Why is Barack Obama so against a free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain? What's the beef with that?
He is supporting the free independent, self governing, prosperous Britain we have now.
Why do you hate it so much?
If Britain is already free and independent, then why do millions want to leave?
I disagree with Trump on much, but I agree with him on this. If you don;t control immigration, if the citizens don;t have the final say on who comes in, you don;t have a country.
I take it you are OK with Brits emigrating overseas. Like settling in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, US.......................over hundreds of years. Spain.........south of France...
I am OK with immigration in all directions. The question is, who controls it. Because immigration, in the modern world, is a key influencer. Maybe the key influencer. Trump realises this, for all his many flaws.
That is why those who down play its effects are the most often the people who have the power to control it. Because somebody somewhere always does. The question is who.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Yes, well calling him a half-Kenyan idiot or somesuch is definitely not the way forwards.
I'll say it again, there's no way Boris will make the final two of the next Tory leadership contest.
Hes still a genius, as next month, when the tories are slaughtered bywith a horribly flawed and divisive candidate, will show.
David Cameron. Kneeling down to foreign power in all its forms since 2005.
Or practical politics
Probably practical politics, but it sticks in the craw to watch foreign government people being wheeled out to tell us the voters what to do, with our PM smiling on thanking them for telling us what to do. Weak , weak, weak is what Blair called Major. They can all (including Le Pen) just politely eff off.
I think you are conflating the issue with Obama and the possibility, remote and hopefully not, that Trump does indeed win the POTUS. In some way it has parallels with the current anger of leave with Obama as there is a similar issue that post the referendum or the US elections parties may well have to deal with leaders they have annoyed previously. I appreciate that Obama will not be POTUS but almost certainly Clinton will be and she is bound to share Obama's attitude to the referendum
I have no idea what Clinton thinks or will say or do. However, one thing I am certain of is that US presidents will only ever say or do anything that that they perceive is in the best interest of the USA. The USA only ever acts in the interests of the USA, and rightly so.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Very concisely put. That is exactly how I see it.
For me, it most certainly is not about economics, but politics.
Of course it's about politics. The economics is negative, but it serves to obfuscate the politics.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I made that point last night, and I was accused of being patronising.
Maybe it's how you say it, and what your motives are?
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
Bloke down the pub finds trillions in back of envelope calculation.
You miss the point in your logical way. It was the big audience roar that followed his intervention (easily the biggest one of the night). It kinda shows that at heart the British public are still deeply eurosceptical. It could be cold hard logic will prevail and a Remain vote is secured but I'm certainly not betting my house on it.
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
-------------
You haven't followed my posts today very well, I fear. My analysis does not rely on us perhaps getting this or that trade deal. I have been arguing that a move to unilateral free trade is economically the best policy, which doesn't require any deals just action from our side.
I do think the likely outcome in the event of Brexit will be that some deals will be done, because certain sectors on both sides of the channel will press hard for that. Those would mitigate some of the short term costs - and cut some of the short term benefits as well.
Incidentally, the unilateral free trade policy is exactly the one the UK followed in the early and mid-19th century, and it was notably successful. Perhaps our ancestors understood these things better than we do today.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
Boris was once described like a Sun Front page.
The headline is fantastic and memorable, the broad point might have been right, but on closer inspections, not all the facts stacked up.
Cameron, Osborne, and Johnson all became MPs in 2001, you can see why Cameron became leader in a little over four years, Ozzy became Shadow Chancellor within four years, whilst Boris was on the backbenches four years after he became an MP
On topic, if the offshore dwelling Dr Evil billionaire throwing money at betfair wanted to make LEAVE look good, he or she could have quite simply donated to the LEAVE campaign...????
If he's offshore-dwelling (and exists), isn't he prohibited from donating to domestic political campaigns? He certainly couldn't donate to an election.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I have no doubt he is incredibly intelligent, he also doesn't have a good brain/mouth filter. Boris has a thought and must say or publish it immediately without thinking about it. A lot of smart people I know are like that, they really believe everything they think is absolute gold.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Very concisely put. That is exactly how I see it.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
I did one a while back. I have some ideas but need to work them out a bit more. I don't just want to witter for the sake of it. TBH it would be nice if there were some other political development beyond the EU referendum (fascinating as it undoubtedly is, to some anyway).
Anyway am in NY next week mixing, I hope, business with some private pleasure. And I shall be in Naples and the Amalfi coast in late June and in the Lake District in early June: for Don Giovanni at the Ulverston Music Festival, no less! (The Cyclefrees part sponsor it in a small way.)
I really hope Ruth does it and we oust Labour as the opposition party in Scotland. The SNP need a serious party to oppose them and SLAB are not a serious party, under Ruth the Tories have turned into a real party and while the result is obviously going to be a huge landslide for the SNP just as it was at the GE, we need to start somewhere and being the official opposition party will help gain some initiative among the 10% of SNP voters who are in the "No" camp and vote SNP because the opposition parties are laughable.
Ha Ha Ha , that is the best joke I have seen in years. The thought that the Scottish ( London Sockpuppet ) Tories are a real party could only be in the fevered imagination of a hallucinating half witted idiot. They are the same flotsam and jetsam that have polluted Scotland for decades, lickspittle lackies of Westminster party.
I really hope Ruth does it and we oust Labour as the opposition party in Scotland. The SNP need a serious party to oppose them and SLAB are not a serious party, under Ruth the Tories have turned into a real party and while the result is obviously going to be a huge landslide for the SNP just as it was at the GE, we need to start somewhere and being the official opposition party will help gain some initiative among the 10% of SNP voters who are in the "No" camp and vote SNP because the opposition parties are laughable.
Can you name some of the other SCon msps that you admire?
Btw there's no such thing as the 'official opposition' at Holyrood.
The "GREAT" Ruthie had to scuttle off to Edinburgh and chuck someone off the only safe "LOSERS" seat to be sure she gets in. Only one surge and it is the blood rushing to nutjobs brains that post mince like this from London
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
Did he strike the wrong note in his Sun article today?
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
Well at a very well attended recent meeting of party members in Tonbridge where Boris was a guest speaker he went down like a storm. Slightly to the discomfort of the "reluctantly" Inner MP Tom Tugendhat questions kept harking back to the EU and Boris answered these with great aplomb and no lack of enthusiasm for the cause of Leave.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
FFS it's not at all racist to note that his father's experience in Kenya may have influenced his own view of Britain and Churchill.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
Well at a very well attended recent meeting of party members in Tonbridge where Boris was a guest speaker he went down like a storm. Slightly to the discomfort of the "reluctantly" Inner MP Tom Tugendhat questions kept harking back to the EU and Boris answered these with great aplomb and no lack of enthusiasm for the cause of Leave.
Fair enough. I like Boris. I saw him speak at a London Mayoral campaign event a few years ago and he was impressive.
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
FFS it's not at all racist to note that his father's experience in Kenya may have influenced his own view of Britain and Churchill.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Very concisely put. That is exactly how I see it.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
I did one a while back. I have some ideas but need to work them out a bit more. I don't just want to witter for the sake of it. TBH it would be nice if there were some other political development beyond the EU referendum (fascinating as it undoubtedly is, to some anyway).
Anyway am in NY next week mixing, I hope, business with some private pleasure. And I shall be in Naples and the Amalfi coast in late June and in the Lake District in early June: for Don Giovanni at the Ulverston Music Festival, no less! (The Cyclefrees part sponsor it in a small way.)
I'm really jealous. Seriously! Nearly all my favourite places in three months. I'll look up Don Giovanni at Ulverston Music Festival. Sounds really good
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
FFS it's not at all racist to note that his father's experience in Kenya may have influenced his own view of Britain and Churchill.
It was unnecessary and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth - playing to the worst of the 'Britain first' elements.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
Well at a very well attended recent meeting of party members in Tonbridge where Boris was a guest speaker he went down like a storm. Slightly to the discomfort of the "reluctantly" Inner MP Tom Tugendhat questions kept harking back to the EU and Boris answered these with great aplomb and no lack of enthusiasm for the cause of Leave.
Fair enough. I like Boris. I saw him speak at a London Mayoral campaign event a few years ago and he was impressive.
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
I think Boris still thinks he's writing one of his 1990s telegraph columns.
Still, he's probably still a net asset for Leave (for the stardust factor) but boy oh boy does he embarass along the way.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
FFS it's not at all racist to note that his father's experience in Kenya may have influenced his own view of Britain and Churchill.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Surely a more reasonable explanation of the "manipulation" of the LEAVE position on Betfair is that someone genuinely wants a massive £1m+ hedge, perhaps against a stockmarket position that will suffer in the case of Brexit.
I assume that no bookmaker would take such a large bet at 3s i.e. 2 to 1 against, so Betfair was the home for the money until the £1m was covered at substantially less than 3s.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
Aside from the tangentially related opposition to Heathrow, I can't remember one iota of Zac campaigning on Green issues as was his parliamentary campaign back in 2010 iirc.
In fact his campaign is reminding me of something or someone a bit more ... antipodean.
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
Well the best thing about it is when the joint press conference happens a daring reporter (say Laura Kuenssberg) could put the question to Obama directly:
President Obama, Boris Johnson has said this ... How would you respond to his two questions, would you sign the US up to an institution such as the EU where the US would have to make large economic contributions and submit to laws and a court that sits above the US constitution and SCOTUS?
But that's all hypothetical now because Boris doesn't engage any kind of brain/mouth filter.
Just on relatedness: the vast majority (I believe it's over 99% of those of English origin) are descended directly from Edward III. And also Mohammed.
Almost all modern Spaniards are descended from Mohammed. I only read recently that by the early 10th century, something like 80% of the population were either Muslim immigrants or had converted to Islam. Then, as the Reconquista gathered pace, most of them converted back to Christianity.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
Indeed.
The fascinating thing for me is, David Cameron pretty much endorsed the dog whistle this week via a planted question at PMQs.
As Lord Wood said yesterday, there must be a fear for Labour that the Tories must think it is working, otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
We told the campaign managers that this message was unlikely to work given that Corbyn is more popular in London than any other part of the nation. No one listened. It has been a disaster campaign from beginning to end, the message has been poor, the candidate is low energy and of course the demographics of London are already tough for us.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
Aside from the tangentially related opposition to Heathrow, I can't remember one iota of Zac campaigning on Green issues as was his parliamentary campaign back in 2010 iirc.
In fact his campaign is reminding me of something or someone a bit more ... antipodean.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
Indeed.
The fascinating thing for me is, David Cameron pretty much endorsed the dog whistle this week via a planted question at PMQs.
As Lord Wood said yesterday, there must be a fear for Labour that the Tories must think it is working, otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
I think it will work, with Jewish, Hindu and Sikh voters as well as what remains of the white-working class in London.
Surely a more reasonable explanation of the "manipulation" of the LEAVE position on Betfair is that someone genuinely wants a massive £1m+ hedge, perhaps against a stockmarket position that will suffer in the case of Brexit.
I assume that no bookmaker would take such a large bet at 3s i.e. 2 to 1 against, so Betfair was the home for the money until the £1m was covered at substantially less than 3s.
Yup. Or a business that the owner views as heavily dependent on Britain staying in.
Cutbot seat prediction for this poll gives the SNP 64 constituency and only 3 list seats to barely scrape a majority. Highlights the obvious tactic of the SNP's opponents talking up the attractions of split ticket voting. Uniquely so far, this prediction gives my Constituency (Edinburgh Central) to the Greens. Patrick Harvie in Glasgow Kelvin I can just about accept - he has a national profile on TV and in the press to aid his campaign, but two seats from three candidates would be an amazing result.
PS the regional predictions puts UKIP less than 2,000 votes away from pinching the last list seat from the Greens in the South of Scotland region - 2014 Euros all over again?
Even when Raab makes an excellent point - about whether Americans would sign up to the equivalent - he still can't avoid the insults:
It is frankly wanton double standards because he is asking the British people to do something he wouldn’t dream of asking Americans. He wouldn’t dream of opening the US border to free movement from Mexico, he wouldn’t dream of allowing the American constitution to be trumped by a Latin American court with judges appointed by Venezuela, or Cuban judges.
And his government right now is considering imposing security screening and new visa requirements on France, Belgium, Germany, Greece to protect the safety of American citizens. So I think Obama’s argument against Britain being able to take the power to take the same precautions is frankly absurd and we should politely but firmly say that whatever is good for the safety of American citizens must be good for the safety of British people.
"The EU is really about politics, not economics. The EU wants to become a world power in its own right, a fully-functioning state. It uses economics as a means towards that end.
The referendum choice is really about whether we want to be pulled into this embryonic European state or not."
Very concisely put. That is exactly how I see it.
If that's the case would we want to be outside it to try to stop it happening? Surely if it did happen being outside it would be a very dangerous and lonely place to be.
That is a very fair question. And why this is not an easy decision. I don't think it would necessarily be dangerous or lonely provided that we have the self-belief and willingness to make it work and are willing to accept the costs of doing so.
Incidentally, I very much enjoyed your thread the other day. I hope you do more.
Thank you very much. I thought you were were going to try one?
I did one a while back. I have some ideas but need to work them out a bit more. I don't just want to witter for the sake of it. TBH it would be nice if there were some other political development beyond the EU referendum (fascinating as it undoubtedly is, to some anyway).
Anyway am in NY next week mixing, I hope, business with some private pleasure. And I shall be in Naples and the Amalfi coast in late June and in the Lake District in early June: for Don Giovanni at the Ulverston Music Festival, no less! (The Cyclefrees part sponsor it in a small way.)
I'm really jealous. Seriously! Nearly all my favourite places in three months. I'll look up Don Giovanni at Ulverston Music Festival. Sounds really good
The local tiny theatre in Millom is on the circuit for all the comedians on their pre-national tours. We have seen some fantastic acts (and some really bad ones, too) at much cheaper prices and in the sort of club atmosphere you don't get at big venues. Eddie Izzard is doing one of his acts where he does the same gig in English, French and German soon.
Don Giovanni is one of my favourite operas. Josef Losey did a fantastic filmed version of it set in Venice some time back. Well worth catching.
We have always been told that Boris is frighteningly, fiercely intelligent. I am beginning to wonder. His Obama comments and some of the other stuff he has been saying recently indicate he is rather stupid in many ways. It could just be that he is very good at Classics.
I think he is clever but very lazy.
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
And his heart is not really in Leave. Nor has he thought about it. That comes across in what he says - he doesn't really believe it, either emotionally or intellectually. You cannot really make a good speech or write a good article without, at some level, believing in what you are writing/saying.
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
Well at a very well attended recent meeting of party members in Tonbridge where Boris was a guest speaker he went down like a storm. Slightly to the discomfort of the "reluctantly" Inner MP Tom Tugendhat questions kept harking back to the EU and Boris answered these with great aplomb and no lack of enthusiasm for the cause of Leave.
Fair enough. I like Boris. I saw him speak at a London Mayoral campaign event a few years ago and he was impressive.
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
What it does do it make Obama lose credibility on the subject and effectively neutralises his opinion. His response to the question would either be to obfuscate or come out and say no, it wouldn't be possible for the US to do that. Either one could be used by the Leave campaign any time the support of Obama is brought up. It makes him look like a hypocrite in asking the British people to submit to something he wouldn't ask of US citizens.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
Indeed.
The fascinating thing for me is, David Cameron pretty much endorsed the dog whistle this week via a planted question at PMQs.
As Lord Wood said yesterday, there must be a fear for Labour that the Tories must think it is working, otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
I think it will work, with Jewish, Hindu and Sikh voters as well as what remains of the white-working class in London.
I don't know whether it will work or not but it was interesting to see how some who were offended by the line immediately lumping all non-white voters together as if they have identical interests and concerns, and as if they'd all been offended by Zac's / Cameron's comments..
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
Indeed.
The fascinating thing for me is, David Cameron pretty much endorsed the dog whistle this week via a planted question at PMQs.
As Lord Wood said yesterday, there must be a fear for Labour that the Tories must think it is working, otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
I think it is a final roll of the dice, it is the only message that has worked for Zac and may yet win it for him.
I think the British people should listen to Obama, when they're allowed to vote for him.
The left would be complaining loudly if a Republican president started telling us what to do. Because it's a Democrat president, it's okay as far as they're concerned.
Ruth Lea notes "£=$1.4266 on 19/2/16 (day before PM announces referendum date), £=$1.4338 (21/4/16). The £ hasn't slumped". That will be ironically slightly disappointing for a Brexiteer friend who run an exporting business . He was hoping the alarmist talk by Remainers of the £ collapsing would materialise.
At the risk of being mocked, I should point out that "no overall majority" in the Scottish Parliament elections is 10/1. The SNP look to be heading for a majority, but not by all that much...
I think Obama's support is slightly positive for Remain.
Yup, I think it'll have an impact those who might not have voted on June 23rd to come out for Remain.
But the optics look bad for Leave. Obama is meeting The Queen, The Queen clearly likes Barack Obama and his wife, and Leavers are looking to criticise the part-Kenyan today.
Bravo.
Admittedly, the same poll did have 60% saying that Obama shouldn't be intervening. But, it's always best to remain polite.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
Douglas Carswell had it right, Obama and the American people wouldn't sign up for a foreign supreme court etc.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
This is the response that Boris should have come out with:
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
What an excellent response.
Well the best thing about it is when the joint press conference happens a daring reporter (say Laura Kuenssberg) could put the question to Obama directly:
President Obama, Boris Johnson has said this ... How would you respond to his two questions, would you sign the US up to an institution such as the EU where the US would have to make large economic contributions and submit to laws and a court that sits above the US constitution and SCOTUS?
But that's all hypothetical now because Boris doesn't engage any kind of brain/mouth filter.
He probably needs to ask why the USA still hasn't signed up to the International Criminal Court. What part of Supranational Justice systems is it that the Americans can't stomach?
At the risk of being mocked, I should point out that "no overall majority" in the Scottish Parliament elections is 10/1. The SNP look to be heading for a majority, but not by all that much...
I suspect that Obama's intervention is far too early to make much difference. It might be a different matter were we two weeks away from the Referendum , but after two months it will be long forgotten.
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
I agree with this, but I think it is much in the tone of voice as to do with arguments. Suppose I am fed up with remote people telling us what we can and cannot do - who can vote in our elections, who can come in our borders - and I want out. But I also want reassurance that it's going to be fine and that we are not going to lose out in any serious way. So hearing the Brexit crowd being very shrill about the edifice of the EU crumbling into dust (Gove); the UK being a dictatorship thanks to the EU (Johnson) makes me very uneasy. I suspect they may more interested in their own battles than in promoting my interests.
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
I agree with this, but I think it is much in the tone of voice as to do with arguments. Suppose I am fed up with remote people telling us what we can and cannot do - who can vote in our elections, who can come in our borders - and I want out. But I also want reassurance that it's going to be fine and that we are not going to lose out in any serious way. So hearing the Brexit crowd being very shrill about the edifice of the EU crumbling into dust (Gove); the UK being a dictatorship thanks to the EU (Johnson) makes me very uneasy. I suspect they may more interested in their own battles than in promoting my interests.
Gove talked about democratic reform of the EU, not it crumbling into dust.
Cutbot seat prediction for this poll gives the SNP 64 constituency and only 3 list seats to barely scrape a majority. Highlights the obvious tactic of the SNP's opponents talking up the attractions of split ticket voting. Uniquely so far, this prediction gives my Constituency (Edinburgh Central) to the Greens. Patrick Harvie in Glasgow Kelvin I can just about accept - he has a national profile on TV and in the press to aid his campaign, but two seats from three candidates would be an amazing result.
PS the regional predictions puts UKIP less than 2,000 votes away from pinching the last list seat from the Greens in the South of Scotland region - 2014 Euros all over again?
Edit - that's on top of a prospective UKIP list seat in the Highlands and Islands region.
Insulting those foreign leaders who comment is an own goal by the Leave campaign because it makes them look childish and unserious.
Far better for them to listen, thank them for their views and point out - politely - that what matters is what Britons think is in Britain's self-interest and that foreign leaders will clearly view the issue of Britain's exit or not from the EU from the perspective of what is in their countries' self-interest. And their self-interest may not be the same as Britain's.
But in the end - if Britain does vote to leave - those leaders (like us all) will have to deal with the world as it is and not how they would like it to be.
Sometimes the best rebuttals can and should be made with exquisite politeness - and are often more devastating for it.
Honestly, this stuff is not hard. Why does the Leave campaign so consistently get the tone wrong?
I really hope Ruth does it and we oust Labour as the opposition party in Scotland. The SNP need a serious party to oppose them and SLAB are not a serious party, under Ruth the Tories have turned into a real party and while the result is obviously going to be a huge landslide for the SNP just as it was at the GE, we need to start somewhere and being the official opposition party will help gain some initiative among the 10% of SNP voters who are in the "No" camp and vote SNP because the opposition parties are laughable.
Can you name some of the other SCon msps that you admire?
Btw there's no such thing as the 'official opposition' at Holyrood.
The "GREAT" Ruthie had to scuttle off to Edinburgh and chuck someone off the only safe "LOSERS" seat to be sure she gets in. Only one surge and it is the blood rushing to nutjobs brains that post mince like this from London
You obviously didn't see the post the other day about the small Italian political party formed as a result of inspiration from Cameron's Tories - they're surging everywhere, from Scotland to Italy, and one place in between!
Gove talked about democratic reform of the EU, not it crumbling into dust.
I think he talked about the "domino effect" of Brexit; the benefits of enraging and disorientating the EU elites; the EU going the way of the Ottoman Empire. I am not sure ... And then he went on about how the UK Government could work out a perfectly amiable relationship with said enraged and disorientated elites who have been dominoed and heading in the direction of the Ottoman empire. Johnson said something similar in his Sun article. And I am thinking - as that hypothetical borderline Outer - this isn't my agenda
All Zac's dog whistle has managed to do is make every dog in the UK to mistake him for a lampost
It's odd because right at the start of the campaign it was Khan who was doing that with his quotas and identity politics.
Is this Crosby?
Don't read too much into this, but my understanding was the original strategy was to portray Khan as Corbyn's man in London, and stick to that relentlessly.
Khan hasn't let Corbyn near his campaign. Just like in Oldham the Labour leader is nowhere to be seen. Very wise. But then Jezza would no doubt disapprove of Khan's platform. He would never be seen dead describing himself as pro-business, for example.
Think he might struggle to describe himself as "pro-big-business" but that's possibly a plus for a majority of voters.
Not sure a few sentences on a website really establish his credentials. There is certainly space for an avowedly pro-SME Labour party, but for it to be more than a slogan a lot of thought and then work would have to be done. Is Jezza really up for that?
Comments
That is why those who down play its effects are the most often the people who have the power to control it. Because somebody somewhere always does. The question is who.
Simply saying that Obama is entitled to pursue his own country's interests, but we'll vote in our own, is quite sufficient.
The President has a right to be heard, but we also have a right to ignore him.
As to the long run (!) and hence my "Cry Freedom" comment, there is a lot of "we should be ok"..."it is possible we will be able to negotiate favourable deals"..."we may be able to"...
So, and as we have seen when GO was rightly ridiculed for long-run economic forecasts, it is best to focus on short-run effects, which Bootle does. And they say, broadly, that there would be a tangible cost to Brexit.
-------------
You haven't followed my posts today very well, I fear. My analysis does not rely on us perhaps getting this or that trade deal. I have been arguing that a move to unilateral free trade is economically the best policy, which doesn't require any deals just action from our side.
I do think the likely outcome in the event of Brexit will be that some deals will be done, because certain sectors on both sides of the channel will press hard for that. Those would mitigate some of the short term costs - and cut some of the short term benefits as well.
Incidentally, the unilateral free trade policy is exactly the one the UK followed in the early and mid-19th century, and it was notably successful. Perhaps our ancestors understood these things better than we do today.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7095695/UK-and-America-can-better-friends-than-ever-Mr-Obama-if-we-LEAVE-the-EU-says-Boris-Johnson.html
The headline is fantastic and memorable, the broad point might have been right, but on closer inspections, not all the facts stacked up.
Cameron, Osborne, and Johnson all became MPs in 2001, you can see why Cameron became leader in a little over four years, Ozzy became Shadow Chancellor within four years, whilst Boris was on the backbenches four years after he became an MP
And of course this way he MAY make a profit.
We respect the POTUS and he has a right to say what he feels is in the interests of his country, but I would ask him, would he sign the USA up for an offshore supreme court and laws that sit above the US constitution, would he pay $100bn (our net contribution scaled up for the US) to be a member of this club? That is what the British people are voting for or against on the 23rd of June and I'm confident that in the event of a Leave vote the POTUS will respect the will of the British people and ensure trading relations between our two nations can continue as normal.
Something like that would have been fine, not calling him names, being mildly racist etc...
Anyway am in NY next week mixing, I hope, business with some private pleasure. And I shall be in Naples and the Amalfi coast in late June and in the Lake District in early June: for Don Giovanni at the Ulverston Music Festival, no less! (The Cyclefrees part sponsor it in a small way.)
Probably best not to attempt to ally HMQ with the Remain cause BTW. She deserves far better than to be dragged into the argument, by either side.
As The Queen liking the Obamas, particularly Michelle Obama
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1166490/Ones-new-best-friend-The-Queen-Michelle-new-touchy-feely-protocol.html
Only in subjects he's truly personally passionate in will he put the effort.
Fingers crossed that Cameron learned a lesson after his toe curlingly embarrassing 'purred' comments during the Scottish referendum.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/revealed-zac-goldsmith-repeatedly-lobbied-ministers-about-ba
Generalised buffoonery/knockabout insults/debating points: all dinner party stuff - is not what is needed now. That's why he's consistently striking the wrong note.
I think the British people should listen to Obama, when they're allowed to vote for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg
Two no-marks milking a vague chance connection to someone with real fame.
There's more......
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/apr/21/zac-goldsmith-must-be-held-to-account-for-his-poisonous-london-mayor-campaign
Is this Crosby?
Students threaten to split from NUS over new president
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36109164
Will they hold a referendum?
Will they be told that leaving will be a leap in the dark?
I'm assuming that message wasn't working
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/07/in-may-we-might-find-out-if-corbyn-is-the-liability-for-labour-the-tories-hope-he-is/
But I think that it's all too much ra-ra-ra-why the EU is a bad thing - which is easy enough to do (the push factor) and which we can all do, even the Remainers who have - as far as I can see no love for the EU and not much respect for it either - and not enough to really persuade people who will be impacted by the costs of Brexit (and they do exist) why they should bear the costs and why such a decision will be good for them and what the long/medium term means for them.
It's perfectly true that the US won't submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. But the UK has. Saying what the US won't do really doesn't help us decide whether we should withdraw from an organisation we chose to join.
There are debating points. And there are persuasive points. I think some in Leave are in danger of confusing the two.
Still, he's probably still a net asset for Leave (for the stardust factor) but boy oh boy does he embarass along the way.
I assume that no bookmaker would take such a large bet at 3s i.e. 2 to 1 against, so Betfair was the home for the money until the £1m was covered at substantially less than 3s.
In fact his campaign is reminding me of something or someone a bit more ... antipodean.
President Obama, Boris Johnson has said this ... How would you respond to his two questions, would you sign the US up to an institution such as the EU where the US would have to make large economic contributions and submit to laws and a court that sits above the US constitution and SCOTUS?
But that's all hypothetical now because Boris doesn't engage any kind of brain/mouth filter.
The fascinating thing for me is, David Cameron pretty much endorsed the dog whistle this week via a planted question at PMQs.
As Lord Wood said yesterday, there must be a fear for Labour that the Tories must think it is working, otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/boris-johnson-barack-obama-kenyan-eu-referendum
I certainly wouldn't have him on my pub quiz team and nominate "Last Week In The News" as our bonus round.
PS the regional predictions puts UKIP less than 2,000 votes away from pinching the last list seat from the Greens in the South of Scotland region - 2014 Euros all over again?
It is frankly wanton double standards because he is asking the British people to do something he wouldn’t dream of asking Americans. He wouldn’t dream of opening the US border to free movement from Mexico, he wouldn’t dream of allowing the American constitution to be trumped by a Latin American court with judges appointed by Venezuela, or Cuban judges.
And his government right now is considering imposing security screening and new visa requirements on France, Belgium, Germany, Greece to protect the safety of American citizens. So I think Obama’s argument against Britain being able to take the power to take the same precautions is frankly absurd and we should politely but firmly say that whatever is good for the safety of American citizens must be good for the safety of British people.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/22/obama-cameron-press-conference-eu-uk-uks-power-politics-live
Don Giovanni is one of my favourite operas. Josef Losey did a fantastic filmed version of it set in Venice some time back. Well worth catching.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
http://corbynforbusiness.com
Think he might struggle to describe himself as "pro-big-business" but that's possibly a plus for a majority of voters.