Mr. Hopkins, the Third Punic War kicked off because the Romans imposed such stark terms that even the meek, humbled and even craven city decided it couldn't take any more.
Rome did win the war, but what should've taken an afternoon (it was the Empire versus a city) lasted about four years.
The last hurrah for the veterans who'd fought in the Second Punic War, was the campaign in Macedonia in 170-168 BC. After that, the fighting quality of the Roman Army deteriorated massively. They took huge casualties fighting mediocre opponents, like Carthage, Spanish tribesmen, and the Numidians, and suffered some horrific defeats at the hands of German tribes. If Marius and Sulla hadn't come to the fore, at the end of the Second Century, Rome might well have been destroyed at that point.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
A large part of the Brexit case was that, yes the economy would take a hit from leaving, but due to all the extra free trade deals we would be able to sign once freed from the shackles of the EU, our economy would be just as strong in the long run.
Yes and that's why being at the back of a queue of two isn't really such a big deal, especially given that we have a trade surplus with the US already. The deals we need to make are with Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands, Chiles and Malaysias of the world. Anyway, I'm in favour of an EEA style agreement which we could use and eventually leverage our truly huge EU trade deficit into real action on restricting immigration within the EEA membership agreement.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
Obama uses French political missiles? Perhaps Boris can ask Hollande for the override codes.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
Yes with growing mid-sized economies in the east and LatAm countries.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment. As for the good ship leave, well lets just wait and see.
I know Leave are offering some rather obvious targets, but the level of premature gloating from Remain is quite extraordinary, some people here are going to take a few months to scrape all the egg off their face if things don't go quite to plan.
I'd raise a minor quibble. The Numidians were rubbish, but Jugurtha was a competent man. If he'd been a Roman he could've taken the place of the likes of Marius/Sulla. With better troops (I believe at one point in a Jugurthine War battle, he was winning, at which point his own troops decided to run away) he would've slaughtered the Romans.
On Spain: if memory serves that was the first occasion (maybe with Scipio Aemilianus) that consular electoral law was flagrantly broken [he was too young for the office, but got it twice, to deal with the Celtiberians]. I think Marius also broke it by being consecutively elected, or somesuch, and the weakening of state rules for powerful individuals helped lead Rome from Republic to Empire.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment.
Has anyone asked those countries what they think?
Might be an idea to do so, before being too specific, just in case the response is similar to Obama's.
Oh, and the idea of a trade deal with the USA being very important was the Leave campaign's. I appreciate that, for damage-limitation purposes, they are now busy trying to rewrite history, but I really can't see them having much luck with that.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
A large part of the Brexit case was that, yes the economy would take a hit from leaving, but due to all the extra free trade deals we would be able to sign once freed from the shackles of the EU, our economy would be just as strong in the long run.
Yes and that's why being at the back of a queue of two isn't really such a big deal, especially given that we have a trade surplus with the US already. The deals we need to make are with Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands, Chiles and Malaysias of the world. Anyway, I'm in favour of an EEA style agreement which we could use and eventually leverage our truly huge EU trade deficit into real action on restricting immigration within the EEA membership agreement.
And if that was leave's position it would be sensible but it still requires free movement if labour.
I'd raise a minor quibble. The Numidians were rubbish, but Jugurtha was a competent man. If he'd been a Roman he could've taken the place of the likes of Marius/Sulla. With better troops (I believe at one point in a Jugurthine War battle, he was winning, at which point his own troops decided to run away) he would've slaughtered the Romans.
On Spain: if memory serves that was the first occasion (maybe with Scipio Aemilianus) that consular electoral law was flagrantly broken [he was too young for the office, but got it twice, to deal with the Celtiberians]. I think Marius also broke it by being consecutively elected, or somesuch, and the weakening of state rules for powerful individuals helped lead Rome from Republic to Empire.
Marius was elected Consul six times in succession, at the end of the Second Century. His political opponents hated the fact, but had to acknowledge that he was a military genius, and the only man who could beat the Germans (Sulla could probably have beaten them, but he was still Marius' lieutenant at this point).
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
Yes with growing mid-sized economies in the east and LatAm countries.
Clearly I've given up on work for the day now.
I'd be pretty concerned about LatAm as a growing export destination for the medium term. During the last commodity downcycle (1981-1999), the bulk of Lat Am countries defaulted on their debt (Mexico started the trend in 1982, 48 commodity exporting countries followed over the following decade). In US Dollar terms, these countries - which had been stunners in the 1970s - barely grew. The correlation between GDP and raw material prices for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela is close to 1.0.
Especially given that most Leavers regard free-at-the-point-of-use health care as a form of Satanism...
Free at point of use = luvvly jubbly. Monolithic state provision where we could seek to optimise outcomes via a market = greedily licking at Satan's cock.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment.
Has anyone asked those countries what they think?
Might be an idea to do so, before being too specific, just in case the response is similar to Obama's.
Oh, and the idea of a trade deal with the USA being very important was the Leave campaign's. I appreciate that for damage-limitation purposes, they are now busy trying too rewrite history, but I really can't see them having much luck with that.
Why should a political campaign do the governments job for it ? This line of argument is absurd, its like saying that it's the job of CND to tell the government what it should buy in the way of conventional arms after they get rid of the nukes, or maybe ASH should be telling smokers what they should be spending their money on when they quit smoking.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment.
Has anyone asked those countries what they think?
Might be an idea to do so, before being too specific, just in case the response is similar to Obama's.
Oh, and the idea of a trade deal with the USA being very important was the Leave campaign's. I appreciate that, for damage-limitation purposes, they are now busy trying to rewrite history, but I really can't see them having much luck with that.
I guess you were asking Leave to spell out details so Remain could spend political capital with our allies getting them shot down. Not a good use of favours, in my view.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
A large part of the Brexit case was that, yes the economy would take a hit from leaving, but due to all the extra free trade deals we would be able to sign once freed from the shackles of the EU, our economy would be just as strong in the long run.
Yes and that's why being at the back of a queue of two isn't really such a big deal, especially given that we have a trade surplus with the US already. The deals we need to make are with Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands, Chiles and Malaysias of the world. Anyway, I'm in favour of an EEA style agreement which we could use and eventually leverage our truly huge EU trade deficit into real action on restricting immigration within the EEA membership agreement.
And if that was leave's position it would be sensible but it still requires free movement if labour.
There's free movement of labour, and there's free movement of labour.
(1) Anyone from the EU can come here, and can claim benefits and work here as if they were a citizen.
(2) Anyone from the EU can come here and work as if they were a citizen.
(3) Anyone from the EU can come here and work, so long as they have NHS Health Insurance, which costs £5,000/year.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment.
Has anyone asked those countries what they think?
Might be an idea to do so, before being too specific, just in case the response is similar to Obama's.
Oh, and the idea of a trade deal with the USA being very important was the Leave campaign's. I appreciate that, for damage-limitation purposes, they are now busy trying to rewrite history, but I really can't see them having much luck with that.
If the UK voted to leave the EU, I think most foreign countries would accept this, and deal with the UK on that basis, rather than trying to punish us for having voted the wrong way.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
Exactly,
Countries don't have friends; they have interests.
Why shouldn't Albania aspire to join? It is kind-of in Europe, isn't it?
And Leave is overusing the NHS. Particularly this week.
Especially given that most Leavers regard free-at-the-point-of-use health care as a form of Satanism...
Evidence to this please ?
Wouldn't England be a great place to live if all us Lefties dropped dead, eh, Ms Plato? Still, when Nigel retires and Boris takes over UKIP you'll be able to vote for a neo-Fascist party at last...
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
I doubt it will come as a shock to you that there are more countries we might consider doing a trade deal with than the USA, possibly some that we don't currently have a very healthy trading position with even without a trade deal. Really the level of playing dumb to try and score cheap points is getting a bit tiresome at the moment. As for the good ship leave, well lets just wait and see.
I know Leave are offering some rather obvious targets, but the level of premature gloating from Remain is quite extraordinary, some people here are going to take a few months to scrape all the egg off their face if things don't go quite to plan.
I do not think remain have won and certainly have no intention of gloating. It is too early to start calling the issue won or lost. A week is a long time in politics. The only issue I would have is that the Scots, Welsh and Irish are absent from the debate but are likely to come to the table in a big way post 5th May
Mr. F, well, if you're referring to the Cimbri, that was entirely Rome's own fault. The first contact was the tribe asking to settle peacefully on Roman land and, if not, to peacefully be allowed safe passage.
The Romans responded by attacking, and then getting slaughtered. The later bickering between Caepio and Maximus gave the Romans one of their worst defeats at Arausio. [Not to mention the other defeats in the meantime]. Shockingly bad by the Romans.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
A large part of the Brexit case was that, yes the economy would take a hit from leaving, but due to all the extra free trade deals we would be able to sign once freed from the shackles of the EU, our economy would be just as strong in the long run.
Yes and that's why being at the back of a queue of two isn't really such a big deal, especially given that we have a trade surplus with the US already. The deals we need to make are with Asian and LatAm countries. The Thailands, Chiles and Malaysias of the world. Anyway, I'm in favour of an EEA style agreement which we could use and eventually leverage our truly huge EU trade deficit into real action on restricting immigration within the EEA membership agreement.
And if that was leave's position it would be sensible but it still requires free movement if labour.
There's free movement of labour, and there's free movement of labour.
(1) Anyone from the EU can come here, and can claim benefits and work here as if they were a citizen.
(2) Anyone from the EU can come here and work as if they were a citizen.
(3) Anyone from the EU can come here and work, so long as they have NHS Health Insurance, which costs £5,000/year.
(4) Anyone from the EU can come here and work so long as the job has been offered to residents and remained unfilled after X weeks.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
Exactly,
Countries don't have friends; they have interests.
Quoting Liberals again? You need to be careful - it might be catching
I guess you were asking Leave to spell out details so Remain could spend political capital with our allies getting them shot down. Not a good use of favours, in my view.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
For the zillionth time, I'm not on either side of this debate, I'm a persuadee, not a persuader in this. So I'm not 'asking' anything.
I am however observing, with increasing incredulity, the mind-boggling incompetence of the Leave campaign. As I've been saying for years, it was always going to be bloody hard, perhaps impossible, for Leave to win this, and for years I've been saying they should be getting on with agreeing a position and preparing their case. But even allowing for the fact that they don't seem to have done any such serious preparation, their punch-drunk, randomly flailing, response to the most predictable of developments is quite extraordinary.
Osborne has already said where the next missile is going to be aimed. No doubt that will come as a complete surprise to Leave as well.
Mr. Hopkins, the Third Punic War kicked off because the Romans imposed such stark terms that even the meek, humbled and even craven city decided it couldn't take any more.
Rome did win the war, but what should've taken an afternoon (it was the Empire versus a city) lasted about four years.
The last hurrah for the veterans who'd fought in the Second Punic War, was the campaign in Macedonia in 170-168 BC. After that, the fighting quality of the Roman Army deteriorated massively. They took huge casualties fighting mediocre opponents, like Carthage, Spanish tribesmen, and the Numidians, and suffered some horrific defeats at the hands of German tribes. If Marius and Sulla hadn't come to the fore, at the end of the Second Century, Rome might well have been destroyed at that point.
I thought the Romans took 200 years to conquer Spain, Mr Fear. Were their opponents really "mediocre"?
Mr. F, well, if you're referring to the Cimbri, that was entirely Rome's own fault. The first contact was the tribe asking to settle peacefully on Roman land and, if not, to peacefully be allowed safe passage.
The Romans responded by attacking, and then getting slaughtered. The later bickering between Caepio and Maximus gave the Romans one of their worst defeats at Arausio. [Not to mention the other defeats in the meantime]. Shockingly bad by the Romans.
One recurring feature of Rome's dealings with "barbarians" is that the latter were generally a good deal more honourable than the former, and more willing to stick to the bargains they'd struck. The disastrous defeat at Adrianople was a direct result of the ill-treatment that Roman officials had inflicted on the Goths.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
It really hasn't: Obama said there would be such a deal, it's just that we'd go to the back of the queue, and it might take 10 years.
Firstly Obama won't be in office when we Leave and second i doubt even you think we'll be placed "behind" Morocco, Kenya, Qatar and Thailand.
What takes the time in trade deals is agreeing the terms and content, and getting approval from both nations. Spite doesn't come into it; interest do.
I guess you were asking Leave to spell out details so Remain could spend political capital with our allies getting them shot down. Not a good use of favours, in my view.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
For the zillionth time, I'm not on either side of this debate, I'm a persuadee, not a persuader in this. So I'm not 'asking' anything.
If the UK voted to leave the EU, I think most foreign countries would accept this, and deal with the UK on that basis, rather than trying to punish us for having voted the wrong way.
Of course they are. No-one is suggesting anything otherwise.
But that doesn't mean that they will see it as a priority to enter into trade deals with us, or that any such trade deals will be achievable on terms we like. These things require negotiation, and that means giving something in return that they want. It also takes time.
In the particular case of the US, I'd have thought that the chances of a deal before TTIP is complete would be approximately zero.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
It really hasn't: Obama said there would be such a deal, it's just that we'd go to the back of the queue, and it might take 10 years.
Firstly Obama won't be in office when we Leave and second i doubt even you think we'll be placed "behind" Morocco, Kenya, Qatar and Thailand.
What takes the time in trade deals is agreeing the terms and content, and getting approval from both nations. Spite doesn't come into it; interest do.
We could probably sign up to TPP within about a week if need be, and might also be able to be added as a 'codicil' to TIPP (which would be better).
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Let me get this straight: if the polls move to Remain over Obamadominatrixgate, that's good for Remain, and if they move to Leave that's also good for Remain?
Mr. F, perhaps exemplified by Caesar, who was conducted peace negotiations with a Germanian tribe when he decide to commit (I use TA Dodge's word) a holocaust against them.
Let me get this straight: if the polls move to Remain over Obamadominatrixgate, that's good for Remain, and if they move to Leave that's also good for Remain?
Neither. I'd ignore short-term polling blips following the furore of the last few days.
However, the realities are good for Remain. I'm betting accordingly. I welcome people betting against me, of course.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
It really hasn't: Obama said there would be such a deal, it's just that we'd go to the back of the queue, and it might take 10 years.
Firstly Obama won't be in office when we Leave and second i doubt even you think we'll be placed "behind" Morocco, Kenya, Qatar and Thailand.
What takes the time in trade deals is agreeing the terms and content, and getting approval from both nations. Spite doesn't come into it; interest do.
We could probably sign up to TPP within about a week if need be, and might also be able to be added as a 'codicil' to TIPP (which would be better).
So it's also simply bollocks.
Well, Richard has told us it blows Leave's case completely out of the water.
I guess you were asking Leave to spell out details so Remain could spend political capital with our allies getting them shot down. Not a good use of favours, in my view.
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
For the zillionth time, I'm not on either side of this debate, I'm a persuadee, not a persuader in this. So I'm not 'asking' anything.
I am however observing, with increasing incredulity, the mind-boggling incompetence of the Leave campaign. As I've been saying for years, it was always going to be bloody hard, perhaps impossible, for Leave to win this, and for years I've been saying they should be getting on with agreeing a position and preparing their case. But even allowing for the fact that they don't seem to have done any such serious preparation, their punch-drunk, randomly flailing, response to the most predictable of developments is quite extraordinary.
Osborne has already said where the next missile is going to be aimed. No doubt that will come as a complete surprise to Leave as well.
Sorry mate, by your own admission that's not true.
Only last week you told me you'd finally made up your mind in December 2015 and weren't open to new arguments anymore.
I was disappointed because I'd been genuinely engaging with you on the basis of finding out exactly what sort of deal might interest you so I might try and persuade you to vote Leave.
Well anyone who has even two brain cells to rub together will realise that we don't have a trade deal with the US right now and we do just fine. Front or back of the, err, line won't really make any difference in a Brexit scenario.
Odd, then, that a central plank of the Leave campaign's case has been that it will give us more freedom to sign trade deals.
There's no getting arouind the fact that Obama's Exocet (even though it was a statement of the obvious, and indeed a restatement of long-established US positions) has blown up the engine room of the good ship Leave.
It really hasn't: Obama said there would be such a deal, it's just that we'd go to the back of the queue, and it might take 10 years.
Firstly Obama won't be in office when we Leave and second i doubt even you think we'll be placed "behind" Morocco, Kenya, Qatar and Thailand.
What takes the time in trade deals is agreeing the terms and content, and getting approval from both nations. Spite doesn't come into it; interest do.
We could probably sign up to TPP within about a week if need be, and might also be able to be added as a 'codicil' to TIPP (which would be better).
So it's also simply bollocks.
Well, Richard has told us it blows Leave's case completely out of the water.
So what are we missing?
Apparently if Dave stopped chewing spearmint and switched to doublemint that would blow Leave's case out of the water as well.
The detailed ratings are better for Cameron, who leads in 5 out of 8, but they're not bad for Corbyn - 48% think he understands Britain's problems (small lead over Cameron), 42% think him patriotic (suggesting the national anthem stuff has largely worn off), 47% think him more honest than most (huge lead over everyone), 39% think he has a clear vision (Cameron 52%, but he does have a higher profile), 31% think he has sound judgment. Weak spots are good in a crisis (19%) and capable (27%).
Sorry mate, by your own admission that's not true.
Only last week you told me you'd finally made up your mind in December 2015 and weren't open to new arguments anymore.
I was disappointed because I'd been genuinely engaging with you on the basis of finding out exactly what sort of deal might interest you so I might try and persuade you to vote Leave.
Turns out I was wasting my time.
I certainly never said I wasn't open to new arguments, of course not. I remain open to new arguments, although it's unlikely now that we will find any.
You weren't wasting your time, I was genuinely open-minded. I looked carefully at the options, and listened to the various arguments. I pretty quickly dismissed the EEA option as not offering enough in terms of sovereignty to outweigh the economic damage and loss of influence over EU rules and policies which would affect us, and especially because it looked worse for the City than what we have.
Unfortunately, no other option seems to have been developed, and I can't see a plausible one that doesn't involve either all the disadvantages of the EEA, or an unacceptable economic risk. So I conclude that, on balance, we are better off with the status quo. Obviously I wouldn't have started from here, but we are where we are.
Regrettably, and counter-productively, many on the Leave side don't seem to be able to get their heads around the idea that people like myself have taken an honest and dispassionate view of the pros and cons.
Jeremy Hunt announces 11,500 more doctors by 2020 to address the 7 day service
Is he going to abduct them at gun point as they make their way from medical school to Heathrow to start work in Australia. The problem now isnt money as I understand it. My brother in law is the managing partner in a rural practise that should have 6 GPs and has been running with 2 for the past year, he has the money available, everything is ready to go, but no one wants the jobs. He has had a few interviews, one of which confided in him that he would not be taking the job, because he would earn twice the money in Australia for half the hours.
Jeremy Hunt announces 11,500 more doctors by 2020 to address the 7 day service
Is he going to abduct them at gun point as they make their way from medical school to Heathrow to start work in Australia. The problem now isnt money as I understand it. My brother in law is the managing partner in a rural practise that should have 6 GPs and has been running with 2 for the past year, he has the money available, everything is ready to go, but no one wants the jobs. He has had a few interviews, one of which confided in him that he would not be taking the job, because he would earn twice the money in Australia for half the hours.
No idea where he will obtain so many but he has announced it in the HOC so it will be interesting to see how it plays out
Let me get this straight: if the polls move to Remain over Obamadominatrixgate, that's good for Remain, and if they move to Leave that's also good for Remain?
Neither. I'd ignore short-term polling blips following the furore of the last few days.
However, the realities are good for Remain. I'm betting accordingly. I welcome people betting against me, of course.
That depends. If the trade deal point holds (and there's nothing to say it will since we have no trade deal with the US at the moment and it's not inconceivable we could conclude one even prior to TTIP if it takes years) then, maybe, at the margins it could help.
If the voters think they're being systemically patronised by those in power pompously appealing to listen to their authority, it might not be the vote winner you expect.
It could be the lasting impression of what Obama said is just the insult of "back of the queue", not the trade deal.
And us Brits love to tell people who talk down to us to piss off.
I think people are misunderstanding the political impact of Obama's intervention, if any. It will have zero effect one way or the other on our trade with America. The political effect will be that a somewhat respected foreign political figure has come out for Remain and the Leave reaction seems to be one of disarray. OTOH our PM (and for Conservatives their leader) has been behaving in a very partisan and possibly underhand way when people might expect him to be an honest broker.
Roughly speaking it's Leave obsessiveness versus Remain nastiness.
Since Cameron became Tory leader, he's had 25 months where his net rating amongst Tory voters has been lower than his current net rating of 47%, and 5 other months equal to the 47%. That's 30 of out 118 months.
Since Cameron became PM, he's had 11 months of a net rating 47% or lower amongst Tory voters, 9 of which were in the last parliament.
So it's wrong to say this is Cameron's second worst ever month with Tory voters.
Mind you, some people think venison's a bit strong, and I really like that too.
Ooh venison is yummy. 99% of shop bought venison is Scottish red deer. It's OK. But if you go out in the woods and shoot yerself a Fallow deer, stick the haunch in red wine overnight before you roast it then it's super good. And really not gamey.
Jeremy Hunt announces 11,500 more doctors by 2020 to address the 7 day service
Is he going to abduct them at gun point as they make their way from medical school to Heathrow to start work in Australia. The problem now isnt money as I understand it. My brother in law is the managing partner in a rural practise that should have 6 GPs and has been running with 2 for the past year, he has the money available, everything is ready to go, but no one wants the jobs. He has had a few interviews, one of which confided in him that he would not be taking the job, because he would earn twice the money in Australia for half the hours.
No idea where he will obtain so many but he has announced it in the HOC so it will be interesting to see how it plays out
I think Mr Nabavi's comment earlier was very apt.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
Sorry mate, by your own admission that's not true.
Only last week you told me you'd finally made up your mind in December 2015 and weren't open to new arguments anymore.
I was disappointed because I'd been genuinely engaging with you on the basis of finding out exactly what sort of deal might interest you so I might try and persuade you to vote Leave.
Turns out I was wasting my time.
I certainly never said I wasn't open to new arguments, of course not. I remain open to new arguments, although it's unlikely now that we will find any.
You weren't wasting your time, I was genuinely open-minded. I looked carefully at the options, and listened to the various arguments. I pretty quickly dismissed the EEA option as not offering enough in terms of sovereignty to outweigh the economic damage and loss of influence over EU rules and policies which would affect us, and especially because it looked worse for the City than what we have.
Unfortunately, no other option seems to have been developed, and I can't see a plausible one that doesn't involve either all the disadvantages of the EEA, or an unacceptable economic risk. So I conclude that, on balance, we are better off with the status quo. Obviously I wouldn't have started from here, but we are where we are.
Regrettably, and counter-productively, many on the Leave side don't seem to be able to get their heads around the idea that people like myself have taken an honest and dispassionate view of the pros and cons.
So, you made your mind up in December 2015 but had I (or anyone else) been able to come up with some mind blowing new arguments you would have considered them?
Ok.
I'd respect that if you'd held court but you seem to me to be more interested in vociferously campaigning for Remain.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
IMHO, Better Together was a poor campaign. The Unionist parties have very little to boast of (indeed, they seem almost destroyed, North of the Border).
Mind you, some people think venison's a bit strong, and I really like that too.
Ooh venison is yummy. 99% of shop bought venison is Scottish red deer. It's OK. But if you go out in the woods and shoot yerself a Fallow deer, stick the haunch in red wine overnight before you roast it then it's super good. And really not gamey.
It has been alleged to me that there's a lot of fraudulent labelling, and a lot of Scottish deer is mislabelled New Zealand deer. Having the same landmass but a small percentage of the population it's understandable they'd have a surplus.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
Remainers loving Obama telling us all how it is.
But who has moved to Remain as a consequence of his intervention? Anyone? ANYONE?
As far as I can tell, it's mainly been a morale booster for Remainers and led to a frenzied orgy of EU w*nking on here over the weekend by the site's most enthusiastic Remainers.
I'd respect that if you'd held court but you seem to me to be more interested in vociferously campaigning for Remain.
The Leave side is dominant here, at least in terms of quantity and vehemence of posts, so it probably looks that way. Mostly I'm just addressing what people say.
In addition, looking at it as objectively as I can, I think that the Leave campaign has been abysmal. The Remain campaign has been effective and disciplined (and more to come, I think). Political betting is largely about assessing such things.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
Remainers loving Obama telling us all how it is.
LEAVErs hating Obama telling them what US Trade Policy is when they prefer to make it up themselves.
Has Dan Hannan discussed the Anglosphere recently?
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
If you're losing an argument, change the subject. After being thrashed last week on economic territory (by a grand coalition of George Osborne, Mark Carney and Barack Obama), the EU Leave campaign has followed this advice. In an article for his former parish, the Times, Michael Gove warned of an immigration "free-for-all" if the UK votes to remain, contending that five applicant states - Turkey, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro - pose a "direct and serious threat" to living standards and public services (though Britain could veto the entry of each). On the Today programme, his fellow Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith declared: "The reality is that we have to accept people, even criminals." You could call it "Project Fear".
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
I think people are misunderstanding the political impact of Obama's intervention, if any. It will have zero effect one way or the other on our trade with America. The political effect will be that a somewhat respected foreign political figure has come out for Remain and the Leave reaction seems to be one of disarray. OTOH our PM (and for Conservatives their leader) has been behaving in a very partisan and possibly underhand way when people might expect him to be an honest broker.
Roughly speaking it's Leave obsessiveness versus Remain nastiness.
"Remain nastiness"? The vicious bile spouted is mostly from Leavers who know they are losing the argument and are unable to offer coherent arguments.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
Remainers loving Obama telling us all how it is.
LEAVErs hating Obama telling them what US Trade Policy is when they prefer to make it up themselves.
Has Dan Hannan discussed the Anglosphere recently?
I would hope we're all moderately intelligent here, so why patronise each other? Obama made as strongly-worded intervention in the EUref as he could possibly have done. Why this silliness about how he only said 'the facts' or 'back of the queue isn't insulting', especially when Remainers in the immediate aftermath were wetting themselves with delight about how severe it was. It was a big intervention. It may yet prove of benefit to Remain, I suppose we'll see, but so far it doesn't seem to be the KO that Remain was hoping for.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
IMHO, Better Together was a poor campaign.
Worse than LEAVE? Or is it too soon to say?
Has the chief spokesperson for Leave called all Remainers Nazis yet?
I notice that the Saudi's showed Obama what they thought of his status as most powerful man in the free world. Rather than the equivalent of Dave following him around the golf course like some lost puppy, when Barry arrived there last week they sent a lowly member of the royal family to greet him....that was after the Saudi king managed to attend the arrival of regional leaders just before Barry.
John Oliver put it as "your parents didn't forget to pick you up from soccer practice, they showed up, bought everybody else an ice cream, then went home without you".
I'd respect that if you'd held court but you seem to me to be more interested in vociferously campaigning for Remain.
The Leave side is dominant here, at least in terms of quantity and vehemence of posts, so it probably looks that way. Mostly I'm just addressing what people say.
In addition, looking at it as objectively as I can, I think that the Leave campaign has been abysmal. The Remain campaign has been effective and disciplined (and more to come, I think). Political betting is largely about assessing such things.
Indeed. And I try to do the same.
On this issue, however, the stakes are extremely high.
I hope you appreciate (and I'm sure you do) just how passionate some of us are about restoring full self-governance and sovereign democratic control, over all aspects of public policy, to the UK. Including trade, commerce, regulation, migration, human rights and justice.
In defence of some of the most vehement Leavers I think they really struggle to understand why some of their fellow Britons don't want the same, yet vigorously mock any vision of an independent Britain as fanciful at the same time as they try to defend it.
I confess even I struggle to understand sometimes.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Well it's not really the same, Richard. People still have the option of voting to leave. Obama hasn't taken the option off the ballot paper.
My point is that people telling an opinion pollster that they don't like Obama 'interfering' does not at all mean that his intervention hasn't had a dramatic effect in undermining the Leave case. There may even be a small move towards Leave in the opinion polls, as it's a cost-free way of being indignant.
But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they? Whereas a number of sentient beings will appreciate that it rather blows a hole in Leave's case.
Exactly what we saw after Osborne's 'Sermon on the Pound' in SINDYREF - a lot of indignant complaints, a move in the polls towards SINDY.....which was holed below the waterline.....
IMHO, Better Together was a poor campaign.
Worse than LEAVE? Or is it too soon to say?
At the start of 2014, Better Together were leading by about 62/38 (excluding don't knows). The outcome was 55/45, followed by a shellacking for Unionist parties in the general election.
I think we'll have to see how the polls shift, and what the final outcome will be before reaching a verdict on the respective campaigns in this case.
I'd respect that if you'd held court but you seem to me to be more interested in vociferously campaigning for Remain.
The Leave side is dominant here, at least in terms of quantity and vehemence of posts, so it probably looks that way. Mostly I'm just addressing what people say.
In addition, looking at it as objectively as I can, I think that the Leave campaign has been abysmal. The Remain campaign has been effective and disciplined (and more to come, I think). Political betting is largely about assessing such things.
I hope you appreciate (and I'm sure you do) just how passionate some of us are about restoring full self-governance and sovereign democratic control, over all aspects of public policy, to the UK. Including trade, commerce, regulation, migration, human rights and justice.
Well, we can imagine just how upset you would be if Brexit win and none of those things happen.
Comments
Clearly I've given up on work for the day now.
I know Leave are offering some rather obvious targets, but the level of premature gloating from Remain is quite extraordinary, some people here are going to take a few months to scrape all the egg off their face if things don't go quite to plan.
I expected nothing less from you.
I'd raise a minor quibble. The Numidians were rubbish, but Jugurtha was a competent man. If he'd been a Roman he could've taken the place of the likes of Marius/Sulla. With better troops (I believe at one point in a Jugurthine War battle, he was winning, at which point his own troops decided to run away) he would've slaughtered the Romans.
On Spain: if memory serves that was the first occasion (maybe with Scipio Aemilianus) that consular electoral law was flagrantly broken [he was too young for the office, but got it twice, to deal with the Celtiberians]. I think Marius also broke it by being consecutively elected, or somesuch, and the weakening of state rules for powerful individuals helped lead Rome from Republic to Empire.
Might be an idea to do so, before being too specific, just in case the response is similar to Obama's.
Oh, and the idea of a trade deal with the USA being very important was the Leave campaign's. I appreciate that, for damage-limitation purposes, they are now busy trying to rewrite history, but I really can't see them having much luck with that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3557752/Norway-PAY-asylum-seekers-850-return-home-country-far-cheaper-putting-hostels.html
Monolithic state provision where we could seek to optimise outcomes via a market = greedily licking at Satan's cock.
Really need to read all the images
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/724613313930338304
The reality is that countries deal with the world as it is. Post-Brexit countries would re-evaluate the situation and do what is in their best interest then, not what they necessarily say now.
(1) Anyone from the EU can come here, and can claim benefits and work here as if they were a citizen.
(2) Anyone from the EU can come here and work as if they were a citizen.
(3) Anyone from the EU can come here and work, so long as they have NHS Health Insurance, which costs £5,000/year.
Countries don't have friends; they have interests.
The Romans responded by attacking, and then getting slaughtered. The later bickering between Caepio and Maximus gave the Romans one of their worst defeats at Arausio. [Not to mention the other defeats in the meantime]. Shockingly bad by the Romans.
I am however observing, with increasing incredulity, the mind-boggling incompetence of the Leave campaign. As I've been saying for years, it was always going to be bloody hard, perhaps impossible, for Leave to win this, and for years I've been saying they should be getting on with agreeing a position and preparing their case. But even allowing for the fact that they don't seem to have done any such serious preparation, their punch-drunk, randomly flailing, response to the most predictable of developments is quite extraordinary.
Osborne has already said where the next missile is going to be aimed. No doubt that will come as a complete surprise to Leave as well.
http://www.mediafocus.org.uk/paul-staines
Firstly Obama won't be in office when we Leave and second i doubt even you think we'll be placed "behind" Morocco, Kenya, Qatar and Thailand.
What takes the time in trade deals is agreeing the terms and content, and getting approval from both nations. Spite doesn't come into it; interest do.
But that doesn't mean that they will see it as a priority to enter into trade deals with us, or that any such trade deals will be achievable on terms we like. These things require negotiation, and that means giving something in return that they want. It also takes time.
In the particular case of the US, I'd have thought that the chances of a deal before TTIP is complete would be approximately zero.
So it's also simply bollocks.
However, the realities are good for Remain. I'm betting accordingly. I welcome people betting against me, of course.
So what are we missing?
Only last week you told me you'd finally made up your mind in December 2015 and weren't open to new arguments anymore.
I was disappointed because I'd been genuinely engaging with you on the basis of finding out exactly what sort of deal might interest you so I might try and persuade you to vote Leave.
Turns out I was wasting my time.
You weren't wasting your time, I was genuinely open-minded. I looked carefully at the options, and listened to the various arguments. I pretty quickly dismissed the EEA option as not offering enough in terms of sovereignty to outweigh the economic damage and loss of influence over EU rules and policies which would affect us, and especially because it looked worse for the City than what we have.
Unfortunately, no other option seems to have been developed, and I can't see a plausible one that doesn't involve either all the disadvantages of the EEA, or an unacceptable economic risk. So I conclude that, on balance, we are better off with the status quo. Obviously I wouldn't have started from here, but we are where we are.
Regrettably, and counter-productively, many on the Leave side don't seem to be able to get their heads around the idea that people like myself have taken an honest and dispassionate view of the pros and cons.
Well that's f##ked him with the social justice twitter warriors forever...
Mind you, some people think venison's a bit strong, and I really like that too.
If the voters think they're being systemically patronised by those in power pompously appealing to listen to their authority, it might not be the vote winner you expect.
It could be the lasting impression of what Obama said is just the insult of "back of the queue", not the trade deal.
And us Brits love to tell people who talk down to us to piss off.
Roughly speaking it's Leave obsessiveness versus Remain nastiness.
As per the chart above, I've crunch the numbers.
Since Cameron became Tory leader, he's had 25 months where his net rating amongst Tory voters has been lower than his current net rating of 47%, and 5 other months equal to the 47%. That's 30 of out 118 months.
Since Cameron became PM, he's had 11 months of a net rating 47% or lower amongst Tory voters, 9 of which were in the last parliament.
So it's wrong to say this is Cameron's second worst ever month with Tory voters.
I'll have words with Mike later on.
"I'm absolutely bloody furious with my bank manager. He didn't believe my business plan. Said it didn't make sense. What a stupid git."
"So are you going ahead?"
"No, of course not, I couldn't get the loan."
Ok.
I'd respect that if you'd held court but you seem to me to be more interested in vociferously campaigning for Remain.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/25/julia-hartley-brewer-v-george-galloway/
Who are they backing this time?
"But no sentient being is seriously more likely to vote Leave as a result of being miffed, are they"
Count me in. I'm miffed about being lied to forty years ago.
But who has moved to Remain as a consequence of his intervention? Anyone? ANYONE?
As far as I can tell, it's mainly been a morale booster for Remainers and led to a frenzied orgy of EU w*nking on here over the weekend by the site's most enthusiastic Remainers.
In addition, looking at it as objectively as I can, I think that the Leave campaign has been abysmal. The Remain campaign has been effective and disciplined (and more to come, I think). Political betting is largely about assessing such things.
Has Dan Hannan discussed the Anglosphere recently?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/04/leave-campaign-will-struggle-win-playing-immigration-card
A single vote has yet to be cast.
John Oliver put it as "your parents didn't forget to pick you up from soccer practice, they showed up, bought everybody else an ice cream, then went home without you".
On this issue, however, the stakes are extremely high.
I hope you appreciate (and I'm sure you do) just how passionate some of us are about restoring full self-governance and sovereign democratic control, over all aspects of public policy, to the UK. Including trade, commerce, regulation, migration, human rights and justice.
In defence of some of the most vehement Leavers I think they really struggle to understand why some of their fellow Britons don't want the same, yet vigorously mock any vision of an independent Britain as fanciful at the same time as they try to defend it.
I confess even I struggle to understand sometimes.
I think we'll have to see how the polls shift, and what the final outcome will be before reaching a verdict on the respective campaigns in this case.
All those millions of taxpayers money gobbled, civil service hours used, Number 10 spin doctors beavering away and it's just not fair!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14450345.Nicola_Sturgeon_billboard_compared_to_Margaret_Thatcher_poster
1: The Currency (57%)
2: Pensions (37%)
3. The NHS (36%)
4. Tax and Spend (32%)
5. Defence and Security (26%)
None of those appear to be viable options for Remain this time around. Jobs came a lowly sixth (21%).
Their fees are about 4 times what our dear junior doctors paid (36 grand a year). They were swamped with applications, apparently, and mostly Brits.