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 find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
NATALIE McGarry MP faces being sued for up to £30,000 after mistakenly accusing an pro-Union campaigner of being a Holocaust denier, it has been reported.
The Glasgow East MP, who is currently suspended from the SNP, was served with a writ demanding a response by May 3.
Obama came to Britain and, in the guise of lofty, statesman-like disinterested amity made a statement so outrageously provocative that he might just as well have said: “My historians tell me the reason you guys lost the War of Independence is because your penises were incredibly small.”
Obama came to Britain and, in the guise of lofty, statesman-like disinterested amity made a statement so outrageously provocative that he might just as well have said: “My historians tell me the reason you guys lost the War of Independence is because your penises were incredibly small.”
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 find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
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 confess even I struggle to understand sometimes.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand why anyone thinks we're currently not self governing.....
May's speech today covered it well:
.....no country or empire in world history has ever been totally sovereign, completely in control of its destiny. Even at the height of their power, the Roman Empire, Imperial China, the Ottomans, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, modern-day America, were never able to have everything their own way. At different points, military rivals, economic crises, diplomatic manoeuvring, competing philosophies and emerging technologies all played their part in inflicting defeats and hardships, and necessitated compromises even for states as powerful as these.
Today, those factors continue to have their effect on the sovereignty of nations large and small, rich and poor. But there is now an additional complication. International, multilateral institutions exist to try to systematise negotiations between nations, promote trade, ensure cooperation on matters like cross-border crime, and create rules and norms that reduce the risk of conflict.
These institutions invite nation states to make a trade-off: to pool and therefore cede some sovereignty in a controlled way, to prevent a greater loss of sovereignty in an uncontrolled way, through for example military conflict or economic decline.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand anyone who claims the UK is not self-governing right now.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand anyone who claims the UK is not self-governing right now.
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.
I think the key point is that, whilst I don't doubt that you are passionate and see the stakes as extremely high, not everyone sees it that way. I see the only potentially high stakes as being economic, and the sovereignty argument as less critical. That is not to say I don't understand and agree with the sovereignty/democracy arguments, but it's a question of weighting; we're not in a totalitarian state or subject to arbitrary arrest or subject to exchange controls or unable to speak out and protest. Mostly the unjustified interference of the EU is a nuisance rather than a big issue in practice, and, inasmuch as that's not the case, leaving isn't necessarily going to make a big difference because it is international accords outside the EU which drive a lot of the regulatory burden.
The only real exception to this IMO is immigration, but one also has to be realistic about how different things would be outside the EU. Other than that, where Leave campaigners often go wrong is in assuming everyone else must be as passionate about the EU as they are, but most people aren't. People grumble about EU regulations, of course, but grumbling isn't passion.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand anyone who claims the UK is not self-governing right now.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand anyone who claims the UK is not self-governing right now.
You find it hard to understand anything
Can't you be more abusive than that?
By the by, I thought you wanted nothing to do with the UK...
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.
I think the key point is that, whilst I don't doubt that you are passionate and see the stakes as extremely high, not everyone sees it that way. I see the only potentially high stakes as being economic, and the sovereignty argument as less critical. That is not to say I don't understand and agree with the sovereignty/democracy arguments, but it's a question of weighting; we're not in a totalitarian state or subject to arbitrary arrest or subject to exchange controls or unable to speak out and protest. Mostly the unjustified interference of the EU is a nuisance rather than a big issue in practice, and, inasmuch as that's not the case, leaving isn't necessarily going to make a big difference because it is international accords outside the EU which drive a lot of the regulatory burden.
The only real exception to this IMO is immigration, but one also has to be realistic about how different things would be outside the EU. Other than that, where Leave campaigners often go wrong is in assuming everyone else must be as passionate about the EU as they are, but most people aren't. People grumble about EU regulations, of course, but grumbling isn't passion.
Are you going to tell us what this Osborne torpedo is? I am going to a debate on this tonight and would really like to know.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would find the idea of the UK being self-governing undesirable, or laughable, even if they think it is unattainable,
I find it hard to understand anyone who claims the UK is not self-governing right now.
You find it hard to understand anything
Can't you be more abusive than that?
By the by, I thought you wanted nothing to do with the UK...
I am in a good mood. I am for independence , though that does not mean that I want nothing to do with the UK, like the UK and EU we would have plenty of trade and Scotland would not put rUK to the back of the queue. Ours would be a real special relationship , not like the current UK as lapdog to US one.
Jeremy Hunt announces 11,500 more doctors by 2020 to address the 7 day service
How the hell are we going to afford the pensions for that lot? Reasonable estimate of the pension cost £11.5bn.
Given a 5 year degree have they already started?
Maybe he is planning to, erm borrow lots of doctors from third world countries again. I certainly think the days when we allowed the BMA to fix the number of doctors in training by the number of consultancy posts likely to be available are at an end.
I don't agree with him either but Janan Ganesh is in a class of 1 writing about politics in the MSM these days.
Agreed - like Matthew Parrish when he was parliamentary sketch writer.
This is the opening to the article:
Believers in British exit from the EU could have sung Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive” before leaving tearful messages with the White House switchboard begging Barack Obama to change his mind. Short of that, there was no way to handle last week’s presidential rejection of their cause with any less poise.
Believers in British exit from the EU could have sung Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive” before leaving tearful messages with the White House switchboard begging Barack Obama to change his mind. Short of that, there was no way to handle last week’s presidential rejection of their cause with any less poise.
The problem there is the WhiteHouse IVR would have told them their call was important, but they were in a queue, at which point their heads would explode...
Someone needs to ask Cameron why he hasn't opened bi-lateral trade discussions with Obama in the last six years if we are self governing.
For the same reason we didn't launch a rocket to the Moon.
Launching a rocket to the moon would not put us in breach of EU treaties. Opening our own trade discussions with the US would.
I believe we could open trade negotiations - and would want to in the period after invoking Article 50 - it is just that we could not actually enter into an agreement while in the EU.
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".
"Though Britain could veto the entry of each" (and similarly, "Britain could veto X, Y and Z") always struck me as a weak argument.
In practice Britain wouldn't. The way EU politics works, on these kinds of issues Britain might try to use the threat of the veto to gather some gains elsewhere or put up some kind of (usually temporary) restrictions but if member states used the veto on every issue where they felt that they would be at least slightly net losers, then the EU would grind to even more of a halt than its current glacial state.
There's another thing about glaciers though - you can laugh at how slowly it moves, but ever tried stopping one?
Direction of travel is, I think, the strongest single argument for Leave. UK governments might be able to cause the EU's trajectory to deviate somewhat in a direction somewhat more palatable to them, but that's about it.
I don't agree with him either but Janan Ganesh is in a class of 1 writing about politics in the MSM these days.
Not sure about class of 1, but he's definitely near the top of the class, agree or disagree with him, as you say. I always find his pieces compelling and well written.
The news media's insularity — the major newsrooms and bureaus are almost exclusively in New York and Washington, D.C. — was perhaps best encapsulated in a March 2 column by Nicholas Kristof, also of the Times.
In attempting to explain Trump's appeal to about 40 percent of Republican voters, Kristof purported to interview one of the businessman's supporters and transcribed it for his readers. Except one thing: the "Trump voter" was made up.
The interview was imaginary, which Kristof disclosed in the column. Still, it left the impression that he couldn't bother to find and speak with a real person who might support Trump, or that he didn't know anyone who did.
Whilst I don't agree with Ganesh that a campaign based solely on immigration has any real prospects of success (in fairness he seems to be saying that it is a way to lose not too badly) it does seem to me to be the key to the door that must be opened, namely what is the EU going to look like in 10 years (pick a figure) if we stay in?
Remain has a large number of difficult questions to answer on this and Osborne's assumptions about the rate of EU migration (barely half what we had last year) all the way up to 2030 to boost his growth assumptions is only the start of them. Will the EU of 2026 have more centralised power or less? Will the EZ be more integrated and more focussed on their group advantage by QMV or less? How many more democratically elected governments will have been overthrown by Brussels/ECB fiat to join Italy and Greece? Where are the additional 3m people going to live, go to school, get treated when they are sick, drive their cars or catch trains? Do we want to live in a country with another 3m people even if it has higher GDP?
If Remain win the argument that a vote for remain is a vote for the status quo then they win. Leave need to start talking about the future in terms that people can get. Immigration is a large part of that but it is only a part.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
It makes no sense to have, say Bulgaria in and not Balkan countries like Serbia, once they are ready.
Miss Plato, it's worth considering. Whilst I do think Remain will win handily, London is home to most journalists as well as being far more pro-EU than most places. That'll skew both the journalists' perspectives and those they see on a day-to-day basis.
[Not unlike flood coverage. Somerset got ignored for weeks, maybe months, until the well-set Thames Valley started getting wet. Suddenly, flooding became the top news story].
Goldman Sachs will have gotten a whole bunch of major figures to talk at conferences. Hillary Clinton is no doubt one (she also spoke at a Bernstein conference I went to), but there will also be people from across the political spectrum - and some of those people will be Brexiters.
They pay Mrs Clinton - and others - to be provocative at conferences, so that fund managers (like me) will go to the conferences, and so GS can try and try and persuade us to trade with them.
Mr Dancer, politics is a result oriented game. Labour has surely learnt their lessons from in keeping faith with sub-optimal leaders at GEs. The risk is that the Tory civil war is so bloody, it keeps Corbyn in place until 2020.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
Lord. Why fall out with one sitting President when we can fall out with his probable successor too?
These people need their heads examined, they really do.
Hilary deserves everything she gets for taking Wall Street's money. Tbh, its why Trump has a chance against her while Sanders would walk it.
Maybe or maybe not but how on earth does this persuade 1 person to vote Leave rather than Remain? It is just stupid. And she is not above bearing grudges either. The Clintons are Lannister like in that regard.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
In a way, their demise mirrors fundamental changes in British society. Being lower-middle class was in vogue at one time in the 70s and 80s but now it seems as if in order to be trendy you have to be either at the top or bottom.
Goldman Sachs will have gotten a whole bunch of major figures to talk at conferences. Hillary Clinton is no doubt one (she also spoke at a Bernstein conference I went to), but there will also be people from across the political spectrum - and some of those people will be Brexiters.
They pay Mrs Clinton - and others - to be provocative at conferences, so that fund managers (like me) will go to the conferences, and so GS can try and try and persuade us to trade with them.
So the facts may be right, but the conclusion slanted.
Mr. S, Labour kept Ed Miliband for the full five years.
I agree the Conservative infighting helps Corbyn.
Mr. JS, I had a Christmas job there as a student. Really nice staff, especially the manageress (she let me clock in and out a little early so I could get the bus, without which I would've had to wait about 30-40 minutes for the next).
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
In a way, their demise mirrors fundamental changes in British society. Being lower-middle class was in vogue at one time in the 70s and 80s but now it seems as if in order to be trendy you have to be either at the top or bottom.
It has hit a lot of stores / brands. Part of Tesco's trouble is exactly this. People either shop at Aldi / Lidl / Poundland because of cost or some weird trendiness or they want to be seen shopping in Waitrose. Tesco is stuck in the middle. Nobody boosts about having done their weekly in Tescos or Morrisons.
@David_Evershed Turkey first applied for membership in 1987 and has been accepted by the Commission as a potential candidate since 1989. It's not exactly as if Turkey's leverage or any patronage it benefits from has got it very far so far.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
The French constitution requires a referendum if a country with more than 5% of the EU population is to join.
Which is specifically designed to prevent Turkey from joining the EU.
Goldman Sachs will have gotten a whole bunch of major figures to talk at conferences. Hillary Clinton is no doubt one (she also spoke at a Bernstein conference I went to), but there will also be people from across the political spectrum - and some of those people will be Brexiters.
They pay Mrs Clinton - and others - to be provocative at conferences, so that fund managers (like me) will go to the conferences, and so GS can try and try and persuade us to trade with them.
So the facts may be right, but the conclusion slanted.
As an aside, I would bet Nigel Farage hits the 'investment bank lecture circuit' after he steps down from the UKIP leadership. He'll soon be pocketing £50k a speech from Goldmans, Morgans and the like. There will be no shortage of interest in getting him to come along and be contentious.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
Turkey started its application process in 1958 and is as far away as ever. Apart from vetos by existing states (and you may want to add Serbia to those), they have a lot to do to meet the requirements of free speech, democracy and respect for minority rights. Any Turkey that met all those conditions would be a very different place to Erdogans Turkey.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
I visited it yesterday to see if there was any bargains given that it was about to go into administration. However I did not see anything worth buying so I left empty handed.
@David_Evershed Turkey first applied for membership in 1987 and has been accepted by the Commission as a potential candidate since 1989. It's not exactly as if Turkey's leverage or any patronage it benefits from has got it very far so far.
That was before it had 3 million refugees to bargain with. The feeling in Germany is that if they say "yes" they get 3 million Kurds from Turkey, and if they say "no" they get three million Syrians (and others) from Turkey. Mrs Merkel is going to get a kicking when the voters figure that one out.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
The French constitution requires a referendum if a country with more than 5% of the EU population is to join.
Which is specifically designed to prevent Turkey from joining the EU.
What if Turkey only ask for a trade deal with reciprocal residency rights? That would be a QMV decision and get around any French, Greek or Cypriot opposition. Erdogan has the EU over a barrel, if he asked for free movement without membership there is now no guarantee that they wouldn't give it to him.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
I have only ever been in one once. It was a dump. I really don't know what type of consumer they are/were trying to target.
It really is depressing. Don't know why they didn't get that Mary Queen of Shops lady in years ago. But they just seemed to be a permanent fixture without really doing much. Like Woolworths, Index, Wimpeys and others before them I suppose.
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
In a way, their demise mirrors fundamental changes in British society. Being lower-middle class was in vogue at one time in the 70s and 80s but now it seems as if in order to be trendy you have to be either at the top or bottom.
It has hit a lot of stores / brands. Part of Tesco's trouble is exactly this. People either shop at Aldi / Lidl / Poundland because of cost or some weird trendiness or they want to be seen shopping in Waitrose. Tesco is stuck in the middle. Nobody boosts about having done their weekly in Tescos or Morrisons.
TESCO has been trying to serve seven different market segments from the same stores.
It did well using the CLUBcard to understand which segment people were in (eg couples with young children) and sending them targeted promotions. But is has been less good at presenting (or merchandising) its wares to the different segments (eg TESCO Finest). It seemed to have diverted its talent away from segmentation and merchandising into the US and non food ventures.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
What if Turkey only ask for a trade deal with reciprocal residency rights? That would be a QMV decision and get around any French, Greek or Cypriot opposition. Erdogan has the EU over a barrel, if he asked for free movement without membership there is now no guarantee that they wouldn't give it to him.
It's a very interesting question, because I'm not sure it's in the EU's power to make assurances that relate to the Common Travel Area, as that is clearly segregated from the EU in treaties (and contains a number of non-EU members). I guess it could make assurances that relate to Schengen, because that is administered by the EU. However, I would imagine it would lead to the departure of Switzerland, Norway and others from Schengen.
Edit to add: do Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (all of whom are separately members of Schengen, and chose to sign up of their own volition) have any kind of veto on countries being added?
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
In a way, their demise mirrors fundamental changes in British society. Being lower-middle class was in vogue at one time in the 70s and 80s but now it seems as if in order to be trendy you have to be either at the top or bottom.
It has hit a lot of stores / brands. Part of Tesco's trouble is exactly this. People either shop at Aldi / Lidl / Poundland because of cost or some weird trendiness or they want to be seen shopping in Waitrose. Tesco is stuck in the middle. Nobody boosts about having done their weekly in Tescos or Morrisons.
TESCO has been trying to serve seven different market segments from the same stores.
It did well using the CLUBcard to understand which segment people were in (eg couples with young children) and sending them targeted promotions. But is has been less good at presenting (or merchandising) its wares to the different segments (eg TESCO Finest). It seemed to have diverted its talent away from segmentation and merchandising into the US and non food ventures.
It is an interesting point. In comparison, look at GAP. The company operates five primary divisions: the namesake banner, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Intermix, and Athleta. With those different brands they market from rich to poor, cool hipsters to those just looking for function.
I know Tesco has experimented with some bits and pieces like this e.g. Harris + Hoole coffee, but lots of those branches have been placed inside a Tescos. Your Waitrose crowd don't want to be seen going into a Tesco's to buy knobby coffee.
And so they acted. Which they deserve credit for — since most of the time politicians in unwinnable/untenable situations continue to cling to the idea that everyone else is wrong and they are right, right up until they lose.
But action doesn't always produce the desired results. And I think that's what is going to happen here. Let's list the reasons why...
That's where Cruz and Kasich find themselves. And it's why they made this deal. But none of that makes it more likely that the deal will work. It almost certainly won't.
Can this be true? One of the PB REMAINers assured us that Cameron and Osborne were very happy with what Mrs May said and they are always in the know, you know.
And so they acted. Which they deserve credit for — since most of the time politicians in unwinnable/untenable situations continue to cling to the idea that everyone else is wrong and they are right, right up until they lose.
But action doesn't always produce the desired results. And I think that's what is going to happen here. Let's list the reasons why...
That's where Cruz and Kasich find themselves. And it's why they made this deal. But none of that makes it more likely that the deal will work. It almost certainly won't.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
What if Turkey only ask for a trade deal with reciprocal residency rights? That would be a QMV decision and get around any French, Greek or Cypriot opposition. Erdogan has the EU over a barrel, if he asked for free movement without membership there is now no guarantee that they wouldn't give it to him.
It's a very interesting question, because I'm not sure it's in the EU's power to make assurances that relate to the Common Travel Area, as they at is clearly segregated from the EU in treaties. I guess it could make assurances that relate to Schengen, because that is administered by the EU. However, I would imagine it would lead to the departure of Switzerland, Norway and others from Schengen.
Therein lies why Leave should make Turkey/Erdogan the main focus of their campaign on immigration. If they make a big enough deal the EU would either have to come out an deny it, or more likely "we don't know" in which case the 77m migrants claim become real.
"None the less, the speech is in a deeper sense a success. Like the Home Secretary’s procession of Party Conference speeches since 2010, it is a proper, serious, grown-up piece of work. It neither manipulates statistics nor rubbishes opponents. But it is not, as we have seen, without its politics. And most importantly of all, it is less than enthusiatic about Cameron’s deal. One wonders if it will end up being more helpful to Leave than otherwise."
Lord. Why fall out with one sitting President when we can fall out with his probable successor too?
These people need their heads examined, they really do.
Oh look someone not in the official LEAVE group has done something mildly provocative. Quick it is the End of the LEAVE campaign, presumably?
I'm very tired of notional Leave supporters decrying every move as it'd upset someone. Much better to turn both cheeks and let the other side walk all over us. Or worse.
Goldman Sachs will have gotten a whole bunch of major figures to talk at conferences. Hillary Clinton is no doubt one (she also spoke at a Bernstein conference I went to), but there will also be people from across the political spectrum - and some of those people will be Brexiters.
They pay Mrs Clinton - and others - to be provocative at conferences, so that fund managers (like me) will go to the conferences, and so GS can try and try and persuade us to trade with them.
So the facts may be right, but the conclusion slanted.
I really don't see the issue with pointing it out. It clearly demonstrates a very cosy international elite with business relationships and an alignment of views. Whether the chicken or the egg came first, it's still good information and deserves to be in the public domain.
Would we really want to veto Serbia, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro as and when each of them meet the requirements for EU membership? Or for that matter Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? All six together have a population of less than 20 million.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Turkey has leverage.
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
What if Turkey only ask for a trade deal with reciprocal residency rights? That would be a QMV decision and get around any French, Greek or Cypriot opposition. Erdogan has the EU over a barrel, if he asked for free movement without membership there is now no guarantee that they wouldn't give it to him.
It's a very interesting question, because I'm not sure it's in the EU's power to make assurances that relate to the Common Travel Area, as they at is clearly segregated from the EU in treaties. I guess it could make assurances that relate to Schengen, because that is administered by the EU. However, I would imagine it would lead to the departure of Switzerland, Norway and others from Schengen.
Therein lies why Leave should make Turkey/Erdogan the main focus of their campaign on immigration. If they make a big enough deal the EU would either have to come out an deny it, or more likely "we don't know" in which case the 77m migrants claim become real.
Turkey already has a substantial trade agreement, with certain redidency rights, dating back to when the Ankara Agreement established a customs union in 1963
When was the last time anyone on PB visited British Home Stores?
They have fallen into that classic gap. They have been undercut by your Primarks of this world and aren't seen as "quality", so they are in the squeezed middle.
In a way, their demise mirrors fundamental changes in British society. Being lower-middle class was in vogue at one time in the 70s and 80s but now it seems as if in order to be trendy you have to be either at the top or bottom.
It has hit a lot of stores / brands. Part of Tesco's trouble is exactly this. People either shop at Aldi / Lidl / Poundland because of cost or some weird trendiness or they want to be seen shopping in Waitrose. Tesco is stuck in the middle. Nobody boosts about having done their weekly in Tescos or Morrisons.
TESCO has been trying to serve seven different market segments from the same stores.
It did well using the CLUBcard to understand which segment people were in (eg couples with young children) and sending them targeted promotions. But is has been less good at presenting (or merchandising) its wares to the different segments (eg TESCO Finest). It seemed to have diverted its talent away from segmentation and merchandising into the US and non food ventures.
It is an interesting point. In comparison, look at GAP. The company operates five primary divisions: the namesake banner, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Intermix, and Athleta. With those different brands they market from rich to poor, cool hipsters to those just looking for function.
I know Tesco has experimented with some bits and pieces like this e.g. Harris + Hoole coffee, but lots of those branches have been placed inside a Tescos. Your Waitrose crowd don't want to be seen going into a Tesco's to buy knobby coffee.
Tescos success was imo about leadership. They were the Heinz ketchup of supermarkets. They absolutely rolled over in the face of Aldi and Lidl - I'll never understand why. Leadership is about quashing your opponents.
By the by I suppose it's worth mentioning they've now returned to profit.
Can this be true? One of the PB REMAINers assured us that Cameron and Osborne were very happy with what Mrs May said and they are always in the know, you know.
I don't think it is true, I think they're trying to put a bit of 'clear blue water' in between the two positions, and build May up as a bit of a euro-rebel (except one who wants us to stay in).
Comments
NATALIE McGarry MP faces being sued for up to £30,000 after mistakenly accusing an pro-Union campaigner of being a Holocaust denier, it has been reported.
The Glasgow East MP, who is currently suspended from the SNP, was served with a writ demanding a response by May 3.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14450240.Natalie_McGarry_MP_faces_being_sued_after_mistakenly_accusing_pro_Union_campaigner_of_being__Holocaust_denier_
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/24/obamas-visit-to-britain-was-textbook-social-justice-warrior-trolling/
May's speech today covered it well:
.....no country or empire in world history has ever been totally sovereign, completely in control of its destiny. Even at the height of their power, the Roman Empire, Imperial China, the Ottomans, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, modern-day America, were never able to have everything their own way. At different points, military rivals, economic crises, diplomatic manoeuvring, competing philosophies and emerging technologies all played their part in inflicting defeats and hardships, and necessitated compromises even for states as powerful as these.
Today, those factors continue to have their effect on the sovereignty of nations large and small, rich and poor. But there is now an additional complication. International, multilateral institutions exist to try to systematise negotiations between nations, promote trade, ensure cooperation on matters like cross-border crime, and create rules and norms that reduce the risk of conflict.
These institutions invite nation states to make a trade-off: to pool and therefore cede some sovereignty in a controlled way, to prevent a greater loss of sovereignty in an uncontrolled way, through for example military conflict or economic decline.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/04/theresa-mays-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html
The only real exception to this IMO is immigration, but one also has to be realistic about how different things would be outside the EU. Other than that, where Leave campaigners often go wrong is in assuming everyone else must be as passionate about the EU as they are, but most people aren't. People grumble about EU regulations, of course, but grumbling isn't passion.
By the by, I thought you wanted nothing to do with the UK...
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/724636755064946688
Ministers could ease way for councils to run academies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36127447
This is the opening to the article:
Believers in British exit from the EU could have sung Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive” before leaving tearful messages with the White House switchboard begging Barack Obama to change his mind. Short of that, there was no way to handle last week’s presidential rejection of their cause with any less poise.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa300782-088d-11e6-a623-b84d06a39ec2.html#ixzz46rBue3yk
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-at-odds-with-cameron-in-speech-against-eu-court-and-expansion-sjvfbqtq7
The final version (incorporating some of your comments and correcting a couple of points) is here:
http://www.microapl.com/download/EUReferendumBriefingPaper.pdf
Edit: Of course it's a bit out of date now that the Leave side have pretty firnly come out against an EEA-style deal.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/850eb60a-086b-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd33.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz46pk0XzGf
In practice Britain wouldn't. The way EU politics works, on these kinds of issues Britain might try to use the threat of the veto to gather some gains elsewhere or put up some kind of (usually temporary) restrictions but if member states used the veto on every issue where they felt that they would be at least slightly net losers, then the EU would grind to even more of a halt than its current glacial state.
There's another thing about glaciers though - you can laugh at how slowly it moves, but ever tried stopping one?
Direction of travel is, I think, the strongest single argument for Leave. UK governments might be able to cause the EU's trajectory to deviate somewhat in a direction somewhat more palatable to them, but that's about it.
Because the US took all the German scientists after WW2?
Remain has a large number of difficult questions to answer on this and Osborne's assumptions about the rate of EU migration (barely half what we had last year) all the way up to 2030 to boost his growth assumptions is only the start of them.
Will the EU of 2026 have more centralised power or less? Will the EZ be more integrated and more focussed on their group advantage by QMV or less?
How many more democratically elected governments will have been overthrown by Brussels/ECB fiat to join Italy and Greece?
Where are the additional 3m people going to live, go to school, get treated when they are sick, drive their cars or catch trains? Do we want to live in a country with another 3m people even if it has higher GDP?
If Remain win the argument that a vote for remain is a vote for the status quo then they win. Leave need to start talking about the future in terms that people can get. Immigration is a large part of that but it is only a part.
None of them look ready any time soon, so it's not a particularly pressing problem anyway.
Turkey is a different matter entirely and raises a whole different set of problems.
Is this true?
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/724635875473240064
The subsequent Tory civil war will also help. However can't see him staying as leader much after 2018 - he will go then.
As for another Jeremy, Jeremy Hunt - his shelf-life can be measured in weeks if not days...
[Not unlike flood coverage. Somerset got ignored for weeks, maybe months, until the well-set Thames Valley started getting wet. Suddenly, flooding became the top news story].
These people need their heads examined, they really do.
Hunt is doing a great job.
They pay Mrs Clinton - and others - to be provocative at conferences, so that fund managers (like me) will go to the conferences, and so GS can try and try and persuade us to trade with them.
So the facts may be right, but the conclusion slanted.
I agree the Conservative infighting helps Corbyn.
Mr. JS, I had a Christmas job there as a student. Really nice staff, especially the manageress (she let me clock in and out a little early so I could get the bus, without which I would've had to wait about 30-40 minutes for the next).
It is in NATO.
The USA will back Turkey for EU membership.
Which is specifically designed to prevent Turkey from joining the EU.
Probably not enough for Turkey to join. Certainly enough for Turkey to wring concessions from Mad Merkel.
It did well using the CLUBcard to understand which segment people were in (eg couples with young children) and sending them targeted promotions. But is has been less good at presenting (or merchandising) its wares to the different segments (eg TESCO Finest). It seemed to have diverted its talent away from segmentation and merchandising into the US and non food ventures.
Edit to add: do Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (all of whom are separately members of Schengen, and chose to sign up of their own volition) have any kind of veto on countries being added?
I know Tesco has experimented with some bits and pieces like this e.g. Harris + Hoole coffee, but lots of those branches have been placed inside a Tescos. Your Waitrose crowd don't want to be seen going into a Tesco's to buy knobby coffee.
Epic fail — two tower blocks on Merseyside fail to respond to the dynamite (or whatever it is they use).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/watch-explosives-fail-to-demolish-seaforth-tower-blocks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/25/why-the-ted-cruz-john-kasich-alliance-is-destined-to-fail/
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/04/may-sticks-with-remain-but-distances-herself-from-cameron-this-speech-is-a-challenge-to-his-authority.html
As for @DavidL 's comments on people needing their heads examined, I take it he also refers to our dear leader - https://uk.news.yahoo.com/diplomats-forced-play-trump-card-tycoon-closes-nomination-114346368.html - who's sin is far worse, as he's the PM, not just a non-official campaign group. Or is examination a bit too late in this case David?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro
By the by I suppose it's worth mentioning they've now returned to profit.