Mclaren buggies?!?! You mean Bugaboo and Stokke surely?
Funny you should mention that, but my local consultant on this piece wanted me to refer to Bugaboos rather than Maclaren buggies. I didn't think that the average pber would be sufficiently au fait with them.
I now realise that I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly.
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
Yes I am sure you are right. There is a funny scene in the latest episode of Silicon Valley, where one of the team changes his LinkedIn status to looking for work and his house is bombarded with gifts just to get his to attend meetings with different start-ups.
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 guess we'll see but I'm not sure what rabbit they can pull out of the hat. Obama and the threat of war have failed miserably.
I take your point though, we must guard against complacency.
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.
The campaign may be a pointer to the forthcoming EU referendum, with both sides already engaging in ludicrous project fear campaigns, where it feels the choice is down to for voting for economic Armageddon if we vote to Leave or having 77 million Turks moving to the UK shortly after we vote to Remain.
Memo to both camps, tone down the hyperbole, criticise your opponents with plausible criticisms and not make it appear that victory for the other side was foretold in The Book of Revelation. A bit more hope and a little less fear please.
'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.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
"These focus groups are much more negative about Jeremy than the ones I conducted for Ed Miliband at a similar point in his leadership. Corbyn is failing to do any of the work needed to bring these voters back to Labour. They don’t respect him, and what they know of his agenda they don’t like. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and his is irredeemably negative.”
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.
Frankly you get more sense out of Plato's pussy than you do the Prime Minister at the moment...
... snip ... 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.
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.
----------------------------------------------
The EU and its previous incarnations was a helpful factor in improving relations between France and Germany. So was Germany's occupation by the allies for years after WII (and the thorough transformation of its institutions that was overseen by the allies). So was NATO.
NATO was crucial is keeping the USSR at bay and preserving peace in Europe more broadly. The EU's role in that was much less.
None of these issues has much bearing on the UK's future position within the EU. The UK is and will remain part of NATO. The UK being in the EU has no bearing on the Franco-German relationship.
In 1975, this security argument was deployed because the US was concerned that the UK might drift towards the Soviet orbit under a future left-wing Labour government - and that fear was not entirely unfounded.
There is no equivalent argument today - what the PM is saying is pure scaremongering.
The only significant argument you **could** deploy is that the UK remaining in the EU is crucial to creating a purely 'European' military and security power.
But the PM is of course not going to say that, although that is what is in the background here.
Hello PB from Heathrow Terminal 4. I'm off to Melbourne, and I think there's WiFi on the flight, so you might get me posting for 24 hours straight :-)
I'm thinking of doing a "most outrageous and obviously untrue claim" piece every day between now and the referendum. To be properly fair and balanced, I shall pick a claim from each side for every piece. There's no shortage of ridiculous and absurd claims, from David Cameron's Leaving the EU Will Cause War, to Lord Lawson's Turkey is about to join the EU.
But then I realised, I have better things to do with my time. Like play Hitman. Or finish off the presentation I have to give in Oz.
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 guess we'll see but I'm not sure what rabbit they can pull out of the hat. Obama and the threat of war have failed miserably.
I take your point though, we must guard against complacency.
Only three weeks until postal voting starts. Does anyone know what % of the population has one and the return rate window? I'm guessing that most who asked for one will send it back pretty quickly?
I would say the relative peacefulness of Europe since 1945 is more due to both the destructiveness of modern weaponry as well as the fulfillment of the ethnonationalist dream, with almost all people having established their own countries, than either NATO or the EU. As posited by Jerry Muller in Us and Them.
Frankly the EU has hardly covered itself in glory in the Balkans and the Ukraine, where they have instead insisted on denying people their right to self determination, more in line with the increasingly discredited post 60s world view, leading to the peoples there having to take up arms to forcibly redraw their borders to reflect ethnic reality. Of course in the West we still suffer from low level conflict by disgruntled Basques and Ulster Irish, as well as the Walloon-French dispute in Belgium.
Of course there is increasingly a real danger that as the EU assumes more powers as it becomes a state that we will wind up back where we started. An increasingly unstable new Austro-Hungarian Empire, a prison of nations. The EU is clearly fueling resentments at the moment. If we were to leave this might just be the signal needed for reform.
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.
I don't actually think he knows what he is saying.
Again as was pointed out the same kind of campaign against the new Mayor didn't work because it was based on a "there's no smoke without fire" premise, which isn't enough to have credibility, it would only have been effective if there was compelling evidence that he had engaged in some kind of illegal activity, since that wasn't forthcoming Zac's campaign came to nought.
It is one thing for the Remain camp to bang on about economic uncertainty, fair enough, everyone accepts that, I think the problem is that not as many people are willing to give away our sovereignty for a few points of GDP growth and the Chancellor has raised and lowered his debt target so much over the last 5 years that any kind of "shortfall" is just meaningless. Now the Remain camp have had to move on to more menacing subjects, the first salvo was Obama, but that unravelled pretty quickly and the polls moved in favour of Leave after he left, even pretty ardent Remain people that I know thought it was a misstep when it was on TV, one of them sent me a message as it was happening, "Making this country look second rate isn't going to help us". Now the PM has threatened the public with the spectre of war should we have the temerity to vote to Leave. What's next, a plague of frogs, is Osborne going to sneak in to households and kill everyone's first born after that, or are they going for the Four Horsemen approach, he's given us War next we'll get Famine, then Pestilence and finally Death.
The Remain argument is just becoming ridiculous, first by talking down this nation, people know we aren't as shit as they like to say and now by making veiled threats of war. It just seems ridiculous.
I'm hoping that VL can take advantage of this and do a poster with Dave, Osborne, Hollande and Merkel each being one of the Four Horsemen, Dave has already nominated himself for War, Osborne is clearly Pestilence, Hollande can take Famine and Merkel can take Death.
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.
I don't actually think he knows what he is saying.
There are news sources to assist those that are actually interested in finding out.
But most posters on here would prefer to engage with an argument that isn't actually being made.
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.
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
I'm hoping that VL can take advantage of this and do a poster with Dave, Osborne, Hollande and Merkel each being one of the Four Horsemen, Dave has already nominated himself for War, Osborne is clearly Pestilence, Hollande can take Famine and Merkel can take Death.
Mr. 1000, what do you make of Hitman's weird episodic release schedule?
Actually, I quite like it. The levels are a hoot to play, and there's about a dozen hours of fun to have in each one. I can spend five or six beating a level (and I still keep going back to the original training level and improving on my performance there!).
Best of all, I don't really get bored. If I had six 'episodes' all available from the start, I'd race through them all in a pretty lazy way, not doing a very good job of it.
'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.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
You may be correct when reading the nuances of his entire speech, but most people only ever read the headlines.
Mr. 1000, interesting. I doubt I'll play it, but I can see why people like it so much. I prefer physical copies to downloads, though, so it'd irk me, were I likely to get it, to have to wait so long.
Not as much as XCOM 2 not being out for the PS4 annoys me, of course
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.
I don't actually think he knows what he is saying.
There are news sources to assist those that are actually interested in finding out.
But most posters on here would prefer to engage with an argument that isn't actually being made.
Do you know the story about the boy who cried wolf?
'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.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
You may be correct when reading the nuances of his entire speech, but most people only ever read the headlines.
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 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.
.
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 take your point though, we must guard against complacency.
Only three weeks until postal voting starts. Does anyone know what % of the population has one and the return rate window? I'm guessing that most who asked for one will send it back pretty quickly?
Hello PB from Heathrow Terminal 4. I'm off to Melbourne, and I think there's WiFi on the flight, so you might get me posting for 24 hours straight :-)
I'm thinking of doing a "most outrageous and obviously untrue claim" piece every day between now and the referendum. To be properly fair and balanced, I shall pick a claim from each side for every piece. There's no shortage of ridiculous and absurd claims, from David Cameron's Leaving the EU Will Cause War, to Lord Lawson's Turkey is about to join the EU.
But then I realised, I have better things to do with my time. Like play Hitman. Or finish off the presentation I have to give in Oz.
Good luck with the jet lag. Forget the movies, get as much sleep as you can !
One could argue that Europe has been so harmonious since World War II not because of the failure of ethnic nationalism but because of its success, which removed some of the greatest sources of conflict both within and between countries. The fact that ethnic and state boundaries now largely coincide has meant there are fewer disputes over borders of expatriate communities, leading to the most stable territorial configuration in European history.
It is alarming how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of history. If we had taken the same approach as our forefathers had after WWII to the borders of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union then a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided. A case of sustaining long since discredited 60s ideology taking priority, the post national EU being very much a product of said ideology.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
That is precisely the argument that he has just made. As you would know if you bothered to read his speech rather than your fellow-Leavers' caricature of it.
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
(I think you mean conflation not conflagration. Although in the context of the response to his non deal either might be apt)
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
That is precisely the argument that he has just made. As you would know if you bothered to read his speech rather than your fellow-Leavers' caricature of it.
I have and the problem is that he over-egged it which makes it easy to caricature.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
That is precisely the argument that he has just made. As you would know if you bothered to read his speech rather than your fellow-Leavers' caricature of it.
Roger gave some interesting figure on the % who read headlines rather than the script itself.
For every person that is frightened of war there'll be loads more who think Cameron has lost the plot.
Does anyone think that 5/2 might be value, for beer money at this stage?
The Tory candidate is almost certainly going to be the 2015 candidate who hasn't given up on working the constituency, and Labour might yet select a complete outsider or a 'friend' of Corbyn with dodgy associations and a lack of support from the constituency party.
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
'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.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
You may be correct when reading the nuances of his entire speech, but most people only ever read the headlines.
Yes I'm sure the PM and his friends will be horrified by those headlines and will quickly tell us that they are not what the PM meant at all.
What we keep seeing from the Govt REMAIN campaign is a series of dead cats flung on the table each week. This week we see WAR. Whilst may be one or two might be useful to REMAIN to draw attention, but we are seeing so many, that the voters will get numb to them.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
That is precisely the argument that he has just made. As you would know if you bothered to read his speech rather than your fellow-Leavers' caricature of it.
Roger gave some interesting figure on the % who read headlines rather than the script itself.
For every person that is frightened of war there'll be loads more who think Cameron has lost the plot.
This is all getting a bit Inception-like. Leaver newspapers plaster wilfully-misleading headlines of what the Prime Minister is going to say. Leavers then lather themselves into a foaming hysteria based on the misleading headlines. The Prime Minister then delivers an intelligent argument which is quite different from the misleading headlines. The Leavers then exult that the only thing that most voters will notice is the wilfully misleading headline.
One wonders how Leavers think the Prime Minister can bring the subject up at all.
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.
I don't actually think he knows what he is saying.
There are news sources to assist those that are actually interested in finding out.
But most posters on here would prefer to engage with an argument that isn't actually being made.
The problem with that approach is that most people arent really that interested in finding out more as Roger succinctly put it over the weekend the headline is 80% of the job.
War is what people will see and hear tonight on the news and read on the train to morrow.
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
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.
I don't actually think he knows what he is saying.
There are news sources to assist those that are actually interested in finding out.
But most posters on here would prefer to engage with an argument that isn't actually being made.
Do you know the story about the boy who cried wolf?
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
A TORY MP is being probed by police after he allegedly hurled abuse and made explicit gestures at passing Labour campaigners.
Matthew Offord has been accused of half clambering out of his constituency office window in Hendon, north London, to make hand gestures at a decommissioned fire engine carrying a Labour politician and a retired fire officer.
The Fire Brigades Union vehicle was being used by former MP Andrew Dismore on polling day last Thursday and was being driven by union member Steve James.
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.
.
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 take your point though, we must guard against complacency.
Only three weeks until postal voting starts. Does anyone know what % of the population has one and the return rate window? I'm guessing that most who asked for one will send it back pretty quickly?
Hello PB from Heathrow Terminal 4. I'm off to Melbourne, and I think there's WiFi on the flight, so you might get me posting for 24 hours straight :-)
I'm thinking of doing a "most outrageous and obviously untrue claim" piece every day between now and the referendum. To be properly fair and balanced, I shall pick a claim from each side for every piece. There's no shortage of ridiculous and absurd claims, from David Cameron's Leaving the EU Will Cause War, to Lord Lawson's Turkey is about to join the EU.
But then I realised, I have better things to do with my time. Like play Hitman. Or finish off the presentation I have to give in Oz.
Good luck with the jet lag. Forget the movies, get as much sleep as you can !
A flight with 10 hours' time difference is the best excuse ever invented for taking huge advantage of a free bar at 9am
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
The reaction to the headlines (and don't forget that the papers were given the speech in advance deliberately) was to water down the speech.
This sort of kite flying goes on all the time in politics, Blair perfected it, Cameron is simply following the master.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
The attempts to start a new cold war with Russia by elements in America is one of the main reasons efforts are being sped up to create a common EU defense and diplomatic architecture. Our actions in Libya, Syria and the Ukraine have only discredited us. It is better we allow the EU to get on with it, rather than us acting as some form of Trojan horse.
Does anyone think that 5/2 might be value, for beer money at this stage?
The Tory candidate is almost certainly going to be the 2015 candidate who hasn't given up on working the constituency, and Labour might yet select a complete outsider or a 'friend' of Corbyn with dodgy associations and a lack of support from the constituency party.
It's far too short for my taste. There is the possibility of a loony candidate but it would have to be an genuinely unequivocal extremist.
If Labour don't make that mistake I think they have very little to worry about. The government is divided and quite unpopular. It's not going to gain a seat in a by-election.
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress which to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it's a small risk.
Well the fact that our membership hasn't prevented Putin invading Georgia and Ukraine and mounting a hostile takeover of Kazakhstan means the argument that our membership promotes stability is bullshit. What our membership promotes is a hard line against such actions rather than preventing them. We have a much more muscular approach to foreign policy than any other EU nation, losing that voice in the EU is going to be net loss, however, to equate that with an increased chance of war (as the PM did) is also incorrect.
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
As noble a cause as that all is, I don't think that's what Cameron's speech was getting at!
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
How amusing, if true. This shows the risk of dealing in lurid headlines rather than serious argument. It's far too late to row back now.
Does anyone think that 5/2 might be value, for beer money at this stage?
The Tory candidate is almost certainly going to be the 2015 candidate who hasn't given up on working the constituency, and Labour might yet select a complete outsider or a 'friend' of Corbyn with dodgy associations and a lack of support from the constituency party.
No way, in London with the Tory party split by Europe and the government looking pretty unpopular and a possibly slowing economy, Lab Hold.
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.
Only 2 weeks and 3 days before purdah on the government communications. We have had 10 weeks of this so far... and the polls are level. A form of siege warfare from the govt machine.
What's crazy is that foreign policy is the one area in which I think the EU allows us to punch above our weight, despite our security council seat and membership of NATO, being able to lead a 28 nation bloc into economic or political sanctions against a dictator or aggressor is a powerful tool and one that I am loath to lose if we vote leave. The problem is that the PM has over-egged it, if he had made the subtle argument that we are the leaders of EU foreign policy and that he was the one who led the EU response to Putin with him forcing other EU leaders into economic sanctions on Russia, it would have been much more persuasive than just the subtle as a brick argument he has made.
That is precisely the argument that he has just made. As you would know if you bothered to read his speech rather than your fellow-Leavers' caricature of it.
If you are explaining, you are losing, most voters changing over to Britain's Got Pop Talent after the headlines.
Holy Moly - the ridicule is pouring into the Times - 350 comments already and growing too fast to keep up. This one looks likely to break their record which is about 930 IIRC. Given they're all pre-modded and restricted to paying customers, it's fair to say this isn't what Remain were looking for...
A TORY MP is being probed by police after he allegedly hurled abuse and made explicit gestures at passing Labour campaigners.
Matthew Offord has been accused of half clambering out of his constituency office window in Hendon, north London, to make hand gestures at a decommissioned fire engine carrying a Labour politician and a retired fire officer.
Mr. 1000, interesting. I doubt I'll play it, but I can see why people like it so much. I prefer physical copies to downloads, though, so it'd irk me, were I likely to get it, to have to wait so long.
Not as much as XCOM 2 not being out for the PS4 annoys me, of course
The levels are insane in terms of their size. A successful playthrough of Sapienza is probably an hour to 90 minutes of your time. Plus, you need to spend about three of four hours learning the level first; knowing where people go, knowing where you can blow someone up, or poison them, or drop a lifeboat on their head. There have to be 1,000 ways on each of the levels to achieve your objective, and a fair number of them are probably completely orgnanic and unplanned by the designer.
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
(I think you mean conflation not conflagration. Although in the context of the response to his non deal either might be apt)
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
haha I was about to google conflagration but I didn't bother in the end...and doubly LOL at what it actually means as it relates to the topic under discussion.
For me, his EZ/non-EZ non-discrimination, and ECU opt-out clauses were sufficient to give me comfort. Safeguards? It is in an EU document and I would find it perverse if they spent all that time agreeing and drafting it, only for the 27 to say "just kidding" afterwards.
But as I also nearly added to my first post, and I have mentioned this on every second comment on the matter, that if a la Gove you think the ECJ will strike down the deal, or if you think that the EU leaders will renege on it, then you absolutely must vote Leave.
I see normal service has resumed here with outrage at the idea that the PM should make a case for Remain and all out assault on any tentative suggestion that he has the right to do so. On the basis of today's frothing we can presume that the next poll will see Leave shoot up to 99%! As for me it's back into exile, with a final hurrah to the Scots Tories led by the wonderful remain supporting centre right Ruth Davidson
Thank feck we were in the EU when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Otherwise they might have got hold of weaponry supplied by other EU countries - such as French Exocet missiles...
I see normal service has resumed here with outrage at the idea that the PM should make a case for Remain and all out assault on any tentative suggestion that he has the right to do so. On the basis of today's frothing we can presume that the next poll will see Leave shoot up to 99%! As for me it's back into exile, with a final hurrah to the Scots Tories led by the wonderful remain supporting centre right Ruth Davidson
Is there outrage? I thought it was mostly people just pointing and laughing at the Prime Minister making a complete fool of himself?
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
(I think you mean conflation not conflagration. Although in the context of the response to his non deal either might be apt)
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
haha I was about to google conflagration but I didn't bother in the end...and doubly LOL at what it actually means as it relates to the topic under discussion.
For me, his EZ/non-EZ non-discrimination, and ECU opt-out clauses were sufficient to give me comfort. Safeguards? It is in an EU document and I would find it perverse if they spent all that time agreeing and drafting it, only for the 27 to say "just kidding" afterwards.
But as I also nearly added to my first post, and I have mentioned this on every second comment on the matter, that if a la Gove you think the ECJ will strike down the deal, or if you think that the EU leaders will renege on it, then you absolutely must vote Leave.
Right. TOPPING has told us all how to vote. Now all he, she or it has to do is to explain why he she or it has the right to order the rest of us about...
Personally I have no wish to 'lead' other countries in implementing sanctions, going to war, or any other significant foreign policy decision, and I'm surprised anyone with liberal instincts feels differently. Those decisions should be made by democratically elected governments on behalf of the people they represent.
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
If Brexit poses such a risk of destabilisation, you've got to ask why Cameron walked away from his "renegotiation" with so little to show for it. Was it really worth exposing the continent to the threat of war simply to prevent the UK restricting benefit rates for migrants for 5 years*? (*or whatever the original proposal was - haven't got time to look it up)
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
How amusing, if true. This shows the risk of dealing in lurid headlines rather than serious argument. It's far too late to row back now.
Every newspaper is talking about WAR!! And the talking heads on the telly are doing the same. No attempt at speech message homeopathy is going to fix this one.
Does anyone think that 5/2 might be value, for beer money at this stage?
The Tory candidate is almost certainly going to be the 2015 candidate who hasn't given up on working the constituency, and Labour might yet select a complete outsider or a 'friend' of Corbyn with dodgy associations and a lack of support from the constituency party.
It's far too short for my taste. There is the possibility of a loony candidate but it would have to be an genuinely unequivocal extremist.
If Labour don't make that mistake I think they have very little to worry about. The government is divided and quite unpopular. It's not going to gain a seat in a by-election.
A little more thinking has me agreeing with you. The one thing that might upset the apple cart though would be a third candidate such as an independent Livingstone or Galloway running against the Labour candidate.
I'm going to have an Ayrton of the 5/2 and see what happens once we have the writ moved and all the runners and riders in place. Are we expecting Khan to replace Mark Reckless as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds in the next day or two?
Thank feck we were in the EU when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Otherwise they might have got hold of weaponry supplied by other EU countries - such as French Exocet missiles...
Thank feck we were in the EU when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Otherwise they might have got hold of weaponry supplied by other EU countries - such as French Exocet missiles...
Well if you believe Michael Fallon, next time around we will have the French fighting side by side with us (cue hollow laughter).
Mr. 1000, interesting. I doubt I'll play it, but I can see why people like it so much. I prefer physical copies to downloads, though, so it'd irk me, were I likely to get it, to have to wait so long.
Not as much as XCOM 2 not being out for the PS4 annoys me, of course
The levels are insane in terms of their size. A successful playthrough of Sapienza is probably an hour to 90 minutes of your time. Plus, you need to spend about three of four hours learning the level first; knowing where people go, knowing where you can blow someone up, or poison them, or drop a lifeboat on their head. There have to be 1,000 ways on each of the levels to achieve your objective, and a fair number of them are probably completely orgnanic and unplanned by the designer.
From what I have seen the thing that let's it down a bit is the AI seems rather ropey. The NPCs can be all over your ass if you do something slightly suss in one portion of the map but in others you can do outrageous stuff & they don't blink an eye.
If Brexit poses such a risk of destabilisation, you've got to ask why Cameron walked away from his "renegotiation" with so little to show for it. Was it really worth exposing the continent to the threat of war simply to prevent the UK restricting benefit rates for migrants for 5 years*? (*or whatever the original proposal was - haven't got time to look it up)
Because he respects the will of voters. It's called democracy. This issue has been festering for decades, and it needs to be resolved. It will be a very great achievement indeed for Cameron when he does so.
Alternatively, if voters, haviing been fully appraised of the risks, decide to vote Leave, then fair enough.
In the long list of bizarre criticisms made of Cameron, the one that he shouldn't have called a referendum because he might be right is one of my absolute favourites.
I see normal service has resumed here with outrage at the idea that the PM should make a case for Remain and all out assault on any tentative suggestion that he has the right to do so. On the basis of today's frothing we can presume that the next poll will see Leave shoot up to 99%! As for me it's back into exile, with a final hurrah to the Scots Tories led by the wonderful remain supporting centre right Ruth Davidson
Is there outrage? I thought it was mostly people just pointing and laughing at the Prime Minister making a complete fool of himself?
#TearsOfLaughter
I'm laughing more at this than Ken's Hug-A-Hitler routine. That was WTF - this Cameron stuff is just desperate flailing. I'm not seeing anyone convinced by it either, irrespective of their personal voting intentions.
250kish people died in the Balkans pretty recently, where were the EU then?
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
(I think you mean conflation not conflagration. Although in the context of the response to his non deal either might be apt)
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
haha I was about to google conflagration but I didn't bother in the end...and doubly LOL at what it actually means as it relates to the topic under discussion.
For me, his EZ/non-EZ non-discrimination, and ECU opt-out clauses were sufficient to give me comfort. Safeguards? It is in an EU document and I would find it perverse if they spent all that time agreeing and drafting it, only for the 27 to say "just kidding" afterwards.
But as I also nearly added to my first post, and I have mentioned this on every second comment on the matter, that if a la Gove you think the ECJ will strike down the deal, or if you think that the EU leaders will renege on it, then you absolutely must vote Leave.
Again, I'll keep asking what ties the hands of future EU leaders to respect our opt-out? It is not in a treaty, it has not been adopted into EU law or into their national law. Why should Chancellor Schauble, a notorious federaliser, respect something signed by his predecessor. Or worse, why should Chancellor Gabriel and a SPD/Green/Left coalition respect something signed by a CDU leader?
Unless our opt-out is protected by EU law and then tested by the ECJ, it is completely and utterly meaningless. The latter I agree is not achievable currently as the ECJ wouldn't be able to test something not on the statute book, but the former is a minimum requirement and Dave didn't achieve it.
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
If Brexit poses such a risk of destabilisation, you've got to ask why Cameron walked away from his "renegotiation" with so little to show for it. Was it really worth exposing the continent to the threat of war simply to prevent the UK restricting benefit rates for migrants for 5 years*? (*or whatever the original proposal was - haven't got time to look it up)
I think you may be underestimating the power of Tampons For Peace.
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
I believe Louise Cooper suggested that on Sky paper review but irrespective the speech was well argued but too long and nothing like the headlines
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
(I think you mean conflation not conflagration. Although in the context of the response to his non deal either might be apt)
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
haha I was about to google conflagration but I didn't bother in the end...and doubly LOL at what it actually means as it relates to the topic under discussion.
For me, his EZ/non-EZ non-discrimination, and ECU opt-out clauses were sufficient to give me comfort. Safeguards? It is in an EU document and I would find it perverse if they spent all that time agreeing and drafting it, only for the 27 to say "just kidding" afterwards.
But as I also nearly added to my first post, and I have mentioned this on every second comment on the matter, that if a la Gove you think the ECJ will strike down the deal, or if you think that the EU leaders will renege on it, then you absolutely must vote Leave.
Right. TOPPING has told us all how to vote. Now all he, she or it has to do is to explain why he she or it has the right to order the rest of us about...
Because you are beholden to my every whim and fancy.
Thank feck we were in the EU when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Otherwise they might have got hold of weaponry supplied by other EU countries - such as French Exocet missiles...
I am totally for staying IN. But Cameron is making a fool of himself. I think they have focus group evidence that constant drip, drip of such nonsense day after day does work. It worked in the GE.
Now a daily drip, drip of how "scruffy" Corbyn is may work too. As if it is illegal to be scruffy and, of course, one person's smartness is another's scruffiness.
Plato_Says said: "Only three weeks until postal voting starts. Does anyone know what % of the population has one and the return rate window? I'm guessing that most who asked for one will send it back pretty quickly?"
"Turnout among postal voters has been higher than among persons voting at polling stations. At the 2015 general election, turnout among postal voters was 85.8%; turnout among persons voting at polling stations was 63.2%.[1] How many people use postal votes?
The proportion of voters using postal votes has increased over the last three general elections. Different parts of the UK have different rates of postal voting: at the 2015 general election, Wales had the highest proportion of voters using postal votes (17.7%), while England had the lowest (16.7%) (except for Northern Ireland, where postal voting is not available on demand).
The proportion of postal voters also differs among English regions: at the 2015 general election, it ranged from 13.4% in the West Midlands to 26% in the North East."
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
If Brexit poses such a risk of destabilisation, you've got to ask why Cameron walked away from his "renegotiation" with so little to show for it. Was it really worth exposing the continent to the threat of war simply to prevent the UK restricting benefit rates for migrants for 5 years*? (*or whatever the original proposal was - haven't got time to look it up)
I think you may be underestimating the power of Tampons For Peace.
LOL - We all thought that was about repatriating VAT exemptions from the EU, but no, it was literally about tampons.
Comments
Pollsters get damning verdict on Labour leader in key parliamentary seat as ‘slimy’, ‘weaselly’ George Osborne fares little better
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/09/jeremy-corbyn-scruffy-old-fashioned-swing-voters
I now realise that I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly.
I take your point though, we must guard against complacency.
Memo to both camps, tone down the hyperbole, criticise your opponents with plausible criticisms and not make it appear that victory for the other side was foretold in The Book of Revelation. A bit more hope and a little less fear please.
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3srOzAWfSh0/SPt99wEhOmI/AAAAAAAAAT0/modMlYVoPgo/s400/Matt+-+Cartoon+01.jpg
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.
----------------------------------------------
The EU and its previous incarnations was a helpful factor in improving relations between France and Germany. So was Germany's occupation by the allies for years after WII (and the thorough transformation of its institutions that was overseen by the allies). So was NATO.
NATO was crucial is keeping the USSR at bay and preserving peace in Europe more broadly. The EU's role in that was much less.
None of these issues has much bearing on the UK's future position within the EU. The UK is and will remain part of NATO. The UK being in the EU has no bearing on the Franco-German relationship.
In 1975, this security argument was deployed because the US was concerned that the UK might drift towards the Soviet orbit under a future left-wing Labour government - and that fear was not entirely unfounded.
There is no equivalent argument today - what the PM is saying is pure scaremongering.
The only significant argument you **could** deploy is that the UK remaining in the EU is crucial to creating a purely 'European' military and security power.
But the PM is of course not going to say that, although that is what is in the background here.
I'm thinking of doing a "most outrageous and obviously untrue claim" piece every day between now and the referendum. To be properly fair and balanced, I shall pick a claim from each side for every piece. There's no shortage of ridiculous and absurd claims, from David Cameron's Leaving the EU Will Cause War, to Lord Lawson's Turkey is about to join the EU.
But then I realised, I have better things to do with my time. Like play Hitman. Or finish off the presentation I have to give in Oz.
"David Cameron says Britain's security has always been intertwined with Europe's but Vote Leave says talk of war sounds desperate."
Maybe not as desperate as Remain's private polling?
What other explanation for this absurd claim ?
we do have iron ore it's just it's cheaaper to buy it elsewhere atm.
In a long duration war we'd go back to mining it and stuff the cost.
Germany did the same with artifical petroleum in WW2.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hZGM4ZjhlNDctZjVjNy00ZmJmLTliMjMtZDQyMDExZmUxZGRi/view?pref=2&pli=1
Frankly the EU has hardly covered itself in glory in the Balkans and the Ukraine, where they have instead insisted on denying people their right to self determination, more in line with the increasingly discredited post 60s world view, leading to the peoples there having to take up arms to forcibly redraw their borders to reflect ethnic reality. Of course in the West we still suffer from low level conflict by disgruntled Basques and Ulster Irish, as well as the Walloon-French dispute in Belgium.
Of course there is increasingly a real danger that as the EU assumes more powers as it becomes a state that we will wind up back where we started. An increasingly unstable new Austro-Hungarian Empire, a prison of nations. The EU is clearly fueling resentments at the moment. If we were to leave this might just be the signal needed for reform.
It is one thing for the Remain camp to bang on about economic uncertainty, fair enough, everyone accepts that, I think the problem is that not as many people are willing to give away our sovereignty for a few points of GDP growth and the Chancellor has raised and lowered his debt target so much over the last 5 years that any kind of "shortfall" is just meaningless. Now the Remain camp have had to move on to more menacing subjects, the first salvo was Obama, but that unravelled pretty quickly and the polls moved in favour of Leave after he left, even pretty ardent Remain people that I know thought it was a misstep when it was on TV, one of them sent me a message as it was happening, "Making this country look second rate isn't going to help us". Now the PM has threatened the public with the spectre of war should we have the temerity to vote to Leave. What's next, a plague of frogs, is Osborne going to sneak in to households and kill everyone's first born after that, or are they going for the Four Horsemen approach, he's given us War next we'll get Famine, then Pestilence and finally Death.
The Remain argument is just becoming ridiculous, first by talking down this nation, people know we aren't as shit as they like to say and now by making veiled threats of war. It just seems ridiculous.
I'm hoping that VL can take advantage of this and do a poster with Dave, Osborne, Hollande and Merkel each being one of the Four Horsemen, Dave has already nominated himself for War, Osborne is clearly Pestilence, Hollande can take Famine and Merkel can take Death.
But most posters on here would prefer to engage with an argument that isn't actually being made.
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, directives, papers, etc need reforming; that the EU in its quest for ECU, etc, needs to reform, perhaps even reform that aim itself. Patently obviously ain't nothing reformed about the EU in this sense of the term, either before, during or after Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means that the UK's relationship with this (unreformed) EU has been changed. And it is this that Dave's deal achieved quite explicitly, although for some the bits on in-work benefits and the fuzziness of a "more competitive EU" will have been inadequate.
Dave's mistake was to encourage a conflagration of the two meanings of "reformed EU". It was either lazy, or, more likely, assumed a laziness in the electorate. But if he fought on the latter interpretation, he would be on much firmer ground. Oh yes and lose the whole war and famine if we leave rhetoric.
Best of all, I don't really get bored. If I had six 'episodes' all available from the start, I'd race through them all in a pretty lazy way, not doing a very good job of it.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729420138936729600
'He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU.'
I'm so relieved to hear that.
Not as much as XCOM 2 not being out for the PS4 annoys me, of course
I will be voting to REMAIN. Good luck with the jet lag. Forget the movies, get as much sleep as you can !
It is alarming how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of history. If we had taken the same approach as our forefathers had after WWII to the borders of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union then a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided. A case of sustaining long since discredited 60s ideology taking priority, the post national EU being very much a product of said ideology.
'So it we vote LEAVE we'll ***finally*** get an increase in defense spending? Win/Win.'
Plus Scotland will leave the UK ,can it get any better ?
But on you point of substance. Dave did not achieve a reform in our relationship with the EU. There has been no significant change at all and no safeguards. I am amazed there are still people out there who actually believe there was any change.
but if it dargged on 5 or 6 years like the last two we'd have to go back to mining.
The problem with the "it's too expensive" argument in a war is that the "cost" cost changes over night and availability always outweighs cost.
War is expensive whatever you do.
For every person that is frightened of war there'll be loads more who think Cameron has lost the plot.
The Tory candidate is almost certainly going to be the 2015 candidate who hasn't given up on working the constituency, and Labour might yet select a complete outsider or a 'friend' of Corbyn with dodgy associations and a lack of support from the constituency party.
One wonders how Leavers think the Prime Minister can bring the subject up at all.
War is what people will see and hear tonight on the news and read on the train to morrow.
As a PR man Cameron knows this.
I see the usual suspects are frothing about Cameron's speech. It's a particularly silly piece of frothing; although counter-factuals are always a bit dubious, you have to be particularly purblind not to accept that the EU has had a very beneficial effect in bringing countries as disparate as Romania, Portugal, Greece, and Slovenia into the democratic mainstream and therefore contributing to peace. It's undoubtedly a legitimate point, and one which in most of continent would seem completely obvious.
The serious question in respect of the referendum, therefore, is not whether the EU has been beneficial to peace, but whether Brexit would destabilise the EU sufficiently to threaten the progress to which the EU has contributed in such countries. That's obviously more speculative; I'd have thought probably not, but it is a small risk.
Matthew Offord has been accused of half clambering out of his constituency office window in Hendon, north London, to make hand gestures at a decommissioned fire engine carrying a Labour politician and a retired fire officer.
The Fire Brigades Union vehicle was being used by former MP Andrew Dismore on polling day last Thursday and was being driven by union member Steve James.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7136453/Police-probe-MP-who-climbed-out-of-window-to-swear-at-Labour-campaigners.html
This sort of kite flying goes on all the time in politics, Blair perfected it, Cameron is simply following the master.
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/us-ambassador-to-hungary-overthrow-assad-let-in-refugees-and-fight-russiaor-else
Anyway it is Merkel's peculiar subservience to the Americans that matters, Cameron is immaterial.
If Labour don't make that mistake I think they have very little to worry about. The government is divided and quite unpopular. It's not going to gain a seat in a by-election.
For me, his EZ/non-EZ non-discrimination, and ECU opt-out clauses were sufficient to give me comfort. Safeguards? It is in an EU document and I would find it perverse if they spent all that time agreeing and drafting it, only for the 27 to say "just kidding" afterwards.
But as I also nearly added to my first post, and I have mentioned this on every second comment on the matter, that if a la Gove you think the ECJ will strike down the deal, or if you think that the EU leaders will renege on it, then you absolutely must vote Leave.
#TearsOfLaughter
I'm going to have an Ayrton of the 5/2 and see what happens once we have the writ moved and all the runners and riders in place. Are we expecting Khan to replace Mark Reckless as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds in the next day or two?
good to see you back !
http://www.inquirer.net/elections2016
Alternatively, if voters, haviing been fully appraised of the risks, decide to vote Leave, then fair enough.
In the long list of bizarre criticisms made of Cameron, the one that he shouldn't have called a referendum because he might be right is one of my absolute favourites.
250kish people died in the Balkans pretty recently, where were the EU then?
Unless our opt-out is protected by EU law and then tested by the ECJ, it is completely and utterly meaningless. The latter I agree is not achievable currently as the ECJ wouldn't be able to test something not on the statute book, but the former is a minimum requirement and Dave didn't achieve it.
Now a daily drip, drip of how "scruffy" Corbyn is may work too. As if it is illegal to be scruffy and, of course, one person's smartness is another's scruffiness.
"Turnout among postal voters has been higher than among persons voting at polling stations. At the 2015 general election, turnout among postal voters was 85.8%; turnout among persons voting at polling stations was 63.2%.[1]
How many people use postal votes?
The proportion of voters using postal votes has increased over the last three general elections. Different parts of the UK have different rates of postal voting: at the 2015 general election, Wales had the highest proportion of voters using postal votes (17.7%), while England had the lowest (16.7%) (except for Northern Ireland, where postal voting is not available on demand).
The proportion of postal voters also differs among English regions: at the 2015 general election, it ranged from 13.4% in the West Midlands to 26% in the North East."
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7419