No that is about how I see the EEA. As I also mentioned earlier on the other thread, I could live with the EEA, far from rubbishing it. I think however, that we would get less influence inside than out, in fact I know we would, as evidenced by Norway's own paper (I won't link it as I'm sure you have it memorised by heart). Input into initial stages, none in the latter and voting stages.
My point has always been that if we are going to get single market rules, why wouldn't we want to have as great an input into them as possible? As for the sovereignty issue, Dave's trashed deal that achieved nothing, actually formalised our opt-out for ECU and addressed discrimination EZ vs non-EZ (unless you believe it is EU subterfuge, in which case fine, vote Leave).
To me the deal lances the boil or should do for the 1.2% of the UK population which knows or cares about the nuances of sovereignty that affects their every waking moment. Because we can opt out of it, as we did (with no deal) of the fiscal compact, a truly scary sovereignty-abusing measure (since apparently forgotten by the EU).
This particular discussion was brought about by @Casino_Royale who asked me what would make me change my mind. I said that a Lab govt were liable to give in to Europe on just about everything, so perhaps there was a case for out-out which would burn our bridges.
However, on balance, and given the EEA option under Lab might not look much different to full EU membership, I would rather we were in the EU with more influence and an opt-out of ECU than out with less influence (and of course an opt-out would be not necessary).
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.
That in a nutshell is the whole problem. The present Government and elites would knuckle down to whatever the EU wanted and appeasement is in their blood.
No that is about how I see the EEA. As I also mentioned earlier on the other thread, I could live with the EEA, far from rubbishing it. I think however, that we would get less influence inside than out, in fact I know we would, as evidenced by Norway's own paper (I won't link it as I'm sure you have it memorised by heart). Input into initial stages, none in the latter and voting stages.
My point has always been that if we are going to get single market rules, why wouldn't we want to have as great an input into them as possible? As for the sovereignty issue, Dave's trashed deal that achieved nothing, actually formalised our opt-out for ECU and addressed discrimination EZ vs non-EZ (unless you believe it is EU subterfuge, in which case fine, vote Leave).
To me the deal lances the boil or should do for the 1.2% of the UK population which knows or cares about the nuances of sovereignty that affects their every waking moment. Because we can opt out of it, as we did (with no deal) of the fiscal compact, a truly scary sovereignty-abusing measure (since apparently forgotten by the EU).
This particular discussion was brought about by @Casino_Royale who asked me what would make me change my mind. I said that a Lab govt were liable to give in to Europe on just about everything, so perhaps there was a case for out-out which would burn our bridges.
However, on balance, and given the EEA option under Lab might not look much different to full EU membership, I would rather we were in the EU with more influence and an opt-out of ECU than out with less influence (and of course an opt-out would be not necessary).
And then off you went on your rant.
And now I really must leave (small "l").
Point of order, we didn't opt out of the fiscal compact, we vetoed it, which is basically why it is dead. The other EU nations forged ahead under "enhanced cooperation" but because it can't be properly policed and it isn't part of EU law under any treaty it is basically meaningless (much like Dave's agreement).
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.
As a LEAVE supporter I welcome Cameron speaking out because I believe he will drive more of the voters that are not C or not UKIP (circa 48%) into LEAVE or abstaining. This is a very large pool of voters. As a Conservative supporter I regard Cameron as wreaking great damage on the party from the tactics he has adopted. From Cameron's self interest he should have stood back from the fray and ensured that whatever the vote he could have an orderly exit rather than risk a humiliation or even be forced out after a REMAIN win due to the anger he has created.
(good stuff snipped for length) 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……
Well, in Elizabeth's time our seamen were pirates.
But I look at it from a different angle. One of the things I find odd about the current debate is that there is indeed a very broad consensus that membership of the EU is an economic decision. Almost no one (maybe Nick is an exception) claims any love for the EU. We either hate it or tolerate it in exchange for an economic benefit.
So why all the heat? If this is really an argument about whether George is right that in 2030 we may be a few quid better off inside rather than out (assuming the EU still exists of course) why are so many people so angry?
Personally I am not. I see the EU as an economic decision with a bias towards democracy in leaving. I acknowledge that it is quite a complicated decision with lots of moving parts not all of which point in the same direction. It is why I don't feel passionately about the result one way or another.
Those that do really want to talk about sovereignty. And the sad truth is that only a tiny minority of the population (most of whom are already on PB) cares about theoretical concepts like that. It will never win any argument.
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?)
Above all Conservatives want to win. That driving force is tempered by the Jezza factor and accordingly the temptation might be to look outside the box. That said I think Bone and Redwood are a spanner short of a tool box even in that context.
Looking around the current field Theresa May looks like a viable contender. REMAIN yes, but she's been very quiet in the fray so far. She's also handled the usual poisoned chalice of the Home Office without too many blacks .... so to speak. There's some steel there too .... Oopps .... unfortunate analogy.
However she seems to lack empathy or the essential quality in a modern politician to fake sincerity. If she can overcome those shortcomings then it might be a triple may - May-be PM May in May 2020.
I think there are many Leavers that will agree with this guy...
Those who believe we should stay in the EU at all costs need to explain why Britain should accept the status quo. I am clear that there are real problems for Britain with the status quo. There are some economic risks, if we allow a situation where Eurozone countries could potentially spend our money or where European regulations hold back our ability to trade and create jobs. And there are also significant risks if we allow our sovereignty to be eroded by ever closer union or sit by and do nothing about the unsustainable rate of migration into our country.
- David Cameron
So why is he the cheerleader for Remain when his re-negotiation solved none of this?
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.
Is that you in the photo next to Mike?
Also Sam was banned for life just after he queried you over the said bet, why was that?
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.
Cameron's self interest has never been more clearly on display.
No that is about how I see the EEA. As I also mentioned earlier on the other thread, I could live with the EEA, far from rubbishing it. I think however, that we would get less influence inside than out, in fact I know we would, as evidenced by Norway's own paper (I won't link it as I'm sure you have it memorised by heart). Input into initial stages, none in the latter and voting stages.
My point has always been that if we are going to get single market rules, why wouldn't we want to have as great an input into them as possible? As for the sovereignty issue, Dave's trashed deal that achieved nothing, actually formalised our opt-out for ECU and addressed discrimination EZ vs non-EZ (unless you believe it is EU subterfuge, in which case fine, vote Leave).
To me the deal lances the boil or should do for the 1.2% of the UK population which knows or cares about the nuances of sovereignty that affects their every waking moment. Because we can opt out of it, as we did (with no deal) of the fiscal compact, a truly scary sovereignty-abusing measure (since apparently forgotten by the EU).
This particular discussion was brought about by @Casino_Royale who asked me what would make me change my mind. I said that a Lab govt were liable to give in to Europe on just about everything, so perhaps there was a case for out-out which would burn our bridges.
However, on balance, and given the EEA option under Lab might not look much different to full EU membership, I would rather we were in the EU with more influence and an opt-out of ECU than out with less influence (and of course an opt-out would be not necessary).
And then off you went on your rant.
And now I really must leave (small "l").
Point of order, we didn't opt out of the fiscal compact, we vetoed it, which is basically why it is dead. The other EU nations forged ahead under "enhanced cooperation" but because it can't be properly policed and it isn't part of EU law under any treaty it is basically meaningless (much like Dave's agreement).
Surely we have no veto rights under the yoke of the imperial supranational unelected eurocrats from Brussels?!
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.
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;
There is increasing amounts of cooperation (sharing resources and leadership) between the German and Dutch armies. It is expected that this will be expanded to include Poland and the Czech Republic. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has claimed openly that this is not just about cooperating bilaterally but about the formation of an EU army.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
I think there are many Leavers that will agree with this guy...
Those who believe we should stay in the EU at all costs need to explain why Britain should accept the status quo. I am clear that there are real problems for Britain with the status quo. There are some economic risks, if we allow a situation where Eurozone countries could potentially spend our money or where European regulations hold back our ability to trade and create jobs. And there are also significant risks if we allow our sovereignty to be eroded by ever closer union or sit by and do nothing about the unsustainable rate of migration into our country.
- David Cameron
So why is he the cheerleader for Remain when his re-negotiation solved none of this?
Because we are now finding out what David Cameron really thinks.
The attitude of the Brexiteers towards Cameron personally is illuminating
Instead of welcoming the vote (which they claim they wanted) and recognising that Cameron is campaigning for what he personally believes in (as are they), he is traduced and reviled. They really do seem to think he is acting not out of conviction in the cause, but because he really is in thrall to the Global Worldwide Conspiracy (c John Redwood)
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.
I agree. and I never ever thought I'd write those words. ho hum
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.
As a LEAVE supporter I welcome Cameron speaking out because I believe he will drive more of the voters that are not C or not UKIP (circa 48%) into LEAVE or abstaining. This is a very large pool of voters. As a Conservative supporter I regard Cameron as wreaking great damage on the party from the tactics he has adopted. From Cameron's self interest he should have stood back from the fray and ensured that whatever the vote he could have an orderly exit rather than risk a humiliation or even be forced out after a REMAIN win due to the anger he has created.
What is the point of hoarding political capital, never to spend it? Having negotiated a deal and recommended it, David Cameron's authority would be hugely damaged if it were then rejected. Far better to nail his colours to the mast properly.
The fury of the Leavers against David Cameron is astonishing to watch. He gave them the referendum that they wanted. But it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
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.
Is that you in the photo next to Mike?
Also Sam was banned for life just after he queried you over the said bet, why was that?
Nothing to do with me. He should take it up with Mike.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
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.
Not sure about the individuals but he would be generous.
it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
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.
Is that you in the photo next to Mike?
Also Sam was banned for life just after he queried you over the said bet, why was that?
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.
As a LEAVE supporter I welcome Cameron speaking out because I believe he will drive more of the voters that are not C or not UKIP (circa 48%) into LEAVE or abstaining. This is a very large pool of voters. As a Conservative supporter I regard Cameron as wreaking great damage on the party from the tactics he has adopted. From Cameron's self interest he should have stood back from the fray and ensured that whatever the vote he could have an orderly exit rather than risk a humiliation or even be forced out after a REMAIN win due to the anger he has created.
What is the point of hoarding political capital, never to spend it? Having negotiated a deal and recommended it, David Cameron's authority would be hugely damaged if it were then rejected. Far better to nail his colours to the mast properly......
Alastair Meeks Are you therefore viewing this from the perspective that you are happy if REMAIN wins but if the Conservatives end up wreaked by Cameron's actions that would be something you would have a quiet smile about? Cameron could have had the referendum (tick) and then ridden off into the sunset at a date of his choosing, with the good wishes of his party, irregardless of the outcome.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
But wont, because it's such a small change on the status quo that it isn't worth upsetting everyone about, that's the whole point of salami tactics, lots of small changes that don't individually look like they are significant enough to make a fuss about.
it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
Indeed.
Its a giant straw man. No leavers really thought Cameron would ever support leave, no matter that he said he would 'under certain circumstances'.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win (sharing a platform with Kinnock!). That is down to Cameron himself. He portrayed himself to be a European agnostic. That was an untrue representation.
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
The fury of the Leavers against David Cameron is astonishing to watch. He gave them the referendum that they wanted. But it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
Oh poppycock. He go stiffed with a referendum he didn't want because he made an expedient offer to firm up his GE vote, expecting it to be the first casualty of a coalition deal and then unexpectedly got a majority, but it was far too late to back away from it by then.
it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
Indeed.
Its a giant straw man. No leavers really thought Cameron would ever support leave, no matter that he said he would 'under certain circumstances'. Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win (sharing a platform with Kinnock!). That is down to Cameron himself. He portrayed himself to be a European agnostic. That was an untrue representation.
Contrast this with the AV referendum where Cameron & Osborne were happy to leave it to Matthew Elliott etc to lead the AV campaign and fronted very little themselves - maybe for risk of upsetting their coalition partners the Lib Dems? Why were Cameron & Osborne more in fear of the Lib Dems than they are over the consequences with their own party over this referendum?
The attitude of the Brexiteers towards Cameron personally is illuminating
Instead of welcoming the vote (which they claim they wanted) and recognising that Cameron is campaigning for what he personally believes in (as are they), he is traduced and reviled. They really do seem to think he is acting not out of conviction in the cause, but because he really is in thrall to the Global Worldwide Conspiracy (c John Redwood)
it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
Indeed.
Its a giant straw man. No leavers really thought Cameron would ever support leave, no matter that he said he would 'under certain circumstances'.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win (sharing a platform with Kinnock!). That is down to Cameron himself. He portrayed himself to be a European agnostic. That was an untrue representation.
It's an amazing thing because it shows that staying in the EU is more important to Dave than his own or his party's future. Fair dinkum. I'm dead against it myself, but if that is where his heart really lies then you can't get too upset that he is putting his all into it. He'll be reviled by future Tories in much the same way Blair is in Labour. They thought he was one of them too. I suspect the real anger in the Tory ranks is not so much that Dave is fighting the wrong fight but that they realise they are led by Tony Mk2. And if a Tory PM won't try to balance a budget or stand up against the EU then what is the point of them?
@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?
I think SO's point is clearly that if we Brexit Cameron will be replaced by a Leaver and the Leavers are pretty much all well to his right.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
But wont, because it's such a small change on the status quo that it isn't worth upsetting everyone about, that's the whole point of salami tactics, lots of small changes that don't individually look like they are significant enough to make a fuss about.
And we have the example of recent the opt-in to justice and home affairs measures,
The 'Conservative' government had an opportunity to opt out for good from measures transferring sovereignty to the EU in a crucial area. They chose not to, and also denied the public a referendum on the issue - thus showing their 'referendum lock' promise to be worthless as well.
Repeat - the authorities can't be trusted. They want more integration. Only an exit will prevent it happening.
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
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.
As a LEAVE supporter I welcome Cameron speaking out because I believe he will drive more of the voters that are not C or not UKIP (circa 48%) into LEAVE or abstaining. This is a very large pool of voters. As a Conservative supporter I regard Cameron as wreaking great damage on the party from the tactics he has adopted. From Cameron's self interest he should have stood back from the fray and ensured that whatever the vote he could have an orderly exit rather than risk a humiliation or even be forced out after a REMAIN win due to the anger he has created.
What is the point of hoarding political capital, never to spend it? Having negotiated a deal and recommended it, David Cameron's authority would be hugely damaged if it were then rejected. Far better to nail his colours to the mast properly......
Alastair Meeks Are you therefore viewing this from the perspective that you are happy if REMAIN wins but if the Conservatives end up wreaked by Cameron's actions that would be something you would have a quiet smile about? Cameron could have had the referendum (tick) and then ridden off into the sunset at a date of his choosing, with the good wishes of his party, irregardless of the outcome.
The referendum is revealing people for who they are.
Cameron claimed he at least saw both sides of the debate.
There are posters here who think the EU is a vital civilising bulwark against ghastly people who drape England flags out of their window and have never had so much as a whiff of a sun-dried tomato. Leave really is a nightmare scenario for them, and I get why they're arguing so strongly against it.
The ones I don't understand are the Tories who know the EU isn't a good fit, who aren't signed up to ever closer union, who agree that the single market is flawed, who don't like wasteful government expenditure, who believe in competitive rates of tax and light regulation. It was a mistake to join. We never wanted the same things as the other member states and we still don't. So we can stay in and be dragged reluctantly into whatever the next grand wheeze is, which will always be sold by the Government of the day as an 'economic/security' necessity. Or we can leave. Let's accept that and do something about it.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
Yep - if only he used those talents in the interests of the UK.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win
But that is exactly the point. If you are not prepared to spend political capital on a cause you believe in, WTF are you in politics? And having made the decision to spend the capital, Brexiteers hate him for it, but only because he is not on their side
But how is it going to win enough of the circa 48% of non Conservatives and non UKIP who choose to vote for parties against Cameron's party? Cameron's political capital is primarily with his party. There is little in the circa 48%.
The ones I don't understand are the Tories who know the EU isn't a good fit, who aren't signed up to ever closer union, who agree that the single market is flawed, who don't like wasteful government expenditure, who believe in competitive rates of tax and light regulation. It was a mistake to join. We never wanted the same things as the other member states and we still don't.
I don't share the "hatred of the other" that lies behind the UKIP (or the SNP) philosophy
Life would be so much better without Westminster Brussels
I don't believe that, and I reject absolutely the small minded attitude that drives such sentiments
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.
Yes, there are bound to be impacts on personal finances and quality of life that arise from a rapidly expanding population but no comparable increase in incomes or expansion in services and infrastructure.
It would be interesting to see a broad assessment of house prices, rental prices, school places, GP provision, NHS performance, student accommodation costs, law and order impacts etc since 2004.
A Cost-of-Living Consequence.
There are numerous pieces of nationwide and pan-european research that have been conducted into social attitudes towards population change and the EU.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win
But that is exactly the point. If you are not prepared to spend political capital on a cause you believe in, WTF are you in politics?
And having made the decision to spend the capital, Brexiteers hate him for it, but only because he is not on their side
Errr probabaly not.
I for one think there are other matters he might have spent his political capital on - economic reform for example.
The issue is more how it shows his priorities, and he is feeding the impression that our politicians care more about outside inetrests than their own voters.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
The odd bit is his air of bewilderment that there are people who believe in their view as strongly as he believes in his, and who will be just as ruthless, but are not the head of a political party that is taking serious collateral damage. If he wins his EU vote at the expense of a riven and warring party, he better hope he gets lot of Notting Hill dinner invites because there won't be many Tories on speaking terms with him.
Q: When is a Treasury forecast on immigration not a forecast? A: When it is a "stylised projection". From today's Treasury report on the EU..... page 136.
Somehow immigration rates will drop.....
"In the principal projection, total net international migration to the UK falls from 329,000 per year in 2014 towards 185,000 per year from 2021 onwards. This is a stylised projection rather than a forecast."
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
What you have to bear in mind is that, from Cameron's point of view, a Leave result would be a political catastrophe, not least because of the short-term economic damage which would destroy his political legacy. It's not surprising therefore that he's throwing the kitchen sink at it.
Perhaps he was hoping not to have to take such a prominent role, but no-one else has really stepped up to the mark (Stuart Rose, anyone?). I don't think he had any choice but to come out all guns blazing.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win
But that is exactly the point. If you are not prepared to spend political capital on a cause you believe in, WTF are you in politics?
And having made the decision to spend the capital, Brexiteers hate him for it, but only because he is not on their side
Hate is a strong word, but I think badly of Cameron not because of his support for the EU. I dislike him because of his shameless lies and perversion of democracy over it.
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
What you have to bear in mind is that, from Cameron's point of view, a Leave result would be a political catastrophe, not least because of the short-term economic damage which would destroy his political legacy. It's not surprising therefore that he's throwing the kitchen sink at it.
Perhaps he was hoping not to have to take such a prominent role, but no-one else has really stepped up to the mark (Stuart Rose, anyone?). I don't think he had any choice but to come out all guns blazing.
That's a good point. I think he thinks he's the only one that can win it for Remain, and he might be right.
Of course, that tells it's only story about Remain.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Exactly and that is why all the Leave fears of joining the Euro etc is not credible. UK would only join the EU if it suited our own self-interest, we could never be forced to.
If Cameron is disliked its because of the dishonesty of his position rather than the nature of it.
He portrayed himself as a sceptic, a complete sham.
Still, we now know who he really is, and what he really believes.
He's been entirely consistent. I really don't see how anyone could conceivably accuse him of being dishonest on this. He has always said he thinks the UK is better off in the EU, whilst wanting the EU to reform and being against closer union.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win
But that is exactly the point. If you are not prepared to spend political capital on a cause you believe in, WTF are you in politics?
And having made the decision to spend the capital, Brexiteers hate him for it, but only because he is not on their side
Hate is a strong word, but I think badly of Cameron not because of his support for the EU. I dislike him because of his shameless lies and perversion of democracy over it.
Leavers are disappointed in the PM because they believed David Cameron's own version of his position on Europe.
That version was a complete lie. If he's our opponent fine. We at last know who he is and what he believes.
Q: When is a Treasury forecast on immigration not a forecast? A: When it is a "stylised projection". From today's Treasury report on the EU..... page 136.
Somehow immigration rates will drop.....
"In the principal projection, total net international migration to the UK falls from 329,000 per year in 2014 towards 185,000 per year from 2021 onwards. This is a stylised projection rather than a forecast."
LOL
I haven't read the report, but doesn't that mean there will be fewer households ? And if there are fewer households under Brexit, what does that do to the GDP per head ?
If we have 6% less GDP but 7% less households, I would have thought that would be good for us.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
What you have to bear in mind is that, from Cameron's point of view, a Leave result would be a political catastrophe, not least because of the short-term economic damage which would destroy his political legacy. It's not surprising therefore that he's throwing the kitchen sink at it.
Perhaps he was hoping not to have to take such a prominent role, but no-one else has really stepped up to the mark (Stuart Rose, anyone?). I don't think he had any choice but to come out all guns blazing.
That's a good point. I think he thinks he's the only one that can win it for Remain, and he might be right.
Of course, that tells it's only story about Remain.
Well I think they are testing out Osborne today. I don't think it is going well.
Vote Leave to destroy Osborne. That's a line which will work with a lot of lefties.
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
My hope is REMAIN wins 51-49 and the Raving Tories keep on fighting in the sack.
Following a Remain victory it wouldn't surprise me if Cameron spikes the guns of party rebels and preannouces a date for his departure shortly after. Possibly as early as this Autumn. But perhaps next year, allowing one more parliamentary year to get a few bills through on his social legacy.
I think he's had enough and knows he's on borrowed time: he can't stay as leader for the next 3 years, now, win the referendum, and hold the party together IMHO.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
Yes, I'm sure Dave is haunted by the miserable figure of John Major in all this - a decent man insulted by the Right and mocked by the Left, locked in a death spiral of his own pragmatism and dithering as the forces without tore him apart. Dave has decided to fight on his own terms and to hell with his detractors. They eurosceptic Right clearly don't like it. They'd much rather have a Major figure they can kick around.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
Yep - if only he used those talents in the interests of the UK.
Maybe he believes staying in the UK is in the interests of the UK. That's certainly how I see it.
The ones I don't understand are the Tories who know the EU isn't a good fit, who aren't signed up to ever closer union, who agree that the single market is flawed, who don't like wasteful government expenditure, who believe in competitive rates of tax and light regulation. It was a mistake to join. We never wanted the same things as the other member states and we still don't.
I don't share the "hatred of the other" that lies behind the UKIP (or the SNP) philosophy
Life would be so much better without Westminster Brussels
I don't believe that, and I reject absolutely the small minded attitude that drives such sentiments
Supporting our continued painful and ridiculous membership of this organisation because you don't want to widen the smile on Nigel Farage's mug is letting an extremely small tail wag a huge dog.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
The odd bit is his air of bewilderment that there are people who believe in their view as strongly as he believes in his, and who will be just as ruthless, but are not the head of a political party that is taking serious collateral damage. If he wins his EU vote at the expense of a riven and warring party, he better hope he gets lot of Notting Hill dinner invites because there won't be many Tories on speaking terms with him.
Indigo: I sincerely hope you and your mates will continue with your jihad after REMAIN winning this referendum. Believe !
Maybe he believes staying in the EU is in the interests of the UK. That's certainly how I see it.
Exactly.
The alternative (kindly explained by John Redwood this morning) is he really thinks Brexit would be better, but the Global Worldwide Conspiracy have some hold over him, and told him to back Remain.
Cameron was always going to back the Remain side. Yes, he did make noises about being a Euro-sceptic and about advocating walking away if he did not get the deal he got; guess what, he's a politician and he has a history of not being entirely straight just like all other politicians. But anyone who actually believed him was naïve beyond belief. It was clear from the moment he was forced into advocating a referendum which side he would be on.
@bbclaurak: Paul Johnson, one of few really independent voice on economy + #euref says .......
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
I still think Hillary will win it, but there could be a turnout difference.
Impressively you could have HRC being nominated whilst at the same time trailing Sanders in the national polling. Ipsos/Reuters had Sanders leading by a point last week.
Looking at the NY polls Trump looks very strong in Long Island, which when combined with Upstate, would make NY vaguely competitive in the general, albeit still a safe Dem hold. Have to go back to 88 the last time the Republican candidate won Long Island.
Trump’s people have a lot in common with the FDR coalition and more generally with the old Democratic party, he gets urban ethnics (Italians, Irish, Slavs, French Canadians etc.), backwoods folk and Southerners on the same page.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
@bbclaurak: Paul Johnson, one of few really independent voice on economy + #euref says .......
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
Oh balls, back to X Factor quotes.
Does Paul have a lovely house at the IFS and can we see it in Hello magazine ?
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
The odd bit is his air of bewilderment that there are people who believe in their view as strongly as he believes in his, and who will be just as ruthless, but are not the head of a political party that is taking serious collateral damage. If he wins his EU vote at the expense of a riven and warring party, he better hope he gets lot of Notting Hill dinner invites because there won't be many Tories on speaking terms with him.
Indigo: I sincerely hope you and your mates will continue with your jihad after REMAIN winning this referendum. Believe !
Don't look at me, look at the people like those that selected "eurosceptics" like Alan Mak
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
Just because the Nats in Scotland can't accept the will of the people either doesn't make it right. Nats and Eurosceptics both have a hardcore of fanatics
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
Democracy, eh? :-)
Isn't the problem that once you give something to the EU, they never let you have it back?
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
Democracy, eh? :-)
The point is once you give away powers to the EU, you never get them back regardless of who is in power nationally. So a government today can effectively bind its successors. That is not democratic. Outside the EU governments cannot do this.
Important point about California. In 2008 McCain beat Romney 42 to 35, garnering 158 delegates to Romney's 12. With Trump already leading by 18 he would be unlikely to drop more than a handful of delegates, if any.
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
Democracy, eh? :-)
Isn't the problem that once you give something to the EU, they never let you have it back?
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
Just because the Nats in Scotland can't accept the will of the people either doesn't make it right. Nats and Eurosceptics both have a hardcore of fanatics
Ah, now I see your confusion.
No, fanatics are the people who think that 40%+ of Scots who still want independence after a referendum, and the 40%+ of the population who will still want to leave the EU after the EU referendum are fanatics, and perhaps the most dangerous sort.
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.
They (probably) aren't that stupid, this sort of change is salami sliced.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force 2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries 3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force 4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience 5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander 6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson 7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
So at each stage the UK can say No.
Not if the Govt is Labour, they would throw in another cut in the rebate just to be nice.
That would be a Labour government that people in the UK voted for, wouldn't it?
Yes. Labour usually do give up more control and money the EU.
Democracy, eh? :-)
The point is once you give away powers to the EU, you never get them back regardless of who is in power nationally. So a government today can effectively bind its successors. That is not democratic. Outside the EU governments cannot do this.
I'm not convinced by the argument that if a vote goes against you, you're under a moral duty to agree with your opponents.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
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.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
Really are you still trumpeting this bullshit. If the Tories won 51% next General Election (not impossible with the comrades in charge!) would Labour supporters hang up their red rosettes and says they better stop campaigning for social justice and leftie politics because the will of the people didn't go their way ?
Everything anyone says that you disagree with is "bullshit", you sound very angry.
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Ah, you mean like separatism in Scotland, I distinctly remember that fading out after the Referendum.
Just because the Nats in Scotland can't accept the will of the people either doesn't make it right. Nats and Eurosceptics both have a hardcore of fanatics
Ah, now I see your confusion.
No, fanatics are the people who think that 40%+ of Scots who still want independence after a referendum, and the 40%+ of the population who will still want to leave the EU after the EU referendum are fanatics, and perhaps the most dangerous sort.
As with the EU, I certainly don't consider that Scottish Nationalists are morally obliged to give up, despite losing in September 2014. Indeed, it looks as if they're going to win the next Scottish election.
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.
[snip]
Possibly worth expanding into a thread header but thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone bites……
I'll bite...
Even in the time of Elizabeth the First we were accused of being little better than pirates.
In the time of Elizabeth the First we were little better than pirates. Why do you think we are so good at banking?
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
'Let's take whatever estimates we can find and double, or triple them'
'Let's assume lots of negative things happen outside the EU and lots of positive ones in it, and the REMAIN option will look great - brilliant!'
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
'Let's take whatever estimates we can find and double, or triple them'
'Let's assume lots of negative things happen outside the EU and lots of positive ones in it, and the REMAIN option will look great - brilliant!'
So if I've read the reports correctly - Osborne basically accepts HMGs immigration target cannot be met - to have a 6% improvement in GDP we need 10% more households and this is meant to be persuasive
There is also the effect on the numbers of the miraculous cut in the rate of net immigration. Somehow >2 million less over the period compared to current figures. In rough terms that would reduce households by almost 1m equivalent to halving the gdp hit per household.... all things being equal.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
'Let's take whatever estimates we can find and double, or triple them'
'Let's assume lots of negative things happen outside the EU and lots of positive ones in it, and the REMAIN option will look great - brilliant!'
Yes absolutely. Dishonourable and very disappointing.
Comments
In response to your recent post.
No that is about how I see the EEA. As I also mentioned earlier on the other thread, I could live with the EEA, far from rubbishing it. I think however, that we would get less influence inside than out, in fact I know we would, as evidenced by Norway's own paper (I won't link it as I'm sure you have it memorised by heart). Input into initial stages, none in the latter and voting stages.
My point has always been that if we are going to get single market rules, why wouldn't we want to have as great an input into them as possible? As for the sovereignty issue, Dave's trashed deal that achieved nothing, actually formalised our opt-out for ECU and addressed discrimination EZ vs non-EZ (unless you believe it is EU subterfuge, in which case fine, vote Leave).
To me the deal lances the boil or should do for the 1.2% of the UK population which knows or cares about the nuances of sovereignty that affects their every waking moment. Because we can opt out of it, as we did (with no deal) of the fiscal compact, a truly scary sovereignty-abusing measure (since apparently forgotten by the EU).
This particular discussion was brought about by @Casino_Royale who asked me what would make me change my mind. I said that a Lab govt were liable to give in to Europe on just about everything, so perhaps there was a case for out-out which would burn our bridges.
However, on balance, and given the EEA option under Lab might not look much different to full EU membership, I would rather we were in the EU with more influence and an opt-out of ECU than out with less influence (and of course an opt-out would be not necessary).
And then off you went on your rant.
And now I really must leave (small "l").
As a Conservative supporter I regard Cameron as wreaking great damage on the party from the tactics he has adopted.
From Cameron's self interest he should have stood back from the fray and ensured that whatever the vote he could have an orderly exit rather than risk a humiliation or even be forced out after a REMAIN win due to the anger he has created.
But I look at it from a different angle. One of the things I find odd about the current debate is that there is indeed a very broad consensus that membership of the EU is an economic decision. Almost no one (maybe Nick is an exception) claims any love for the EU. We either hate it or tolerate it in exchange for an economic benefit.
So why all the heat? If this is really an argument about whether George is right that in 2030 we may be a few quid better off inside rather than out (assuming the EU still exists of course) why are so many people so angry?
Personally I am not. I see the EU as an economic decision with a bias towards democracy in leaving. I acknowledge that it is quite a complicated decision with lots of moving parts not all of which point in the same direction. It is why I don't feel passionately about the result one way or another.
Those that do really want to talk about sovereignty. And the sad truth is that only a tiny minority of the population (most of whom are already on PB) cares about theoretical concepts like that. It will never win any argument.
Looking around the current field Theresa May looks like a viable contender. REMAIN yes, but she's been very quiet in the fray so far. She's also handled the usual poisoned chalice of the Home Office without too many blacks .... so to speak. There's some steel there too .... Oopps .... unfortunate analogy.
However she seems to lack empathy or the essential quality in a modern politician to fake sincerity. If she can overcome those shortcomings then it might be a triple may - May-be PM May in May 2020.
I think there are many Leavers that will agree with this guy...
Those who believe we should stay in the EU at all costs need to explain why Britain should accept the status quo. I am clear that there are real problems for Britain with the status quo. There are some economic risks, if we allow a situation where Eurozone countries could potentially spend our money or where European regulations hold back our ability to trade and create jobs. And there are also significant risks if we allow our sovereignty to be eroded by ever closer union or sit by and do nothing about the unsustainable rate of migration into our country.
- David Cameron
So why is he the cheerleader for Remain when his re-negotiation solved none of this?
Also Sam was banned for life just after he queried you over the said bet, why was that?
Bye. Really.
1) The UK is asked to contribute a few senior soldiers as advisors to a possible EU force
2) The UK is asked to lead a small force of EU units provided by other (more agreeable) countries
3) The UK is asked to provide a few units to an EU peacekeeping force
4) The UK is asked to put those few units under an EU commander as a temporary measure for administrative convenience
5) The temporary command gets extended, and acquire a staff and a UK commander
6) The temporary command if trumpeted as being terribly prestigious to the UK as it is extended again, and gains its own spokesperson
7) The various units are rearranged and the temporary command is absorbed into a permanent command, but it's just the same people they have been working with for the last five years so what is wrong with that.
Instead of welcoming the vote (which they claim they wanted) and recognising that Cameron is campaigning for what he personally believes in (as are they), he is traduced and reviled. They really do seem to think he is acting not out of conviction in the cause, but because he really is in thrall to the Global Worldwide Conspiracy (c John Redwood)
It's fascinating.
The fury of the Leavers against David Cameron is astonishing to watch. He gave them the referendum that they wanted. But it turns out that they didn't really want a referendum, they wanted him to agree with them. And that was never promised nor was it ever remotely likely.
There are legitimate reasons to favour Remain rather than Leave. A string of migrant camps across the south of England is not one of them.
Cameron's been spouting tosh for weeks.
Cameron could have had the referendum (tick) and then ridden off into the sunset at a date of his choosing, with the good wishes of his party, irregardless of the outcome.
Perhaps we are a surprised at the amount of political capital he and Osborne are prepared to burn to win (sharing a platform with Kinnock!). That is down to Cameron himself. He portrayed himself to be a European agnostic. That was an untrue representation.
https://youtu.be/MrnuhrqVN1M
I think SO's point is clearly that if we Brexit Cameron will be replaced by a Leaver and the Leavers are pretty much all well to his right.
The 'Conservative' government had an opportunity to opt out for good from measures transferring sovereignty to the EU in a crucial area. They chose not to, and also denied the public a referendum on the issue - thus showing their 'referendum lock' promise to be worthless as well.
Repeat - the authorities can't be trusted. They want more integration. Only an exit will prevent it happening.
And having made the decision to spend the capital, Brexiteers hate him for it, but only because he is not on their side
Cameron claimed he at least saw both sides of the debate.
We now know that was not the case.
The ones I don't understand are the Tories who know the EU isn't a good fit, who aren't signed up to ever closer union, who agree that the single market is flawed, who don't like wasteful government expenditure, who believe in competitive rates of tax and light regulation. It was a mistake to join. We never wanted the same things as the other member states and we still don't. So we can stay in and be dragged reluctantly into whatever the next grand wheeze is, which will always be sold by the Government of the day as an 'economic/security' necessity. Or we can leave. Let's accept that and do something about it.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
I just don't trust the EU, and I don't trust Cameron about it any more.
Anyway, I must be off for the time being.
Life would be so much better without
WestminsterBrusselsI don't believe that, and I reject absolutely the small minded attitude that drives such sentiments
It would be interesting to see a broad assessment of house prices, rental prices, school places, GP provision, NHS performance, student accommodation costs, law and order impacts etc since 2004.
A Cost-of-Living Consequence.
There are numerous pieces of nationwide and pan-european research that have been conducted into social attitudes towards population change and the EU.
He portrayed himself as a sceptic, a complete sham.
Still, we now know who he really is, and what he really believes.
I for one think there are other matters he might have spent his political capital on - economic reform for example.
The issue is more how it shows his priorities, and he is feeding the impression that our politicians care more about outside inetrests than their own voters.
A: When it is a "stylised projection". From today's Treasury report on the EU..... page 136.
Somehow immigration rates will drop.....
"In the principal projection, total net international migration to the UK falls from 329,000 per year in 2014 towards 185,000 per year from 2021 onwards. This is a stylised projection rather than a forecast."
Elections are ongoing, referenda are at least meant to try and settle an issue for a decider so in order that we can move on. If Tory's want to keep on tearing themselves apart after June then that's their business.
Perhaps he was hoping not to have to take such a prominent role, but no-one else has really stepped up to the mark (Stuart Rose, anyone?). I don't think he had any choice but to come out all guns blazing.
Of course, that tells it's only story about Remain.
Exactly and that is why all the Leave fears of joining the Euro etc is not credible. UK would only join the EU if it suited our own self-interest, we could never be forced to.
That version was a complete lie. If he's our opponent fine. We at last know who he is and what he believes.
I haven't read the report, but doesn't that mean there will be fewer households ? And if there are fewer households under Brexit, what does that do to the GDP per head ?
If we have 6% less GDP but 7% less households, I would have thought that would be good for us.
Vote Leave to destroy Osborne. That's a line which will work with a lot of lefties.
I think he's had enough and knows he's on borrowed time: he can't stay as leader for the next 3 years, now, win the referendum, and hold the party together IMHO.
The alternative (kindly explained by John Redwood this morning) is he really thinks Brexit would be better, but the Global Worldwide Conspiracy have some hold over him, and told him to back Remain.
I guess my tinfoil hat needs a tune-up...
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
Looking at the NY polls Trump looks very strong in Long Island, which when combined with Upstate, would make NY vaguely competitive in the general, albeit still a safe Dem hold. Have to go back to 88 the last time the Republican candidate won Long Island.
Trump’s people have a lot in common with the FDR coalition and more generally with the old Democratic party, he gets urban ethnics (Italians, Irish, Slavs, French Canadians etc.), backwoods folk and Southerners on the same page.
Does Paul have a lovely house at the IFS and can we see it in Hello magazine ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36073383
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1606133236378082
- Osborne basically accepts HMGs immigration target cannot be met
- to have a 6% improvement in GDP we need 10% more households
and this is meant to be persuasive
No, fanatics are the people who think that 40%+ of Scots who still want independence after a referendum, and the 40%+ of the population who will still want to leave the EU after the EU referendum are fanatics, and perhaps the most dangerous sort.
'the man'......up until now E&W media have been assiduous in avoiding identifying the sexes of anyone involved......
Even in the time of Elizabeth the First we were accused of being little better than pirates.
In the time of Elizabeth the First we were little better than pirates. Why do you think we are so good at banking?
I agree with the rest...
If other countries buy as much from the EU as we do, then presumably they would get the the same deal.
How many of those are there?
'Let's assume lots of negative things happen outside the EU and lots of positive ones in it, and the REMAIN option will look great - brilliant!'
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgUddddW8AAnrBs.jpg:large