the EU, even if he starts them

It's ludicrous. He will resign, as you say, within weeks, for all the reasons you adduce.

At this rate, we be sharing a fine Barolo in what remains of my colestomy bag. Cheers. Or bottoms up.

You've just made me splutter out loud at work - people looking now!

I better get back to it.

Cyclefree

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

The arguments being deployed by both Leave and Remain exemplify one of – if not the key – failing of the UK's approach to the EU, namely, to view it solely through the prism of economics. How much is it worth? What do we get out of it? Would we do better or worse? How much better or worse? Etc., etc. All good campaigning arguments, no doubt, likely to cut through to many voters and very similar to general election campaigns. The Treasury's £4300 claim is simply a copy of the very effective Labour's "Tax Bombshell" claim in the 1992 election.

But this is absolutely not, au fond, what the EU is about. It is primarily a political project and always has been and it is the political consequences of staying in or leaving which should be more at the forefront of the debate. [snip for length]

Interesting post. But the EU doesn't really have a consensus on that - there are more Europhiles like me across the Channel, but they're still a minority, and most of the time European business and debate is all about finance and trade. My second job is translation of EU documents from German and Danish, and I'd say around 99% are things like "German opinion on draft Austrian legislation on seat belts", chewing over whether a new law impedes free movement of goods or people. None of that gets reported, so the impression is that the EU is mostly about things like the ECJ and joint migration policy. Things only really get escalated to the EU political level when they really are pressing continental crises, like mass migration - and if the EU didn't exist, it would still be important to have a joint policy on that, rather than 28 different ones, don't you think?

[Snipped]

Interesting, thanks. I suppose one possible key difference - and I am simplifying a bit - is that for the UK it starts and ends with finance and trade whereas for many Continental countries is does not end there. For instance, I would say that one of the good things about the EU is the way it has provided a way for countries in Eastern Europe, previously within the Soviet orbit, to move peacefully towards the Western liberal democratic model. That is overwhelmingly a political project. Trade is the means to that end. For the UK it is the end. Not a means to some other political end.

Anyway, must work - and if a thread header would be of interest - don't want to use up all my wonderful thoughts right now.

CarlottaVance

Cyclefree said:

Britain's approach to many questions, particularly, that of the EU is that of the merchant.

'A Nation of Shop Keepers'

Intended as an insult, received as a compliment.

Twas true then, and is true now - RCS1000 makes among the most persuasive (let alone logical and coherent) cases in favour of LEAVE - and the fundamental 'we wanted a 'common market' (which we still haven't got) and ended up with this' I'm sure is true for many. It comes down to weighing the pros & cons - hence REMAIN's focus on the Cons - and LEAVE's - so far - incoherent arguments about 'sovereignty'.

I wouldn't over-analyse the Cameron vs Wilson thing - I'm not sure in 1975 Wilson was seen as effective an asset to his party as Cameron is to the Tories. And Wilson may already have been suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers.

[Deleted User]

JackW said:

Indigo said:

JackW said:

Jezza has as much chance of becoming PM as OGH has of growing a full head of hair over lunchtime today or for that matter any day leading to the 2020 election.

It ain't happening.

Still complacent, if he gets replaced, or falls under a bus, or even dies of old age (we can't all live to 124) the Tories on current showing are toast.

The Tories could elect Peter Bone or John Redwood as Con leader and rout the present Labour rabble with the SNP as the cover bogey men. Labour are in a hole and seemingly can't decide whether they need to dig deeper to ensure they emulate Michael Foot as the most dire opposition since Aston Villa lost to the three legged blind ladies team who had ten players sent of in the first five minutes.

Does this mean the next PM is going to be from the Tory right? (Unless Dave decides not to resign after all?)

JackW

NickPalmer said:

I see one poll has Sanders closing the gap (to 6) in New York:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/bernie-sanders-brooklyn-hillary-clinton-new-york

I still think Hillary will win it, but there could be a turnout difference.

Sanders has to win around two thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to catch Clinton, not counting the Super Delegates. It ain't happening.

Casino_Royale

MaxPB said:

JohnO said:

If Brexit prevails, Cameron will surely have to go within weeks. The abject humiliation of having to negotiate departure after having deployed his entire stock of political capital to the contrary would be more he could or should bear. All political careers end in failure, but his would be the most spectacular since Chamberlain. Mrs T was an heroic martyr.

I think, and hope, that Cameron will stay on and Osborne will be the fall guy for for Brexit. Cameron could probably continue if he promoted a few big beasts from the Leave side into prominent positions. Gove, Boris and Patel replacing Osborne, Hammond and Javid would probably be enough for the PM to gain the initiative, especially given those would be the three key Cabinet positions that relate to Brexit and May is already pretty hardline on immigration and may welcome Brexit.

Yes, that will do it. Cameron will have to be generous to Leave.

Pulpstar

In my timeline:
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/722014508521271296

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/722014459426942976

TCPoliticalBetting

CarlottaVance said:

Cyclefree said:

Britain's approach to many questions, particularly, that of the EU is that of the merchant.

...
I wouldn't over-analyse the Cameron vs Wilson thing - I'm not sure in 1975 Wilson was seen as effective an asset to his party as Cameron is to the Tories. And Wilson may already have been suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers.

Would Wilson have had to resign if the referendum was lost? I think not.

SouthamObserver

Pulpstar said:

watford30 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.

Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.

Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.

I really think you are misreading this.

That single photo did more than anything to turn me against Cameron.

It's not just me saying it. Three friends, and my father, have mentioned it to me since it happened. My father is a Tory loyalist and yesterday had the look of disappointment on his face he'd have if he'd caught me smoking cannabis behind the garden shed.

I don't think anything will be resolved by the vote.

Cameron chortling with arch EU trougher Kinnock. Seriously misjudged.

Win or lose that photo/Dave's actrions are going to have the same sort of effect the whole "Better together" stuff did on alot of Scottish politico's careers.

The big difference is that far fewer people is that the independence referendum actively engaged many previously disengaged Scots. The turnout was far higher than for the GE. If we get a turnout close to GE levels for this referendum it will be a surprise. Most people really aren't feeling passionate about this. The problem for Dave is that most of the passion that does exist is in the Tory party.

TheScreamingEagles

TCPoliticalBetting said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cyclefree said:

Britain's approach to many questions, particularly, that of the EU is that of the merchant.

...
I wouldn't over-analyse the Cameron vs Wilson thing - I'm not sure in 1975 Wilson was seen as effective an asset to his party as Cameron is to the Tories. And Wilson may already have been suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers.

Would Wilson have had to resign if the referendum was lost? I think not.

I thought Wedgewood Benn and Peter Shore were planning to topple him were he to lose.

RochdalePioneers

Regarding today's interventions from Osborne - is he trying to lose the referendum? Utterly absurd forecasts about GDP dismissed by the governor of the Bank of England. Utterly stupid claims that each family would be worse off by £4k and that income tax would have to go up 8p - surely no-one will believe this especially as these "facts" get rapidly torn apart under scrutiny.

I am deeply Euro-sceptic, but have come to the conclusion (reluctantly) that we have to stay and try and reform it from within. I thought Oik and Piggy were supposed to be in favour of staying in, so why this suicidal intervention?

CarlottaVance

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

You appear not to be keeping up with current events, the paving vote for the EU Army and Common Defense Policy went through the European Parliament last week.

So what?

It's the Schrodinger Parliament - simultaneously completely useless and omnipotent

NickPalmer

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ms Cyclefree, a very good post as ever, much of which I agree with. But I'd take issue with the paragraph above. The chances of a common justice system or single EU defence policy and army being implemented in our lifetime are zero. You are right of course that some EU politicians might strive towards such things, but they ain't gonna happen, and cannot happen without our consent, which would never be forthcoming (nor, for that matter, would the consent of some other key members).

You appear not to be keeping up with current events, the paving vote for the EU Army and Common Defense Policy went through the European Parliament last week.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-0120&language=EN

11. Believes that a principal objective should be to move towards permanently pooled multinational military units, joint defence forces and the framing of a common defence policy which should ultimately lead to a European Defence Union; demands, in this regard, the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters to improve military crisis management capability, and ensure contingency planning and the interoperability of forces and equipment; calls on the Member States to reinforce defence cooperation collectively, bilaterally and in regional clusters; supports the adoption of a White Paper on EU Defence, based on the EU Global Strategy;

It's a resolution - one step up from a UK Early Day Motion, as it got a majority, but still essentially in the same class of "expressions of opinion". IMO the Commission and Council of Ministers are too preoccupied to do more than say "yeah, whatever".

If the Parliament was dominant, as I should like, it would be a different matter, but I'm not sure you'd be up for that.

AlastairMeeks

Vaguely on topic:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/722006592858824705

Pulpstar

NickPalmer said:

I see one poll has Sanders closing the gap (to 6) in New York:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/bernie-sanders-brooklyn-hillary-clinton-new-york

I still think Hillary will win it, but there could be a turnout difference.

2245 - 1806 is my current Clinton - Sanders forecast.

Adding in supers yields:

2706 -1837

141 HRC - 106 Sanders in New York.

His New York target is 121 delegates according to my model.

AlastairMeeks

Properly on topic: David Cameron is campaigning vigorously for Remain because he supports that cause, his personal authority is wrapped up in it and he believes that without his vigorous support it might fail.

I can see why Leave supporters would wish David Cameron to remain silent: he's a powerful and persuasive opponent. From the viewpoint of his own self-interest, however, he is acting entirely rationally.

runnymede

AlastairMeeks said:

Vaguely on topic:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/722006592858824705

One of the key reasons many people voted YES in 1975 was precisely because they were worried that if they didn't, we would indeed end up with the 'wrong people' running Britain i.e. the likes of Tony Benn and Eric Heffer who would create a socialist siege economy and push us towards the Warsaw Pact. That was the concern the US had at the time as well.