This is getting beyond silly now from Remain. This is project fear to the ultimate. At this point I think we can now say that when remain wins the people were frightened into this position. This will not be the end of this and if Remain thinks this is now going away when they win are deluded. If anything it is going to get worse.
"David Cameron says Britain's security has always been intertwined with Europe's but Vote Leave says talk of war sounds desperate."
Gosh, many of us didn't realise that Brexit could be such a threat to Life on Planet Earth. Thank goodness that Cameron's "renegotiation" has clinched the deal for so many of us.
To be fair if Brexit leads to a Boris-Trump leadership of Nato, we may very well find that Klaatu shows up with Gort.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
Interesting, Cameron has just played the Scotland card. I wondered if that had been put away because focus groups might have suggested that telling the English that Scotland my Foxtrot Oscar if we vote to leave the EU was not conducive to getting people to vote Remain!
Mr. Meeks, I'm not the PM, but if I were, and I thought global war might be a consequence of a Leave vote, I probably would've mentioned it sooner.
If the Prime Minister has to invoke the threat of global war in order to win this vote then Remain have lost the argument and this referendum will settle nothing.
@Labourpaul: Why? WHY? WHYYYY? RT @callummay: Ken Livingstone is going on @VanessaOnAir's BBC Radio London programme again this morning, politics fans.
He's clearly decided that Labour are going to kick him out any, so why should he bother to shut up?
It's getting to the point well be disappointed that he doesn't bring up hitler.
Gosh, many of us didn't realise that Brexit could be such a threat to Life on Planet Earth. Thank goodness that Cameron's "renegotiation" has clinched the deal for so many of us.
I'm calling for Bruce Willis and Jack Bauer - no one else can save us now.
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
My recollection is plenty thought project fear was a thing, it was a question of it the claims made in it were reasonable, a point on which reasonable people will differ. I also recall many people suggesting it was a bad idea and wishing the no campaign were more positive,
Interesting, Cameron has just played the Scotland card. I wondered if that had been put away because focus groups might have suggested that telling the English that Scotland my Foxtrot Oscar if we vote to leave the EU was not conducive to getting people to vote Remain!
If I thought a vote for remain would keep Scotland in the uk, I would vote for it personally. However I fear Scotland will leave regardless, so there's no point.
Even as a dripping wet Clarke-wing blue, this latest 'warning' from Cammo is at best a little alarmist and begs many questions as to how we got here in the first place in terms of the Govt's positioning on the referendum and its negotiations. All looks 2-faced even to a Remainer like me.
Having said all that, we were told ad nauseam by the head bangers there would never ever ever be a referendum with Dave in No 10.
Gosh, many of us didn't realise that Brexit could be such a threat to Life on Planet Earth. Thank goodness that Cameron's "renegotiation" has clinched the deal for so many of us.
I'm calling for Bruce Willis and Jack Bauer - no one else can save us now.
No. We need Superman. Or the Avengers. or Doctor Who.
Perhaps we should hear their views on Brexit as well. Surely people will listen to them.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
My recollection is plenty thought project fear was a thing, it was a question of it the claims made in it were reasonable, a point on which reasonable people will differ. I also recall many people suggesting it was a bad idea and wishing the no campaign were more positive,
But whatever makes you feel better I suppose.
I'll tell you that your recollection (with no supporting evidence) is unimpeachable if it makes you feel better.
This is getting beyond silly now from Remain. This is project fear to the ultimate. At this point I think we can now say that when remain wins the people were frightened into this position. This will not be the end of this and if Remain thinks this is now going away when they win are deluded. If anything it is going to get worse
Well quite. Especially given the big chunks of "europe" that have been held back pending this referendum, when the public wake up to the EU Army, to our ports getting hammered (anyone worked about what the Ports Directive is going to do to our economy), to the EU wanting a bigger budget and so forth.
For me thought he really interesting bit is the barely spoke of detail that Cameron has given away our right to object to or otherwise obstruct decisions taken in relation to the Eurozone, plus of course the hilarity that will ensue when the ECJ strikes down the immigration handbrake which now looks like a forgone conclusion.
True Surbiton, but London is an irrelevance at national level because there are very few marginal seats in it. Likewise although Labour suffered further humiliation in Scotland and did well in Wales, they can't get worse in the former and can't do much better in the latter.
Therefore what should really please Labour is that they still have a presence in the South and Midlands, and that people are still willing to vote for them there when Corbyn is not a factor. What should worry them is that polling suggests (caveats obviously apply) that he is a personal drag on the Labour ticket in those areas which makes them far more difficult to win at a general election.
The Tories need to retain about 26 seats in London. Croydon Central is the only one in danger on these results.
Tooting probably will fall at some point, but not in a by-election.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I think @MP_SE's comparison with It's Grim Up North London is spot on.
Don't be harsh on Alastair, he spent the weekend on council estates telling the residents that immigration was good for them.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
I assume there are enough mature ones even In The official campaigns to manage such, once they are out if campaign mode. If 50% of the country votes out there must be some number of sensible people in the right places who take that view and can assess such things.
Really? Their four most prominent figures are a boor, a clown, a man who believes in Leave like a fundamentalist religion and an ivory tower academic. Just where do you see the maturity coming from?
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
The IndyRef and the EURef have both proved Cameron is a ruthless, scorched earth type when it comes to winning or losing. His quintessentially upper middle class charm belies a belligerent competitive streak.
He certainly fights to win.
I can't imagine relationships within the Tory party will be anything other than frosty post-Ref!
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
They thought they'd only have to contend with 50-60 rebel MPs, no serious major politician for Brexit and win the vote by 65:35 and thereby close the issue down for good.
Alistair Meeks- a good article. Tooting and the prospect of losing a Labour seat is something potentially much more dangerous to Corbyn than the locals.
Interesting, Cameron has just played the Scotland card. I wondered if that had been put away because focus groups might have suggested that telling the English that Scotland my Foxtrot Oscar if we vote to leave the EU was not conducive to getting people to vote Remain!
If I thought a vote for remain would keep Scotland in the uk, I would vote for it personally. However I fear Scotland will leave regardless, so there's no point.
What makes you so keen to keep Scotland in the Union? Admittedly, I think I would have voted to stay in the UK if I'd had a vote in the referendum - or abstained, but if they really want to go...
Personally, I think they'd still vote to stay in the UK even if we'd voted to leave the EU. I don't think it's as big an issue for ordinary Scots as the SNP make it out to be. The price of oil would be a much bigger issue.
I am thoroughly enjoying this - Remainers here have been pretty smug about their supposed campaigning nous. It peaked at Obama - and then backfired all over them, and now we've got them literally claiming WW3 may ensue.
Sky feedback - damning from viewers, awful headlines, smacks of desperation.
Me thinks that perhaps Remainers have been drinking their own Kool-Aid.
Am looking forward to Boris - a biographer of Churchill, demolishing Cameron's twaddle in his own unique way.
"Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns."
the fear then was of economic problems, you weren't being threatened with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Cameron, the even-handed negotiator open to persuasion? A little porky, I presume?
As for Scottish independence; as a Brit, I'd be sorry to see you go, but if I were Scottish, I would have voted for independence, expecting to be slightly worse off. But without fear of World War Three, the bubonic plague and an epidemic of zombies.
They thought they'd only have to contend with 50-60 rebel MPs, no serious major politician for Brexit and win the vote by 65:35 and thereby close the issue down for good.
They were wrong.
Bingo. Dave screwed up. Too much playing with his iPad, not enough homework.
In a letter to the Telegraph, 14 academics and authors including Andrew Roberts say Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
Even as a dripping wet Clarke-wing blue, this latest 'warning' from Cammo is at best a little alarmist and begs many questions as to how we got here in the first place in terms of the Govt's positioning on the referendum and its negotiations. All looks 2-faced even to a Remainer like me.
Having said all that, we were told ad nauseam by the head bangers there would never ever ever be a referendum with Dave in No 10.
Even as a dripping wet Clarke-wing blue, this latest 'warning' from Cammo is at best a little alarmist and begs many questions as to how we got here in the first place in terms of the Govt's positioning on the referendum and its negotiations. All looks 2-faced even to a Remainer like me.
Having said all that, we were told ad nauseam by the head bangers there would never ever ever be a referendum with Dave in No 10.
I was probably one of those headbangers and happy to admit I was wrong. But we got it by default, its clear Cameron didn't expect a majority and would have used the Libs in a trade off to avoid the referendum.
Neither rational argument nor bullying will win the referendum, but one or other side setting themselves up as a laughing stock might. So well done David Cameron for outdoing the assorted "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".
True Surbiton, but London is an irrelevance at national level because there are very few marginal seats in it. Likewise although Labour suffered further humiliation in Scotland and did well in Wales, they can't get worse in the former and can't do much better in the latter.
Therefore what should really please Labour is that they still have a presence in the South and Midlands, and that people are still willing to vote for them there when Corbyn is not a factor. What should worry them is that polling suggests (caveats obviously apply) that he is a personal drag on the Labour ticket in those areas which makes them far more difficult to win at a general election.
You know many Tories moved out of London and that is why places like Basildon, Billericay, Thurrock became Tory. Now the new "emigrants", many of whom to the fringes are taking their Labour voting habit with them. Ilford North , for example, used to be won in very good years. In 2015 Labour won it. Some of the Redbridge seats are becoming tighter, The South West in London could also change after the Lib Dem wipe out.
You could say the same sort of thing about the cities and environs of Chester, or Cannock, or Cardiff. But I can't see that translating into the 100 seats Labour needs to win to form a government, or even 50 to coalesce with the SNP, while Corbyn is in charge.
Actually only 10 plus a little help from the Liberals.
Labour can't form a government on 242 seats. That would leave 320 Conservatives (okay, Heidi Allen might go over to Labour) 10 Unionists, and 1 UKIP ranged against them. They'd need 252 in order for Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, SDLP, Plaid, and Lady Hermon to reach 323. If the Tories gain a handful in Scotland, then the bar is higher.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
The IndyRef and the EURef have both proved Cameron is a ruthless, scorched earth type when it comes to winning or losing. His quintessentially upper middle class charm belies a belligerent competitive streak.
He certainly fights to win.
I can't imagine relationships within the Tory party will be anything other than frosty post-Ref!
The problem with that approach is of course if you lose, you are completely toast with no credibility left at all, and even if you win the list of people that are pissed off with you and looking to stab you in the back is substantially longer. If we wanted to complete people annoyance with him, he would go and become an EU Trade Commissioner after he leaves/gets kicked out.
In a letter to the Telegraph, 14 academics and authors including Andrew Roberts say Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe
I'd have more confidence in their prognostications if they were called Historians for Accuracy. Though I suppose at least they wear their biases upfront.
Be fair Alistair, the plural of 'historian' is 'argument'. Look at TSE and Morris Dancer.
In a letter to the Telegraph, 14 academics and authors including Andrew Roberts say Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe
I'd have more confidence in their prognostications if they were called Historians for Accuracy. Though I suppose at least they wear their biases upfront.
So what's your argument against the proposition that Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe?
You are probably right Casino- but for me the fact that anyone would so cynically put party and political expediency over national interest- something which Cameron and Osborne have done judging by their comments about the potential damage caused by an Exit- it doesn't really make them fit for holding office.
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
They thought they'd only have to contend with 50-60 rebel MPs, no serious major politician for Brexit and win the vote by 65:35 and thereby close the issue down for good.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
The IndyRef and the EURef have both proved Cameron is a ruthless, scorched earth type when it comes to winning or losing. His quintessentially upper middle class charm belies a belligerent competitive streak.
He certainly fights to win.
I can't imagine relationships within the Tory party will be anything other than frosty post-Ref!
He certainly fights to win battles, wars maybe not so much. I get the feeling if the consequences won't hit the fan under his watch then his will to win isn't quite as developed.
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
No it was the post war settlement imposed by the US on Germany that changed that. The EU is the result of that change not the cause of it.
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
Without those American and British divisions sitting in West Germany in the fifties and sixties those countries would not have had the time and space to form the EU and changing their thinking about each other.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
I assume there are enough mature ones even In The official campaigns to manage such, once they are out if campaign mode. If 50% of the country votes out there must be some number of sensible people in the right places who take that view and can assess such things.
Really? Their four most prominent figures are a boor, a clown, a man who believes in Leave like a fundamentalist religion and an ivory tower academic. Just where do you see the maturity coming from?
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
A very fair point. If Cameron really believed his warnings, he would never have offered the vote.
You are probably right Casino- but for me the fact that anyone would so cynically put party and political expediency over national interest- something which Cameron and Osborne have done judging by their comments about the potential damage caused by an Exit- it doesn't really make them fit for holding office.
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
They thought they'd only have to contend with 50-60 rebel MPs, no serious major politician for Brexit and win the vote by 65:35 and thereby close the issue down for good.
They were wrong.
In my view our national interest lies in Leaving the EU and almost half of the population agrees.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
So which side do you stand with? You clearly object to many here being fellow travellers with PF1, so where do you stand on PF2?
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
I assume there are enough mature ones even In The official campaigns to manage such, once they are out if campaign mode. If 50% of the country votes out there must be some number of sensible people in the right places who take that view and can assess such things.
Really? Their four most prominent figures are a boor, a clown, a man who believes in Leave like a fundamentalist religion and an ivory tower academic. Just where do you see the maturity coming from?
Which of those do you expect to be the PM after the referendum if its a leave result ? Let's cut the crap, it won't be any of them, so stop insulting our intelligence with this nonsense.
"Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns."
the fear then was of economic problems, you weren't being threatened with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Cameron, the even-handed negotiator open to persuasion? A little porky, I presume?
As for Scottish independence; as a Brit, I'd be sorry to see you go, but if I were Scottish, I would have voted for independence, expecting to be slightly worse off. But without fear of World War Three, the bubonic plague and an epidemic of zombies.
You evidently weren't paying enough attention. This was just the terrorism angle.
“Scottish Independence Would Make The Whole UK Vulnerable To Terror Attack, Military Officials Warn”
“Scottish Independence will inspire ‘chaos, terrorism and aggression'”
“Scottish independence: May terror warning”
“Vote for Scottish independence would make ‘UK more vulnerable to terror attack'”
“Scotland ‘more likely to suffer catastrophic terror attack if it achieves independence'”
“Independence would turn Scotland into soft underbelly for terrorists”
“Cameron: ‘Yes’ Vote Will Make Scottish ‘More Vulnerable to Islamic Terror’”
The notion that the question is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both institutions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
No it was the post war settlement imposed by the US on Germany that changed that. The EU is the result of that change not the cause of it.
You cannot impose a settlement against the will of a people. See Iraq, Afghanistan and others. I don't think it's unreasonabe to say that Germany shocked itself with where it went pre-1945 and genuinely felt a deep sense of shame and guilt - and hence the need to reform. But without the ECSC and the links it created, Germany's neighbours would have been less likely to be so co-operative. Although NATO certainly played a major role in the process, during the late 1940s and early 1950s it wasn't obvious that this would remain so - The US had a track record of backing out of commitments and with the potential of a Robert Taft presidency (very real in 1950-1), NATO could easily have had a short life. France's fear of Germany and Germany's fear of itself were critical in developing a European mindset.
In a letter to the Telegraph, 14 academics and authors including Andrew Roberts say Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
None of which bears on Britain's membership.
Remainers have been the ones for years telling us 'not to bang on about Europe', because no-one cares, it's a marginal political issue etc. Now we find that it has been the cornerstone of world civilisation all along. Who knew?
In a letter to the Telegraph, 14 academics and authors including Andrew Roberts say Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe
I'd have more confidence in their prognostications if they were called Historians for Accuracy. Though I suppose at least they wear their biases upfront.
So what's your argument against the proposition that Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe?
Unlike so many Leavers, I can use the word "and" as well as the word "or".
In the immediate post-war period, Europe was a frozen conflict zone, hence the phrase "cold war". The EEC helped unify those on the western side, increasing cooperation between countries that had previously been at war with each other and enabling them to work together more harmoniously. It's worth noting that for many years France was outside NATO militarily.
It is no coincidence that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the war zones in eastern Europe have taken place in the countries that did not initially work towards joining the EU. By nurturing democracy in the new accession states, potentially dangerous clashes between countries like Hungary and Romania have been confined so far to diplomatic spats. By way of contrast, Moldova has been allowed to be partitioned by Russia and Yugoslavia fell apart with ethnic strife. Latterly, the aim of EU membership has helped keep a lid on and defuse ethnic tensions in the Balkans.
Has it been the only guarantor of peace in Europe? No. Has it actually guaranteed peace in Europe? No. Has it done a lot to help keep peace in Europe? Yes.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
I assume there are enough mature ones even In The official campaigns to manage such, once they are out if campaign mode. If 50% of the country votes out there must be some number of sensible people in the right places who take that view and can assess such things.
Really? Their four most prominent figures are a boor, a clown, a man who believes in Leave like a fundamentalist religion and an ivory tower academic. Just where do you see the maturity coming from?
Which of those do you expect to be the PM after the referendum if its a leave result ? Let's cut the crap, it won't be any of them, so stop insulting our intelligence with this nonsense.
Either the clown or the ivory tower academic. Probably the ivory tower academic.
You are probably right Casino- but for me the fact that anyone would so cynically put party and political expediency over national interest- something which Cameron and Osborne have done judging by their comments about the potential damage caused by an Exit- it doesn't really make them fit for holding office.
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
They thought they'd only have to contend with 50-60 rebel MPs, no serious major politician for Brexit and win the vote by 65:35 and thereby close the issue down for good.
They were wrong.
Or they could just be lying about the national interest to win - you decide.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I think @MP_SE's comparison with It's Grim Up North London is spot on.
Don't be harsh on Alastair, he spent the weekend on council estates telling the residents that immigration was good for them.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
Agreed. I spoke to VL last week.
I think Vote Leave have moved from honourably fighting the good fight to thinking they might actually have a shot at it.
@Labourpaul: Why? WHY? WHYYYY? RT @callummay: Ken Livingstone is going on @VanessaOnAir's BBC Radio London programme again this morning, politics fans.
Good morning kkkkke....HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Your normal rational self goes all Superman and Kryptonite when it comes to personalities in the Leave campaign. I admit I have the same feeling about Jezza, but it's not personal. He is probably a personable loon, but a loon nevertheless.
Be careful you don't work on the basis that ... He disagrees with me, therefore he's the font of all nastiness and stupidity.
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
Without those American and British divisions sitting in West Germany in the fifties and sixties those countries would not have had the time and space to form the EU and changing their thinking about each other.
So you don't dispute that it's not an either/or question then?
Actually, they probably would have had the space. The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out - the most provocative actions, with the possible early exception of the Berlin blockade, were made by NATO. The history of the Cold War would certainly have been different had the US withdrawn from NATO but it doesn't mean that the Red Army would have been rolling across the North European plain as soon as the last GI left the continent.
If the EU is so keen on peace, which I don't doubt in the slightest, its silly to predict they'll wage war on us if we lose.
The numbers on betfair are interesting, substantial sums wanting to back IN, I suspect they are traders rather than supporters. The big players on betfair are able to take rational, neutral stances.
Unlike so many Leavers, I can use the word "and" as well as the word "or".
In the immediate post-war period, Europe was a frozen conflict zone, hence the phrase "cold war". The EEC helped unify those on the western side, increasing cooperation between countries that had previously been at war with each other and enabling them to work together more harmoniously. It's worth noting that for many years France was outside NATO militarily.
It is no coincidence that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the war zones in eastern Europe have taken place in the countries that did not initially work towards joining the EU. By nurturing democracy in the new accession states, potentially dangerous clashes between countries like Hungary and Romania have been confined so far to diplomatic spats. By way of contrast, Moldova has been allowed to be partitioned by Russia and Yugoslavia fell apart with ethnic strife. Latterly, the aim of EU membership has helped keep a lid on and defuse ethnic tensions in the Balkans.
Has it been the only guarantor of peace in Europe? No. Has it actually guaranteed peace in Europe? No. Has it done a lot to help keep peace in Europe? Yes.
That's why it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.
Wow. Your knowledge of history ready is very very poor indeed .
The thing that struck me last night about the EU vote- the potential security and economic implications of an exit (something which I partly agree with), why if an exit was so potentially damaging to our country, why then would Cameron and Osborne have put something so toxic as an election pledge?
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
Which is surely the first question that will be asked of the Remain side in the debate.
I can imagine a positive Leaver like Hannan or Gove asking Cameron or Osborne that if it will be the end of the world if we leave, why on Earth did they give us a vote on it?!
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
So which side do you stand with? You clearly object to many here being fellow travellers with PF1, so where do you stand on PF2?
I stick by the principle that being persuaded by a Project Fear is a crappy reason to vote for any specific outcome. However as I've said previously this for me is a case of the least of several evils, and a Scotland voting narrowly to leave dragged out of the EU by an rUK voting strongly to leave would be the worst case scenario. Being stuck in a halitosis-infused embrace with a UK defacto or actually governed by the likes of Johnson, Gove, IDS and Farage doesn't bear thinking about.
The notion that the question is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both institutions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
No it was the post war settlement imposed by the US on Germany that changed that. The EU is the result of that change not the cause of it.
You cannot impose a settlement against the will of a people. See Iraq, Afghanistan and others. I don't think it's unreasonabe to say that Germany shocked itself with where it went pre-1945 and genuinely felt a deep sense of shame and guilt - and hence the need to reform. But without the ECSC and the links it created, Germany's neighbours would have been less likely to be so co-operative. Although NATO certainly played a major role in the process, during the late 1940s and early 1950s it wasn't obvious that this would remain so - The US had a track record of backing out of commitments and with the potential of a Robert Taft presidency (very real in 1950-1), NATO could easily have had a short life. France's fear of Germany and Germany's fear of itself were critical in developing a European mindset.
Oh I think you can impose a settlement if you really want to, and this is exactly what happened. No repetition of the mistakes made after WWI.
I think it's quite reasonable nevertheless to argue that the EU has been a good thing for France and Germany. But that has nothing much to do with the current debate, which concerns the UK. The Franco-German rapprochement happened long before we joined and is certainly not dependent on us remaining a member.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I think @MP_SE's comparison with It's Grim Up North London is spot on.
Don't be harsh on Alastair, he spent the weekend on council estates telling the residents that immigration was good for them.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
Agreed. I spoke to VL last week.
I think Vote Leave have moved from honourably fighting the good fight to thinking they might actually have a shot at it.
Correct, as I posted on Friday after my conversation, the plan now is play safe, avoid mistakes or controversy such as Le Pen. They are confident that Remain have played all their cards and are simply hoping, this thread won't discourage that feeling.
This is getting beyond silly now from Remain. This is project fear to the ultimate. At this point I think we can now say that when remain wins the people were frightened into this position. This will not be the end of this and if Remain thinks this is now going away when they win are deluded. If anything it is going to get worse
Well quite. Especially given the big chunks of "europe" that have been held back pending this referendum, when the public wake up to the EU Army, to our ports getting hammered (anyone worked about what the Ports Directive is going to do to our economy), to the EU wanting a bigger budget and so forth.
For me thought he really interesting bit is the barely spoke of detail that Cameron has given away our right to object to or otherwise obstruct decisions taken in relation to the Eurozone, plus of course the hilarity that will ensue when the ECJ strikes down the immigration handbrake which now looks like a forgone conclusion.
Vote Leave could do a lot worse than dedicate a day to looking at Dave's 'deal' just run through the bullet points and outline how each one is either rubbish or has since been recinded or shown to be worthless. Dave is meant to be campaigning to stay in a 'reformed EU', but the deal has never been mentioned. It's like a dog turd on the hearth rug from a visiting Duchess's poodle. No-one wants to mention it but it's getting stinkier by the minute.
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
Without those American and British divisions sitting in West Germany in the fifties and sixties those countries would not have had the time and space to form the EU and changing their thinking about each other.
So you don't dispute that it's not an either/or question then?
Actually, they probably would have had the space. The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out - the most provocative actions, with the possible early exception of the Berlin blockade, were made by NATO. The history of the Cold War would certainly have been different had the US withdrawn from NATO but it doesn't mean that the Red Army would have been rolling across the North European plain as soon as the last GI left the continent.
I think it beside the point in the either case. Even the PM didn't think it would be a problem in his speech of November last year, its only when his back is against the wall it suddenly becomes an issue, the problem is everyone can see it, and it's not an attractive look.
The notion that the quesion is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both instutitions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
Without those American and British divisions sitting in West Germany in the fifties and sixties those countries would not have had the time and space to form the EU and changing their thinking about each other.
So you don't dispute that it's not an either/or question then?
Actually, they probably would have had the space. The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out - the most provocative actions, with the possible early exception of the Berlin blockade, were made by NATO. The history of the Cold War would certainly have been different had the US withdrawn from NATO but it doesn't mean that the Red Army would have been rolling across the North European plain as soon as the last GI left the continent.
I think it beside the point in the either case. Even the PM didn't think it would be a problem in his speech of November last year, its only when his back is against the wall it suddenly becomes an issue, the problem is everyone can see it, and it's not an attractive look.
You cannot impose a settlement against the will of a people. See Iraq, Afghanistan and others. I don't think it's unreasonabe to say that Germany shocked itself with where it went pre-1945 and genuinely felt a deep sense of shame and guilt - and hence the need to reform. But without the ECSC and the links it created, Germany's neighbours would have been less likely to be so co-operative. Although NATO certainly played a major role in the process, during the late 1940s and early 1950s it wasn't obvious that this would remain so - The US had a track record of backing out of commitments and with the potential of a Robert Taft presidency (very real in 1950-1), NATO could easily have had a short life. France's fear of Germany and Germany's fear of itself were critical in developing a European mindset.
The Allies imposed the industrial system, and the entire post war settlement on Germany. The fact that the Germans were able to accept it because of their shame, guilt and the utter destruction of their country combined well with the fear of Russian attack and domination. As I say, the EEC was a consequence of that not a cause of it.
Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns. Why, it seems like only two years ago that it was being argued that Project Fear I didn't actually exist and was a chimera dreamt up by Nats.
So which side do you stand with? You clearly object to many here being fellow travellers with PF1, so where do you stand on PF2?
I stick by the principle that being persuaded by a Project Fear is a crappy reason to vote for any specific outcome. However as I've said previously this for me is a case of the least of several evils, and a Scotland voting narrowly to leave dragged out of the EU by an rUK voting strongly to leave would be the worst case scenario. Being stuck in a halitosis-infused embrace with a UK defacto or actually governed by the likes of Johnson, Gove, IDS and Farage doesn't bear thinking about.
Farage won't be governing anything, ever, so please stop telling yourself that for the sake of your own sanity.
I'm going to attempt to be generous about the PM's ludicrous claim regarding the EU and war..
At one time this may have been true, but as of now there is enough cultural homogeneity amongst especially young people in Europe to give the same result outwith the bureaucratic meddlings of a supra-national institution such as the EU especially with regards to notions such as war.
As a thought experiment, is a war with Norway likely any time soon ?
@Labourpaul: Why? WHY? WHYYYY? RT @callummay: Ken Livingstone is going on @VanessaOnAir's BBC Radio London programme again this morning, politics fans.
Good morning kkkkke....HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
@Labourpaul: Why? WHY? WHYYYY? RT @callummay: Ken Livingstone is going on @VanessaOnAir's BBC Radio London programme again this morning, politics fans.
Good morning kkkkke....HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Should make for great listening. She's extremely clever, wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
I'm going to attempt to be generous about the PM's ludicrous claim regarding the EU and war..
At one time this may have been true, but as of now there is enough cultural homogeneity amongst especially young people in Europe to give the same result outwith the bureaucratic meddlings of a supra-national institution such as the EU especially with regards to notions such as war.
As a thought experiment, is a war with Norway likely any time soon ?
British Prime Ministers seldom do well out of debates on Norway.
Dropbox has cancelled its free shuttle in San Francisco, its gym washing service, pushed back dinner time by an hour and curtailed the number of guests to five per month (previously it was unlimited). These cuttings will directly impact Dropbox's profitability. According to a leaked memo, obtained by BI, employee perks alone cost the company at least $25,000 a year for each employee. (Dropbox has nearly 1,500 employees.)
The notion that the question is an either/or is so ignorant as to be laughable. Both institutions played a crucial role. They did so not only in practical effects but even more importantly in changing the way that France and (West) Germany thought about themselves and their relation to each other.
No it was the post war settlement imposed by the US on Germany that changed that. The EU is the result of that change not the cause of it.
You cannot impose a settlement against the will of a people. See Iraq, Afghanistan and others. I don't think it's unreasonabe to say that Germany shocked itself with where it went pre-1945 and genuinely felt a deep sense of shame and guilt - and hence the need to reform. But without the ECSC and the links it created, Germany's neighbours would have been less likely to be so co-operative. Although NATO certainly played a major role in the process, during the late 1940s and early 1950s it wasn't obvious that this would remain so - The US had a track record of backing out of commitments and with the potential of a Robert Taft presidency (very real in 1950-1), NATO could easily have had a short life. France's fear of Germany and Germany's fear of itself were critical in developing a European mindset.
Oh I think you can impose a settlement if you really want to, and this is exactly what happened. No repetition of the mistakes made after WWI.
I think it's quite reasonable nevertheless to argue that the EU has been a good thing for France and Germany. But that has nothing much to do with the current debate, which concerns the UK. The Franco-German rapprochement happened long before we joined and is certainly not dependent on us remaining a member.
Actually, yes, you're right: you can impose a settlement. What you can't do is impose a *democratic* settlement without the consent of the governed, and the consent will not come about if they're not bought into it. Obviously, that democracy didn't come about immediately and the restoration of West Germany was a function of the Cold War (cf Austria, for example). And yes, the rapprochement came about before the UK's entry into the EEC but that wasn't the point: the point was that both NATO and the ECSC and its successors played a significant role in minimising the risk of future wars between their members.
I know this is way to much to hope for, but I do wonder what the real reactions of the remain camp (especially on here) would be to a thumping win for Leave, say 65/35, would they continue in their sneering superiority convinced that two thirds of the electorate were wrong and they they knew better ?
For me this is the most noticeably difference between the two camps, both camps feel the other are wrong, which is to be expected, the Remain seem to add all those other emotions usually associated with left wing politics, they attempt to belittle and demonise the other camp as well.
I think Remainers are wrong, period, I am sure they are perfectly agreeable people, who I just happen to disagree with. Yet supporters of Remain for some reason feel the need to look down their nose at supporters of Leave, everthing is said with a sneer and a healthy dose of condescension, as if we only could be as educated and cultured as they are we would clearly see the merits of their views.
I'm going to attempt to be generous about the PM's ludicrous claim regarding the EU and war..
At one time this may have been true, but as of now there is enough cultural homogeneity amongst especially young people in Europe to give the same result outwith the bureaucratic meddlings of a supra-national institution such as the EU especially with regards to notions such as war.
As a thought experiment, is a war with Norway likely any time soon ?
That is simply not what the Prime Minister is saying.
This is getting beyond silly now from Remain. This is project fear to the ultimate. At this point I think we can now say that when remain wins the people were frightened into this position. This will not be the end of this and if Remain thinks this is now going away when they win are deluded. If anything it is going to get worse
Well quite. Especially given the big chunks of "europe" that have been held back pending this referendum, when the public wake up to the EU Army, to our ports getting hammered (anyone worked about what the Ports Directive is going to do to our economy), to the EU wanting a bigger budget and so forth.
For me thought he really interesting bit is the barely spoke of detail that Cameron has given away our right to object to or otherwise obstruct decisions taken in relation to the Eurozone, plus of course the hilarity that will ensue when the ECJ strikes down the immigration handbrake which now looks like a forgone conclusion.
Vote Leave could do a lot worse than dedicate a day to looking at Dave's 'deal' just run through the bullet points and outline how each one is either rubbish or has since been recinded or shown to be worthless. Dave is meant to be campaigning to stay in a 'reformed EU', but the deal has never been mentioned. It's like a dog turd on the hearth rug from a visiting Duchess's poodle. No-one wants to mention it but it's getting stinkier by the minute.
LIKE
I think this is something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Dave said that he didn't want to stay in an unreformed EU but has never mentioned his negotiation that prompted his Saulian moment.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I think @MP_SE's comparison with It's Grim Up North London is spot on.
Don't be harsh on Alastair, he spent the weekend on council estates telling the residents that immigration was good for them.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
Agreed. I spoke to VL last week.
I think Vote Leave have moved from honourably fighting the good fight to thinking they might actually have a shot at it.
Correct, as I posted on Friday after my conversation, the plan now is play safe, avoid mistakes or controversy such as Le Pen. They are confident that Remain have played all their cards and are simply hoping, this thread won't discourage that feeling.
But we must be under no illusions: Remain haven't played all their cards yet.
The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out"
The big flash point was 1962 and the Cuban Missile crisis. You can blame Kruschev for arming Cuba, or you can blame the US for positioning Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but the EU was nowhere to be seen - it was the baby sleeping peacefully in it's cot. I went to bed on October 26th 1962 wondering if I'd be alive in the morning.
To suggest the EU had any effect is like my claiming that our family stopped the war because our front door happened to be red at the time.
Dropbox has cancelled its free shuttle in San Francisco, its gym washing service, pushed back dinner time by an hour and curtailed the number of guests to five per month (previously it was unlimited). These cuttings will directly impact Dropbox's profitability. According to a leaked memo, obtained by BI, employee perks alone cost the company at least $25,000 a year for each employee. (Dropbox has nearly 1,500 employees.)
Mostly by moving to one of dropbox's competitors, at the level of staff they are looking for, the package and the perks matter, especially now dropbox isn't doing cutting edge development any more. Top tier developers are always in heavy demand, a decade or so ago I was maybe a second tier developer, good, but not in Dropbox's league, and I was fielding 15ish job offers a day at times. Then I got old
The comments below the line have made for a truly enjoyable read this morning. If we vote to leave the EU the metropolitan elite's collective meltdown will be very entertaining. I am now off to spend the morning delivering leaflets.
As a thought experiment, is a war with Norway likely any time soon ?
Of course not, which is why Cameron's argument doesn't stand up. Our EU membership, or not, has little bearing on the matter. Our potential enemies are enemies of EU and non-EU countries, and more broadly NATO, the OECD, the west, and the anglosphere. We are not proposing to sever defence ties with NATO or our other allies.
'I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.'
If the risks to the economy are so great not to mention the threat of War do you really believe that Cameron would have risked having a referendum ?
Maybe you should ask Cameron why we bother being a NATO member.
Time for the Remain side to grow up if they want to retain any credibility.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I think @MP_SE's comparison with It's Grim Up North London is spot on.
Don't be harsh on Alastair, he spent the weekend on council estates telling the residents that immigration was good for them.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
Agreed. I spoke to VL last week.
I think Vote Leave have moved from honourably fighting the good fight to thinking they might actually have a shot at it.
Correct, as I posted on Friday after my conversation, the plan now is play safe, avoid mistakes or controversy such as Le Pen. They are confident that Remain have played all their cards and are simply hoping, this thread won't discourage that feeling.
But we must be under no illusions: Remain haven't played all their cards yet.
Plenty more to come in the next 6 weeks.
I do hope so, more implausible claims of armageddon will add to the gaiety of the nation, and I am all in favour of Remain trying to damage their own credibility, the adage about "less is more" hasn't occurred to them it seems.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
I assume there are enough mature ones even In The official campaigns to manage such, once they are out if campaign mode. If 50% of the country votes out there must be some number of sensible people in the right places who take that view and can assess such things.
Really? Their four most prominent figures are a boor, a clown, a man who believes in Leave like a fundamentalist religion and an ivory tower academic. Just where do you see the maturity coming from?
I'm optimistic ones will emerge, and all that they are more mature than when they are in campaign mode.
I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.
It seems that AlastairMeeks is really quite worried at the very suggestion that Britain might leave the undemocratic, unresponsive, frequently obstructionist and mostly protectionist EU. Bluntly, he has to accept that the benefits of leaving might outweigh those of staying - especially for those who might be in different circumstances to him and be attracted to different prospects. Higher wages, better access to public services and stronger ties with the rest of the world are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for PB Leavers to point that out.
I have always been open to that second "might". I discount it because in order for those benefits to outweigh the disadvantages it would require maturity in assessing the competing risks. The screaming infantilism of so many Leavers leads me to conclude that the necessary maturity in the Leave camp is entirely absent.
Luckily for you, if Leave wins, people on here will not be involved in the post vote discussions and negotiations.
So, might be time to quit the screaming ad-homism.
Mr. SE, if we vote to Leave, it's still not certain.
I have suspicions a narrow Leave win (and a large one seems unfathomable) would lead Cameron to bugger up negotiations, then ask people "Do you really want this terrible deal [I have negotiated]?" in a second referendum.
A bit like asking if there's something other than sprouts, and being asked in turn whether excrement sandwiches would be preferred.
Comments
"David Cameron says Britain's security has always been intertwined with Europe's but Vote Leave says talk of war sounds desperate."
http://news.sky.com/story/1692605/brexit-could-lead-to-war-in-europe-pm
Cameron and Osborne have to answer the charge of risking the future of the country on an expedient election pledge.
But whatever makes you feel better I suppose.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Desk-clock-love-David-Cameron/dp/B00XBYXNWO/277-4599270-7344543?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Cameron?
Having said all that, we were told ad nauseam by the head bangers there would never ever ever be a referendum with Dave in No 10.
Perhaps we should hear their views on Brexit as well. Surely people will listen to them.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00K59FJ6Q
For me thought he really interesting bit is the barely spoke of detail that Cameron has given away our right to object to or otherwise obstruct decisions taken in relation to the Eurozone, plus of course the hilarity that will ensue when the ECJ strikes down the immigration handbrake which now looks like a forgone conclusion.
Tooting probably will fall at some point, but not in a by-election.
FPT and the Zulu link, I laughed out loud. There is no better sight than to see a bully humiliated.
Others have mentioned that private polling could be bad for Remain, that is the view of the MEP I spoke to last week who is close to Vote Leave, VL are becoming increasingly confident.
"Here's a free vote. We could survive perfectly well outside the EU. Although we will be embroiled in global warfare."
It will be interesting to see how the vaguely interested/floating voters take it, though.
He certainly fights to win.
I can't imagine relationships within the Tory party will be anything other than frosty post-Ref!
They were wrong.
Personally, I think they'd still vote to stay in the UK even if we'd voted to leave the EU. I don't think it's as big an issue for ordinary Scots as the SNP make it out to be. The price of oil would be a much bigger issue.
Sky feedback - damning from viewers, awful headlines, smacks of desperation.
Me thinks that perhaps Remainers have been drinking their own Kool-Aid.
Am looking forward to Boris - a biographer of Churchill, demolishing Cameron's twaddle in his own unique way.
"Marvellous to see so many new converts to the idea that Projects Fear are lazy, dishonest, blustering ways to run referendum campaigns."
the fear then was of economic problems, you weren't being threatened with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Cameron, the even-handed negotiator open to persuasion? A little porky, I presume?
As for Scottish independence; as a Brit, I'd be sorry to see you go, but if I were Scottish, I would have voted for independence, expecting to be slightly worse off. But without fear of World War Three, the bubonic plague and an epidemic of zombies.
So what's your argument against the proposition that Nato, not the EU, has guaranteed peace in Europe?
“Scottish Independence Would Make The Whole UK Vulnerable To Terror Attack, Military Officials Warn”
“Scottish Independence will inspire ‘chaos, terrorism and aggression'”
“Scottish independence: May terror warning”
“Vote for Scottish independence would make ‘UK more vulnerable to terror attack'”
“Scotland ‘more likely to suffer catastrophic terror attack if it achieves independence'”
“Independence would turn Scotland into soft underbelly for terrorists”
“Cameron: ‘Yes’ Vote Will Make Scottish ‘More Vulnerable to Islamic Terror’”
http://tinyurl.com/z3hegk5
None of which bears on Britain's membership.
Remainers have been the ones for years telling us 'not to bang on about Europe', because no-one cares, it's a marginal political issue etc. Now we find that it has been the cornerstone of world civilisation all along. Who knew?
Unlike so many Leavers, I can use the word "and" as well as the word "or".
In the immediate post-war period, Europe was a frozen conflict zone, hence the phrase "cold war". The EEC helped unify those on the western side, increasing cooperation between countries that had previously been at war with each other and enabling them to work together more harmoniously. It's worth noting that for many years France was outside NATO militarily.
It is no coincidence that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the war zones in eastern Europe have taken place in the countries that did not initially work towards joining the EU. By nurturing democracy in the new accession states, potentially dangerous clashes between countries like Hungary and Romania have been confined so far to diplomatic spats. By way of contrast, Moldova has been allowed to be partitioned by Russia and Yugoslavia fell apart with ethnic strife. Latterly, the aim of EU membership has helped keep a lid on and defuse ethnic tensions in the Balkans.
Has it been the only guarantor of peace in Europe? No. Has it actually guaranteed peace in Europe? No. Has it done a lot to help keep peace in Europe? Yes.
That's why it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.
I think Vote Leave have moved from honourably fighting the good fight to thinking they might actually have a shot at it.
Your normal rational self goes all Superman and Kryptonite when it comes to personalities in the Leave campaign. I admit I have the same feeling about Jezza, but it's not personal. He is probably a personable loon, but a loon nevertheless.
Be careful you don't work on the basis that ... He disagrees with me, therefore he's the font of all nastiness and stupidity.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChDeiegW4AE3P_f.jpg
Actually, they probably would have had the space. The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out - the most provocative actions, with the possible early exception of the Berlin blockade, were made by NATO. The history of the Cold War would certainly have been different had the US withdrawn from NATO but it doesn't mean that the Red Army would have been rolling across the North European plain as soon as the last GI left the continent.
The numbers on betfair are interesting, substantial sums wanting to back IN, I suspect they are traders rather than supporters. The big players on betfair are able to take rational, neutral stances.
I can imagine a positive Leaver like Hannan or Gove asking Cameron or Osborne that if it will be the end of the world if we leave, why on Earth did they give us a vote on it?!
"“Cameron: ‘Yes’ Vote Will Make Scottish ‘More Vulnerable to Islamic Terror’”
I didn't notice it because I was talking about discussions between grown-ups. It's a hoot, isn't it?
And it can only backfire.
I think it's quite reasonable nevertheless to argue that the EU has been a good thing for France and Germany. But that has nothing much to do with the current debate, which concerns the UK. The Franco-German rapprochement happened long before we joined and is certainly not dependent on us remaining a member.
At one time this may have been true, but as of now there is enough cultural homogeneity amongst especially young people in Europe to give the same result outwith the bureaucratic meddlings of a supra-national institution such as the EU especially with regards to notions such as war.
As a thought experiment, is a war with Norway likely any time soon ?
https://slashdot.org/story/16/05/08/0218250/dropbox-cuts-several-employee-perks-as-silicon-valley-startups-brace-for-cold
How will the little darlings survive....
For me this is the most noticeably difference between the two camps, both camps feel the other are wrong, which is to be expected, the Remain seem to add all those other emotions usually associated with left wing politics, they attempt to belittle and demonise the other camp as well.
I think Remainers are wrong, period, I am sure they are perfectly agreeable people, who I just happen to disagree with. Yet supporters of Remain for some reason feel the need to look down their nose at supporters of Leave, everthing is said with a sneer and a healthy dose of condescension, as if we only could be as educated and cultured as they are we would clearly see the merits of their views.
All the unemployment, financial mess and cultural upheaval, coupled with central control out-gunning local freedom.
I think this is something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Dave said that he didn't want to stay in an unreformed EU but has never mentioned his negotiation that prompted his Saulian moment.
Plenty more to come in the next 6 weeks.
The Soviet Union was never as aggressive as the West made out"
The big flash point was 1962 and the Cuban Missile crisis. You can blame Kruschev for arming Cuba, or you can blame the US for positioning Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but the EU was nowhere to be seen - it was the baby sleeping peacefully in it's cot. I went to bed on October 26th 1962 wondering if I'd be alive in the morning.
To suggest the EU had any effect is like my claiming that our family stopped the war because our front door happened to be red at the time.
'I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.'
If the risks to the economy are so great not to mention the threat of War do you really believe that Cameron would have risked having a referendum ?
Maybe you should ask Cameron why we bother being a NATO member.
Time for the Remain side to grow up if they want to retain any credibility.
"The following people will Remain in the room: Osborne, Cooper, Oliver and Brady."
So, might be time to quit the screaming ad-homism.
Desperate Dave
I have suspicions a narrow Leave win (and a large one seems unfathomable) would lead Cameron to bugger up negotiations, then ask people "Do you really want this terrible deal [I have negotiated]?" in a second referendum.
A bit like asking if there's something other than sprouts, and being asked in turn whether excrement sandwiches would be preferred.