You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Talking of jumping queues does anybody else boycott Merlin theme parks because they sell 'fast passes' (or I am too rich to queue like everybody else passes) -I do!! and it takes quite a lot for me to boycott something
Wow. "Back of the queue". It is a fitting response to the awful intemperate remark of Boris Johnson. If he is to continue to speak for Leave he needs to engage his brain. Insulting a friend because you do not agree with him is not a good idea. I sense the rage on the Leave side that things are going badly. But BJ has no excuse for his choice of words.
I will probably vote remain however friends of the same age, retired semi-retired are split with a tendency to Leave. My son and his friends are definite remainers.To be honest it is not a big talking point until something like today happens. It will then filter off until the football season finishes.
RE: Obama's "back of the queue" trade deal response.
A very sad day for the state of this Government and our country. Does our PM and his closest mates in the cabinet have no pride in our country?
They are staunch Europeans. After all that is where our future belongs.
Surbiton That is tongue in cheek. The vitriol comes because everyone but kenneth clarke nearly, has for the last 20 years been staunch eurosceptics, they have lied to their party members, and their media friends, they have ran them into a cul de sac of broken dreams.
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Quite.
Whichever way you cut the cake the Tories keep coming back to win. Some regard it as a bad odour and others a fragrance of delight. Take your pick but the smell lingers.
I wonder if the Tory leadership will be fought between May and Gove, as Osborne has killed his own chances, and Boris is now blowing his.
Jesus. The Tory party is fecked.
The alternatives are UKIP led by a self destructing Farage and the Lib Dems led by Tim Who? And Labour have Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2020 we could have the single most unimpressive suite of party leaders since Aethelred the Unready got a narrow majority over Eadric the Wild's crazier half brother.
I sometimes wonder if countries get the politicians they deserve.
Alternatively it could be a sign of Britain becoming more European.
Remember when we would laugh at the quality of foreign politicians and pride ourselves that British political activity was so much better.
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Take your pick but the smell lingers.
That's Obama's shoe. He trod on something in Number 10.
On a lighter note, from the end of the Ashcroft focus-group article:
Meanwhile, in some quarters, things were getting tense. “I was at a dinner party, and we were all friends, and we got onto Europe and it turned into a huge row. Two people ended up going home!” Crikey. Which ones? “Oh, the stayers left and the leavers stayed.”
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Take your pick but the smell lingers.
That's Obama's shoe. He trod on something in Number 10.
He could bring down Cameron and "Save the NHS" in one foul swoop.
Pure fantasy
Remain is the choice of lower wages, higher food prices and a deal that enables public service privatisation. This is the view of Barack Obama, Paddy Ashdown and Stuart Rose.
Surely, you must be wondering if Labour are riding the wrong horse?
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Quite.
Whichever way you cut the cake the Tories keep coming back to win. Some regard it as a bad odour and others a fragrance of delight. Take your pick but the smell lingers.
Everyone comes back. Hell, even the Liberals got a whiff of power after 90 years. Who knows what the 2100 LibDem coalition will be like
I'm sure there's an irony in all this somewhere, because isn't the conventional wisdom on the left currently that we don't want a trade deal with the US? TTIP and all that.
In fact this whole debate is quite interesting for the complete unchallenging of the conventional wisdom that free trade, indeed the free-ist trade possible is an undeniably good thing. Because actually free trade, with no import barriers is just as much of a challenge to "the working man" as "immigrants taking all the jobs". At least with the latter there are the jobs to compete for, even at depressed levels of wages. Free trade creates the danger that the jobs don't exist in the first place because there is no ability to protect against the undercutting of costs abroad.
In fact this is much of the argument for the EU - because a relationship built purely on free trading is fine, but leaves a danger of a race to the bottom. What the EU tries to do is maintain minimum standards of employment to protect against that. The challenge in many respects is not to get the EU to dilute these standards, but to find ways to compel competitors outside the EU to adopt the same requirements on their employers as we do here.
Nothing like a bit of simplistic economic argument for a Friday night.
"Infuriate"? I think most intending LEAVE voters, and also many who intend to vote REMAIN, and many who don't intend to vote at all, will just think why doesn't Obama fuck off.
Obama's statement will infuriate any British person with an ounce of sense.
I mean I look in my house, and how many things are produced in the US? Practically none. The hell with trade with the US.
The country that has benefited most from the US-British relationship has been the US. This arsehole talking about "back of the queue" implies the opposite. Who does he think he is?
He's threatening Britain. Fuck him.
Goodness, I wish Jeremy Corbyn (or for that matter, David Cameron) had the guts to say that. Of course they haven't, though. Talk about compradores.
Remember what happened to Joseph Kennedy in 1940. That was back in the day when Britain at least had a bit of independence. That was one of Britain's finest moments.
Maybe Britain should quintuple the rent for the US bases here? How would Obama like that? Or better still - much better - close them down. Let him find out how much the Germans would charge, or the Poles. Who wants their country to be an unsinkable aircraft carrier for a foreign power anyway?
How about state funding for a British film industry too, so people don't have to watch US crap?
Maybe it was the US embassy that manipulated the betting market to reverse the big rise in the price of LEAVE after Osborne came a cropper when he said we'll all lose £4320.17 if Britain leaves the EU? It could be. The US public relations effort regarding the EU referendum certainly seems to be a total crock:
* Britain will be more at risk from terrorism
(Really? Funny how Richard Dearlove doesn't think so. And how about ending the military alliance with the US? Then why would Britain even be a target?)
* Britain will be "at the back of the queue" in trade with the US
(Hey, Burger-muncher! Britain's not your beggar, OK? And Obama has form for this. He even said he's warned Cameron that the "special relationship" will end if Britain doesn't spend 2% of its GDP on "defence" "Free riders aggravate me," the arrogant sod said. GET OUT!
This disgusting statement by Obama is going to go down like a uranium balloon in the British army.
Can anyone advise me? I want to join the Tory party - not because I have any particular affinity to it despite voting them for my whole life (they are a lesser of two evils) - rather I want to have a say over the next leader. I will back anyone other than a Cameroon or a Remainer. Not sure how it works, can I do £3 job like was done for Corbyn or do I need to play a slightly longer game? Much appreciated in advance.
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Take your pick but the smell lingers.
That's Obama's shoe. He trod on something in Number 10.
What was Boris doing in Number 10?
Come come. Even you would acknowledge Obama relished giving the old colonials masters a swift kick to the ribs.
I have come across people who are intending to vote Leave because they are convinced that the decision won't be respected. It's quite difficult to convince them of their error.
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Take your pick but the smell lingers.
That's Obama's shoe. He trod on something in Number 10.
"Infuriate"? I think most intending LEAVE voters, and also many who intend to vote REMAIN, and many who don't intend to vote at all, will just think why doesn't Obama fuck off.
Obama's statement will infuriate any British person with an ounce of sense.
I mean I look in my house, and how many things are produced in the US? Practically none. The hell with trade with the US.
The country that has benefited most from the US-British relationship has been the US. This arsehole talking about "back of the queue" implies the opposite. Who does he think he is?
He's threatening Britain. Fuck him.
Goodness, I wish Jeremy Corbyn (or for that matter, David Cameron) had the guts to say that. Of course they haven't, though. Talk about compradores.
Remember what happened to Joseph Kennedy in 1940. That was back in the day when Britain at least had a bit of independence. That was one of Britain's finest moments.
Maybe Britain should quintuple the rent for the US bases here? How would Obama like that? Or better still - much better - close them down. Let him find out how much the Germans would charge, or the Poles. Who wants their country to be an unsinkable aircraft carrier for a foreign power anyway?
How about state funding for a British film industry too, so people don't have to watch US crap?
Maybe it was the US embassy that manipulated the betting market to reverse the big rise in the price of LEAVE after Osborne came a cropper when he said we'll all lose £4320.17 if Britain leaves the EU? It could be. The US public relations effort regarding the EU referendum certainly seems to be a total crock:
* Britain will be more at risk from terrorism
(Really? Funny how Richard Dearlove doesn't think so. And how about ending the military alliance with the US? Then why would Britain even be a target?)
* Britain will be "at the back of the queue" in trade with the US
(Hey, Burger-muncher! Britain's not your beggar, OK? And Obama has form for this. He even said he's warned Cameron that the "special relationship" will end if Britain doesn't spend 2% of its GDP on "defence" "Free riders aggravate me," the arrogant sod said. GET OUT!
This disgusting statement by Obama is going to go down like a uranium balloon in the British army.
Whichever way you cut the cake the Tories keep coming back to win. Some regard it as a bad odour and others a fragrance of delight. Take your pick but the smell lingers.
Eventually the public will get fed up with the Tories and want something else. With FPTP that will almost certainly mean Labour. So you could say the same about them.
I wonder if the Tory leadership will be fought between May and Gove, as Osborne has killed his own chances, and Boris is now blowing his.
Jesus. The Tory party is fecked.
The alternatives are UKIP led by a self destructing Farage and the Lib Dems led by Tim Who? And Labour have Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2020 we could have the single most unimpressive suite of party leaders since Aethelred the Unready got a narrow majority over Eadric the Wild's crazier half brother.
I sometimes wonder if countries get the politicians they deserve.
Alternatively it could be a sign of Britain becoming more European.
Remember when we would laugh at the quality of foreign politicians and pride ourselves that British political activity was so much better.
Aethelred the Unready was, if properly trnslanatrd and not subjected to Normal spin, Aethelred the Ill-Advised. Could be that Elizabhyn the Second will be remembered for her last (or last but one) PM and have the same designation.
"Infuriate"? I think most intending LEAVE voters, and also many who intend to vote REMAIN, and many who don't intend to vote at all, will just think why doesn't Obama fuck off.
Obama's statement will infuriate any British person with an ounce of sense.
I mean I look in my house, and how many things are produced in the US? Practically none. The hell with trade with the US.
The country that has benefited most from the US-British relationship has been the US. This arsehole talking about "back of the queue" implies the opposite. Who does he think he is?
You do realise that the main beneficiaries of free trade are those looking to sell things, not those looking to buy things?
I have come across people who are intending to vote Leave because they are convinced that the decision won't be respected. It's quite difficult to convince them of their error.
I encountered such a person recently too. I was surprised that anyone still thinks like that. Any ideas as to why they do? (I mean other than just "they're stupid.)
Many important British political figures have potentially insulted the next president if Trump wins, and Obama has ridiculed Brexit which is still a possible outcome of the referendum. Interesting state of affairs.
You've managed to demean the position of US president and UK prime minister at the same time.
If the President of the Unites States saying something that assists the strategic interests of both the United States and the UK (according to its PM) demeans both positions then that's an interesting take on the word demean.
Unfortunately for Cameron it's a view many share.
Unfortunately for the many their views won't change the outcome of the referendum which is Cameron's final plebiscite before he retires.
Winning the Referendum, but destroying the Tory party will be a bitter legacy to live with.
If Cameron wins big he won't destroy the Tory party as this issue will be dead. It's if he wins by a tiny margin that the issue will remain rancorous as people push for one more go (see Scotland).
Therefore it makes sense to go for the jugular.
If you really believe he hasn't already destroyed the Tory party then you are in cloud cuckoo land
Despite rifts more significant than this referendum the Conservatives are the most successful political party in British history because they have the eye for the main chance and the ability to forge together again to win.
It's what they do best - Win.
Shame they're shit at government
Whether they are or not isn't the point. It's their ability to revive and win that is their historic record.
Yeah, but all parties do that. It took 23 years for the Tories to win a majority. Not hugely impressive or remarkable.
Nor is your maths ... 1997-2015.
I think he meant it took the 23 years since the last time they won an absolute majority. 2015 - 1992 = 23.
Quite.
Whichever way you cut the cake the Tories keep coming back to win. Some regard it as a bad odour and others a fragrance of delight. Take your pick but the smell lingers.
Its not a revelation that a centre-right party keeps coming back to win.
Can anyone advise me? I want to join the Tory party - not because I have any particular affinity to it despite voting them for my whole life (they are a lesser of two evils) - rather I want to have a say over the next leader. I will back anyone other than a Cameroon or a Remainer. Not sure how it works, can I do £3 job like was done for Corbyn or do I need to play a slightly longer game? Much appreciated in advance.
I believe it is £25 and you will need to hope Cameron is not immediately brought down, in the event of a Remain vote (In the event of Leave a Leaver will definitely win), as brand new members won't get a vote I think. No doubt an actual member can advise
I know several people who will be infuriated by that.
Judging by the hyperventilating Leavers on here I would say Obama's comments were bang on target.
For the record: I'm hyperventilating, but I'm a Remainer who won't be able to suppress his respect for the British people if they give the Tory government a Leave message it (and its loyal so-called "opposition" Labour Party) doesn't want to hear.
Obama had no need to say Britain would be at the back of the queue. He could have made his point quite adequately without resorting to such provocative language. I suspect there will be many Brits including die hard remainers who will feel insulted that a POTUS has belittled Britain in this way.
Maybe he decided to twist the knife further after Boris' "Kenyan" remarks. Couldn't say I would blame him if he did.
There were several moments in indyref when a huge intervention was made, from non Scots, about the dire consequences of a YES vote. e.g. Gideon on the currency, Carney on the BoE, some EU leaders on EU membership, and so forth. After each one lots of commentators thought and said Well that's it, NO have it in the bag.
I remember saying that myself a couple of times.
But often the reaction was counter-intuitive, and the polls swang to YES.
Voters don't like being bullied, and sometimes react the opposite way intended. Independence referendums are strange things.
I rarely look at Twitter, but had a peek prompted by one of your earlier comments. People aren't happy with Obama over this on the whole, are they? wasn't what I had expected to see. Still, that's just Twitter and I'm not sure we can draw any real inferences from there.
I have come across people who are intending to vote Leave because they are convinced that the decision won't be respected. It's quite difficult to convince them of their error.
I encountered such a person recently too. I was surprised that anyone still thinks like that. Any ideas as to why they do? (I mean other than just "they're stupid.)
Something to do with not believing a word politicians ever say.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
There were several moments in indyref when a huge intervention was made, from non Scots, about the dire consequences of a YES vote. e.g. Gideon on the currency, Carney on the BoE, some EU leaders on EU membership, and so forth. After each one lots of commentators thought and said Well that's it, NO have it in the bag.
I remember saying that myself a couple of times.
But often the reaction was counter-intuitive, and the polls swang to YES.
Voters don't like being bullied, and sometimes react the opposite way intended. Independence referendums are strange things.
It will certainly harden opinion, but will it change opinion?
Will people who hitherto wanted to Remain, switch to Leave to spite a US president?
I doubt Leavers will be enticed to Remain by this.
Leave have had a year and a half to study the Scottish referendum and they've apparently spent the time doodling in their jotters and passing notes about how world leaders have poopy pants.
They are acting completely surprised and flustered by every single thing Remain are doing despite it being a carbon copy of IndyRef.
There were several moments in indyref when a huge intervention was made, from non Scots, about the dire consequences of a YES vote. e.g. Gideon on the currency, Carney on the BoE, some EU leaders on EU membership, and so forth. After each one lots of commentators thought and said Well that's it, NO have it in the bag.
I remember saying that myself a couple of times.
But often the reaction was counter-intuitive, and the polls swang to YES.
Voters don't like being bullied, and sometimes react the opposite way intended. Independence referendums are strange things.
It will certainly harden opinion, but will it change opinion?
Will people who hitherto wanted to Remain, switch to Leave to spite a US president?
I doubt Leavers will be enticed to Remain by this.
Those who were most upset, are so because they are Leavers. Those who say we must listen to him, were going to vote Remain anyway.
The question is whether it will make any difference at the margin with undecideds.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
I don't understand this argument either. Especially if Remain wins decisively. For the next Tory leadership election to then be about Europe, presumably with each candidate under pressure to promise a new ("unrigged") referendum at the earliest opportunity would leave the rest of the country shaking their heads in disbelief and incomprehension.
The US president calls Britain a "free rider", and he pictures our country as standing in a queue begging for US help. Let the US fight their own f***ing wars!
Any Remain activists reading this - are you sure you want this kind of support?
There were several moments in indyref when a huge intervention was made, from non Scots, about the dire consequences of a YES vote. e.g. Gideon on the currency, Carney on the BoE, some EU leaders on EU membership, and so forth. After each one lots of commentators thought and said Well that's it, NO have it in the bag.
I remember saying that myself a couple of times.
But often the reaction was counter-intuitive, and the polls swang to YES.
Voters don't like being bullied, and sometimes react the opposite way intended. Independence referendums are strange things.
Though it's also worth noting that No did have it in the bag.
Obama had no need to say Britain would be at the back of the queue. He could have made his point quite adequately without resorting to such provocative language. I suspect there will be many Brits including die hard remainers who will feel insulted that a POTUS has belittled Britain in this way.
How does it belittle Britain?
It is British fair play that famously recognises queues and objects to queue jumping afterall. Why should we expect to queue jump?
I think we would, since we're both valuable and an easy lay. But why would it be unreasonable for us not to?
If you listen to what Obama actually said he did say there would be a US-UK trade deal somewhere down the line. Then he said we'd be back of the queue.
But firstly it wouldn't be up to him (he won't be president in 9 months time) and secondly both the UK and the US are perfectly capable of doing more than one thing at once, and assigning priorities to their respect interests as major trading partners.
Between 2004 and 2007 the US ratified trade deals with Australia, Chile, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Peru, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
Currently it is negotiating on TTIP, TPP and with New Zealand, Thailand, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, US–Southern African Customs Union Free Trade Agreement, Ecuador, and Qatar.
I agree with all that. I've said I fully expect a deal if we vote leave but why would a President not support out PM in warning about the risks?
I think that's well recognised.
The frustration of Leavers on here (and the gloating of Remainers) is that such remarks may have an impact, despite being untrue.
Indeed but that's politics. Politicians generally try and win not lose.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
Mathew Parris is a talking head. The more controversy that surrounds his comments the better.
I'd take his remarks about as seriously as I would Polly Toynbee or Ann Coulter.
To be honest I don't really blame Obama. He's just doing what the POTUS does... Looking down on us and treating us like absolute cr*p. We've brought it on ourselves with our embarrassingly craven attitude to the US. If we actually stood up to them now and again we'd be far more respected.
No, my anger is against successive UK Prime Ministers in general and the current Prime Minister in particular.
Cameron actually invited the US President to visit this country for no other reason than to allow him to stand in Downing Street and threaten Cameron's own people. Just as I thought my contempt for Cameron couldn't get any worse, it does.
How much longer is the Tory Party going to allow Cameron and Osborne to threaten their own voters and fellow countrymen?
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
The third alternative is that the new leader is a Major style compromise candidate. Perhaps one who backed Remain but is known to be skeptical and has been rather quiet since.
On an entirely unrelated topic has anyone heard from our Home Secretary lately?
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
It's reasonable to believe there will be a purge, and a reckoning, but it's unlikely to be of Leavers. This may be the Tory party's chance to rid itself of the pro-euro tick that has been feasting itself on the party for decades.
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
No, but lots of Scots did, and decided to vote YES.
I look forward to the Scottish coming out with the biggest vote for "Leave" in the referendum then
Dominic Raab is having an excellent campaign. Even Remain supporting colleagues are saying he is coming over well. He was fantastic on Radio 4 the other day and had a great response to Obama tonight.
To be honest I don't really blame Obama. He's just doing what the POTUS does... Looking down on us and treating us like absolute cr*p. We've brought it on ourselves with our embarrassingly craven attitude to the US. If we actually stood up to them now and again we'd be far more respected.
No, my anger is against successive UK Prime Ministers in general and the current Prime Minister in particular.
Cameron actually invited the US President to visit this country for no other reason than to allow him to stand in Downing Street and threaten Cameron's own people. Just as I thought my contempt for Cameron couldn't get any worse, it does.
How much longer is the Tory Party going to allow Cameron and Osborne to threaten their own voters and fellow countrymen?
The only saving grace in Love Actually was the PM (Hugh Grant) sticking it to the Yanks.
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
I was always intensely relaxed about the prospect of Scotland going it alone if that's what they wanted and thought (and almost certainly said on here) that Obama (and the US generally) should mind his own business.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
If Remain wins comfortably then there will be no purge or gloating: indeed my own prediction is that in the reshuffle, Gove will be promoted, Priti Patel will attain full cabinet membership and other leading leavers, such as Dom Raab will see a big advancement. The party rank and file will be content at these and other conciliatory actions.
It is indeed very possible that Cameron's successor may have backed no (presumably Gove?) but that won't be the litmus test in 2018/19 when the contest will be held. In addition every candidate will have to accept the referendum result as binding for the foreseeable future: I can't see that as presenting a problem for any of them.
But if Evans is acquitted then there's going to be a lot of people needing to make public apologies.
And doubtless plenty of work for the lawyers.
Likely acquitted I think. Sub judice though so I'll leave it at that. How many quashed convictions with a retrial ordered have been found guilty second time round ?
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
No, but I can understand the Nats being upset. Personally I was indifferent on the Scottish Independence Referendum. If anything I wanted them to vote to leave the Union just to see what would happen.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
At best about 2% of the people are members of a party. Tory party members are skewed towards the bonkers right in the same way that Labour's are currently skewed to the bonkers left. If we want different leaders we would be better
I know Twitter exists in a parallel universe to reality, but the hashtag #ObamainUK, trending at number 2 for the last couple of hours, actually doesn't make great reading for REMAIN or indeed Cameron
It's 90% bile hurled at Obama for interfering. Some of it quite blistering.
It was the threats by outsider against Scotland which fired up the YES voters, and hardened their determination to vote.
I'm not entirely sure this intervention will be entirely to REMAIN's advantage. REMAIN are still gonna win, but, hmm....
Leavers are lashing out in all directions precisely because Obama's comments were so effective in undermine them. That is the truth of the matter. That is why Leavers are frothing at the mouth on twitter.
If Remain wins comfortably then there will be no purge or gloating: indeed my own prediction is that in the reshuffle, Gove will be promoted, Priti Patel will attain full cabinet membership and other leading leavers, such as Dom Raab will see a big advancement. The party rank and file will be content at these and other conciliatory actions.
It is indeed very possible that Cameron's successor may have backed no (presumably Gove?) but that won't be the litmus test in 2018/19 when the contest will be held. In addition every candidate will have to accept the referendum result as binding for the foreseeable future: I can't see that as presenting a problem for any of them.
Raab, Gove, Patel promoted.
Boris ignored.
I think that's a fair summary of the post referendum reshuffle.
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
I didn't get worked up (difficult to do so when you support the outcome) but it was wrong then, and I'm pretty sure I said so.
Can anyone advise me? I want to join the Tory party - not because I have any particular affinity to it despite voting them for my whole life (they are a lesser of two evils) - rather I want to have a say over the next leader. I will back anyone other than a Cameroon or a Remainer. Not sure how it works, can I do £3 job like was done for Corbyn or do I need to play a slightly longer game? Much appreciated in advance.
I know several people who will be infuriated by that.
Judging by the hyperventilating Leavers on here I would say Obama's comments were bang on target.
You honestly think America has our best interests at heart?
how are his comments "bang on target"- - Designed to annoy or factually correct?
America wants us to do their bidding and would never accept what they are telling us is good for us.
BTW not hyperventilating and certainly not on here all hours banging on about leave, but his arrogant comments/ threat irritates me.
AS it happens I am strongly of the opinion that we should leave. I see more to fear being shackled to an undemocratic basket case that is going down the pan rather than wishing them all the best and leaving them to their epic ongoing clusterf&ck.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
If Remain wins comfortably then there will be no purge or gloating: indeed my own prediction is that in the reshuffle, Gove will be promoted, Priti Patel will attain full cabinet membership and other leading leavers, such as Dom Raab will see a big advancement. The party rank and file will be content at these and other conciliatory actions.
It is indeed very possible that Cameron's successor may have backed no (presumably Gove?) but that won't be the litmus test in 2018/19 when the contest will be held. In addition every candidate will have to accept the referendum result as binding for the foreseeable future: I can't see that as presenting a problem for any of them.
To me the next Tory leader will be Osborne so we can see him ripped apart, humiliated and thrown out of Downing St in 2020?
He could bring down Cameron and "Save the NHS" in one foul swoop.
Pure fantasy
Remain is the choice of lower wages, higher food prices and a deal that enables public service privatisation. This is the view of Barack Obama, Paddy Ashdown and Stuart Rose.
Surely, you must be wondering if Labour are riding the wrong horse?
No absolutely certain Labour is riding the right horse. Anything that the Mail & Express is so passionately in favour of cannot possibly be to the left's advantage. They are not that stupid. Boris and Farage's "Kenyan" comments won't help either. You're stuck with it being primarily a right-wing hobby-horse I'm afraid.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
So let's say the electorate vote to stay in the EU by a large margin, the Tories immediately decide to choose a leader/PM who wants to pull us out of the EU? Might appease the "turnip taliban" but it makes no political sense whatsoever.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
It's reasonable to believe there will be a purge, and a reckoning, but it's unlikely to be of Leavers. This may be the Tory party's chance to rid itself of the pro-euro tick that has been feasting itself on the party for decades.
The Tory party does not have and has never had a majority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU. Not now, not in Thatcher's day. Delusional
He's also going to benefit from the well known phenomenon of Cruz/Kasich supporters not bothering due to his expected margin being so big and their votes not mattering.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
It's reasonable to believe there will be a purge, and a reckoning, but it's unlikely to be of Leavers. This may be the Tory party's chance to rid itself of the pro-euro tick that has been feasting itself on the party for decades.
The Tory party does not have and has never had a majority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU. Not now, not in Thatcher's day. Delusional
There is a feeling most remainer MPs are merely gutless leavers kowtowing to the leadership. That seems unduly optimistic to me. More likely they played up their skepticism before. The membership seems more clearly skewed to leave, so a leaver direction and leader might make things easier, but the idea it would end the duvision seems as laughable to me as the idea this going to be a civil Tory contest.
I know several people who will be infuriated by that.
Judging by the hyperventilating Leavers on here I would say Obama's comments were bang on target.
You honestly think America has our best interests at heart?
how are his comments "bang on target"- - Designed to annoy or factually correct?
America wants us to do their bidding and would never accept what they are telling us is good for us.
BTW not hyperventilating and certainly not on here all hours banging on about leave, but his arrogant comments/ threat irritates me.
AS it happens I am strongly of the opinion that we should leave. I see more to fear being shackled to an undemocratic basket case that is going down the pan rather than wishing them all the best and leaving them to their epic ongoing clusterf&ck.
It was bang on target because it undermined Leave's key argument that if we Brexit it will be easy and quick to negotiate independent trade deals with trading partners.
"Infuriate"? I think most intending LEAVE voters, and also many who intend to vote REMAIN, and many who don't intend to vote at all, will just think why doesn't Obama fuck off.
Obama's statement will infuriate any British person with an ounce of sense.
I mean I look in my house, and how many things are produced in the US? Practically none. The hell with trade with the US.
The country that has benefited most from the US-British relationship has been the US. This arsehole talking about "back of the queue" implies the opposite. Who does he think he is?
He's threatening Britain. Fuck him.
Goodness, I wish Jeremy Corbyn (or for that matter, David Cameron) had the guts to say that. Of course they haven't, though. Talk about compradores.
Remember what happened to Joseph Kennedy in 1940. That was back in the day when Britain at least had a bit of independence. That was one of Britain's finest moments.
Maybe Britain should quintuple the rent for the US bases here? How would Obama like that? Or better still - much better - close them down. Let him find out how much the Germans would charge, or the Poles. Who wants their country to be an unsinkable aircraft carrier for a foreign power anyway?
How about state funding for a British film industry too, so people don't have to watch US crap?
Maybe it was the US embassy that manipulated the betting market to reverse the big rise in the price of LEAVE after Osborne came a cropper when he said we'll all lose £4320.17 if Britain leaves the EU? It could be. The US public relations effort regarding the EU referendum certainly seems to be a total crock:
* Britain will be more at risk from terrorism
(Really? Funny how Richard Dearlove doesn't think so. And how about ending the military alliance with the US? Then why would Britain even be a target?)
* Britain will be "at the back of the queue" in trade with the US
(Hey, Burger-muncher! Britain's not your beggar, OK? And Obama has form for this. He even said he's warned Cameron that the "special relationship" will end if Britain doesn't spend 2% of its GDP on "defence" "Free riders aggravate me," the arrogant sod said. GET OUT!
This disgusting statement by Obama is going to go down like a uranium balloon in the British army.
Don;'t get mad.
Get even.
So funny. Europe, the US. LEAVERS will soon be running out of countries to be at war with.
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
Personally I didn't. Perhaps I should have done. But at least he didn't threaten our country on that occasion, as he has done today.
It's about time the left and right got together to oppose US influence in Britain and in the rest of Europe. Let's put aside our differences while we achieve something.
If Remain wins comfortably then there will be no purge or gloating: indeed my own prediction is that in the reshuffle, Gove will be promoted, Priti Patel will attain full cabinet membership and other leading leavers, such as Dom Raab will see a big advancement. The party rank and file will be content at these and other conciliatory actions.
It is indeed very possible that Cameron's successor may have backed no (presumably Gove?) but that won't be the litmus test in 2018/19 when the contest will be held. In addition every candidate will have to accept the referendum result as binding for the foreseeable future: I can't see that as presenting a problem for any of them.
Raab, Gove, Patel promoted.
Boris ignored.
I think that's a fair summary of the post referendum reshuffle.
I guess the only question is who makes way for them? Mcloughlin and Fallon - maybe even Hammond. Whittingdale must also be vulnerable even though he is a Leaver. Boris must be wishing he took Culture when he was offered it but as you said, its probably all over for him now.
Can anyone advise me? I want to join the Tory party - not because I have any particular affinity to it despite voting them for my whole life (they are a lesser of two evils) - rather I want to have a say over the next leader. I will back anyone other than a Cameroon or a Remainer. Not sure how it works, can I do £3 job like was done for Corbyn or do I need to play a slightly longer game? Much appreciated in advance.
Why are some Tories assuming that the next leader will need to be a leaver for the sake of unity? Who's to say that would create unity? Why would the remainers fall in behind - particularly if it's someone with a history of rebellion.
Because the infuriated and embittered activists, backbenchers and associations will demand it, or threaten huge rebellion, splitting the party in two.
If the Tory party is a machine-for-winning, as JackW says (I have my doubts) then it will see the sense of acceding to this pressure. The REMAINIANS should be thankful they won the most important vote of all, pocket their triumph, refrain from gloating, and let the LEAVERS have the silver medal.
It's the only way to heal the party. To do otherwise would be foolish and possibly suicidal. These REMAINIANS like Matthew Parris threatening a "reckoning" and a "purge" after a REMAIN win are just nuts.
It's reasonable to believe there will be a purge, and a reckoning, but it's unlikely to be of Leavers. This may be the Tory party's chance to rid itself of the pro-euro tick that has been feasting itself on the party for decades.
The Tory party does not have and has never had a majority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU. Not now, not in Thatcher's day. Delusional
There is a feeling most remainer MPs are merely gutless leavers kowtowing to the leadership. That seems unduly optimistic to me. More likely they played up their skepticism before. The membership seems more clearly skewed to leave, so a leaver direction and leader might make things easier, but the idea it would end the duvision seems as laughable to me as the idea this going to be a civil Tory contest.
Who is this wonderful "Leaver" that the Tory MPs are lining up to be their next leader, and not just next leader - the next leader is by default the next PM? The fact that it appears that Gove is the current frontrunner shows the problem - voters will run a mile from him.
Can anyone advise me? I want to join the Tory party - not because I have any particular affinity to it despite voting them for my whole life (they are a lesser of two evils) - rather I want to have a say over the next leader. I will back anyone other than a Cameroon or a Remainer. Not sure how it works, can I do £3 job like was done for Corbyn or do I need to play a slightly longer game? Much appreciated in advance.
Not much good if you don't get one on the ballot paper!
Did all these outraged people get quite so worked up when Obama intervened to back the continuance of the UK (at a press conference with David Cameron!) during the Scottish referendum?
Personally I didn't. Perhaps I should have done. But at least he didn't threaten our country on that occasion, as he has done today.
It's about time the left and right got together to oppose US influence in Britain and in the rest of Europe. Let's put aside our differences while we achieve something.
De Gaulle told the US where to go in 1966.
As the 'Special' Relationship, clearly isn't perhaps it's time we did the same?
And Dave and Barry can ride off in the sunset together.
Leavers are lashing out in all directions precisely because Obama's comments were so effective in undermine them. That is the truth of the matter. That is why Leavers are frothing at the mouth on twitter.
I'm a Remainer, but on the matter of Obama's threat I'm frothing as much as any Leaver.
Do you not recognise the possibility that many Leavers simply do not like the leader of a foreign country coming to Britain, talking as if Britain is some kind of supplicant dependent on his own country's largesse, and threatening that our country will suffer if our people decide to change the country's relationship, not with his own country, but with some of our European fellows on this side of the wide Atlantic Ocean?
Seriously, regardless of whether you disagree with the position, do you not think it is a reasonable position for a person to take?
There were several moments in indyref when a huge intervention was made, from non Scots, about the dire consequences of a YES vote. e.g. Gideon on the currency, Carney on the BoE, some EU leaders on EU membership, and so forth. After each one lots of commentators thought and said Well that's it, NO have it in the bag.
I remember saying that myself a couple of times.
But often the reaction was counter-intuitive, and the polls swang to YES.
Voters don't like being bullied, and sometimes react the opposite way intended. Independence referendums are strange things.
I don't expect huge interventions to convert many Leavers to Remainers (apart from the artificial conversions trailed on here) but what the Government is trying to do is drive up turnout amongst soft Remainers, so Remain wins hands down on a high turnout.
They might succeed. But there's a catch 22 here: if it looks open & shut, turnout won't be as high depressing Remain, and some nervous Leavers will firmly vote Leave if they think they'll definitely lose anyhow.
Comments
After this afternoon, the 'victors' would expect nothing less.
I'm signing off for the evening.
Goodnight.
a tendency to Leave. My son and his friends are definite remainers.To be honest it is not a big talking point until something like today happens. It will then filter off until the football season finishes.
That is tongue in cheek.
The vitriol comes because everyone but kenneth clarke nearly, has for the last 20 years been staunch eurosceptics, they have lied to their party members, and their media friends, they have ran them into a cul de sac of broken dreams.
Won = single party govt, with leader as Pm afterwards.
The biggest wins have been Labour.
Whichever way you cut the cake the Tories keep coming back to win. Some regard it as a bad odour and others a fragrance of delight. Take your pick but the smell lingers.
Alternatively it could be a sign of Britain becoming more European.
Remember when we would laugh at the quality of foreign politicians and pride ourselves that British political activity was so much better.
Meanwhile, in some quarters, things were getting tense. “I was at a dinner party, and we were all friends, and we got onto Europe and it turned into a huge row. Two people ended up going home!” Crikey. Which ones? “Oh, the stayers left and the leavers stayed.”
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/04/lord-ashcroft-the-first-of-my-new-focus-group-findings-about-the-eu-referendum.html
Surely, you must be wondering if Labour are riding the wrong horse?
In fact this whole debate is quite interesting for the complete unchallenging of the conventional wisdom that free trade, indeed the free-ist trade possible is an undeniably good thing. Because actually free trade, with no import barriers is just as much of a challenge to "the working man" as "immigrants taking all the jobs". At least with the latter there are the jobs to compete for, even at depressed levels of wages. Free trade creates the danger that the jobs don't exist in the first place because there is no ability to protect against the undercutting of costs abroad.
In fact this is much of the argument for the EU - because a relationship built purely on free trading is fine, but leaves a danger of a race to the bottom. What the EU tries to do is maintain minimum standards of employment to protect against that. The challenge in many respects is not to get the EU to dilute these standards, but to find ways to compel competitors outside the EU to adopt the same requirements on their employers as we do here.
Nothing like a bit of simplistic economic argument for a Friday night.
Obama's statement will infuriate any British person with an ounce of sense.
I mean I look in my house, and how many things are produced in the US? Practically none. The hell with trade with the US.
The country that has benefited most from the US-British relationship has been the US. This arsehole talking about "back of the queue" implies the opposite. Who does he think he is?
He's threatening Britain. Fuck him.
Goodness, I wish Jeremy Corbyn (or for that matter, David Cameron) had the guts to say that. Of course they haven't, though. Talk about compradores.
Remember what happened to Joseph Kennedy in 1940. That was back in the day when Britain at least had a bit of independence. That was one of Britain's finest moments.
Maybe Britain should quintuple the rent for the US bases here? How would Obama like that? Or better still - much better - close them down. Let him find out how much the Germans would charge, or the Poles. Who wants their country to be an unsinkable aircraft carrier for a foreign power anyway?
How about state funding for a British film industry too, so people don't have to watch US crap?
Maybe it was the US embassy that manipulated the betting market to reverse the big rise in the price of LEAVE after Osborne came a cropper when he said we'll all lose £4320.17 if Britain leaves the EU? It could be. The US public relations effort regarding the EU referendum certainly seems to be a total crock:
* Britain will be more at risk from terrorism
(Really? Funny how Richard Dearlove doesn't think so. And how about ending the military alliance with the US? Then why would Britain even be a target?)
* Britain will be "at the back of the queue" in trade with the US
(Hey, Burger-muncher! Britain's not your beggar, OK? And Obama has form for this. He even said he's warned Cameron that the "special relationship" will end if Britain doesn't spend 2% of its GDP on "defence" "Free riders aggravate me," the arrogant sod said. GET OUT!
This disgusting statement by Obama is going to go down like a uranium balloon in the British army.
Get even.
So, the big question is, do you think LWNBIGA
Could be that Elizabhyn the Second will be remembered for her last (or last but one) PM and have the same designation.
Wouldn't it be more pertinent to ask Hilary and The Donald what they think?
Pretty much everybody has insulted Trump.
Its merely a display of the political pendulum.
Britain should stay in the EU and leave NATO.
Still, that's just Twitter and I'm not sure we can draw any real inferences from there.
That's what happens when you're trying to talk to an eight year old girl and do server admin at the same time.
Fortunately, I backed everything up yesterday, so it'll all be up and running again tomorrow.
Will people who hitherto wanted to Remain, switch to Leave to spite a US president?
I doubt Leavers will be enticed to Remain by this.
They are acting completely surprised and flustered by every single thing Remain are doing despite it being a carbon copy of IndyRef.
Total negligence.
Which is good for me as a Remainer.
Those who say we must listen to him, were going to vote Remain anyway.
The question is whether it will make any difference at the margin with undecideds.
The US president calls Britain a "free rider", and he pictures our country as standing in a queue begging for US help. Let the US fight their own f***ing wars!
Any Remain activists reading this - are you sure you want this kind of support?
I'd take his remarks about as seriously as I would Polly Toynbee or Ann Coulter.
No, my anger is against successive UK Prime Ministers in general and the current Prime Minister in particular.
Cameron actually invited the US President to visit this country for no other reason than to allow him to stand in Downing Street and threaten Cameron's own people. Just as I thought my contempt for Cameron couldn't get any worse, it does.
How much longer is the Tory Party going to allow Cameron and Osborne to threaten their own voters and fellow countrymen?
On an entirely unrelated topic has anyone heard from our Home Secretary lately?
We can only dream.....
It is indeed very possible that Cameron's successor may have backed no (presumably Gove?) but that won't be the litmus test in 2018/19 when the contest will be held. In addition every candidate will have to accept the referendum result as binding for the foreseeable future: I can't see that as presenting a problem for any of them.
'RE: Obama's "back of the queue" trade deal response.'
It at least removes all doubt,if there was any, about the bullshit of a special relationship between the UK & USA.
Boris ignored.
I think that's a fair summary of the post referendum reshuffle.
how are his comments "bang on target"- - Designed to annoy or factually correct?
America wants us to do their bidding and would never accept what they are telling us is good for us.
BTW not hyperventilating and certainly not on here all hours banging on about leave, but his arrogant comments/ threat irritates me.
AS it happens I am strongly of the opinion that we should leave. I see more to fear being shackled to an undemocratic basket case that is going down the pan rather than wishing them all the best and leaving them to their epic ongoing clusterf&ck.
No absolutely certain Labour is riding the right horse. Anything that the Mail & Express is so passionately in favour of cannot possibly be to the left's advantage. They are not that stupid. Boris and Farage's "Kenyan" comments won't help either. You're stuck with it being primarily a right-wing hobby-horse I'm afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x-HJGkdX94
55% with 12% undecided
I vote to LEAVE politicalbetting.com!
It's about time the left and right got together to oppose US influence in Britain and in the rest of Europe. Let's put aside our differences while we achieve something.
I guess the only question is who makes way for them? Mcloughlin and Fallon - maybe even Hammond. Whittingdale must also be vulnerable even though he is a Leaver. Boris must be wishing he took Culture when he was offered it but as you said, its probably all over for him now.
It is £25 to join though, per year, so be prepared to pay for the next few years to get a say.
Not much good if you don't get one on the ballot paper!
As the 'Special' Relationship, clearly isn't perhaps it's time we did the same?
And Dave and Barry can ride off in the sunset together.
Do you not recognise the possibility that many Leavers simply do not like the leader of a foreign country coming to Britain, talking as if Britain is some kind of supplicant dependent on his own country's largesse, and threatening that our country will suffer if our people decide to change the country's relationship, not with his own country, but with some of our European fellows on this side of the wide Atlantic Ocean?
Seriously, regardless of whether you disagree with the position, do you not think it is a reasonable position for a person to take?
They are passionate about this country, and restoring its self-govenance I don't expect huge interventions to convert many Leavers to Remainers (apart from the artificial conversions trailed on here) but what the Government is trying to do is drive up turnout amongst soft Remainers, so Remain wins hands down on a high turnout.
They might succeed. But there's a catch 22 here: if it looks open & shut, turnout won't be as high depressing Remain, and some nervous Leavers will firmly vote Leave if they think they'll definitely lose anyhow.