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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
'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'
Not just the threat of war but economic collapse in the UK.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
On topic. The Tooting by election will have a resource imbalance between the two main parties. Labour will have hundreds of activists to call on and the Conservatives far fewer because of the splits and membership decline that has continued ever since Cameron came in. Labour also still has the union resources which have not been curtailed. Therefore with the current polling and these factors, it should be a solid win for Labour.
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.
Donnez moi un break.
In his speech not even six months ago he told us everything would be fine if we left but it would not be an optimal solution, and now we are supposed to believe economic meltdown and the nine plagues devastating the land ?
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."
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
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.
Arhhh yes who can forget the great tampon tax reform of 2016...it will go down in the history books as one of the greatest achievements ever.
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
You wouldn't put it past him to make use of anti-democratic laws designed for war time, in order to further his 'war' on 'capitalism' though. Maybe after he's used the Parliament Act to neuter or abolish the House of Lords first.
There are two ways to look at the phrase "reformed EU".
First, you could say that it means that all the EU Treaties, r Dave's deal.
Or secondly, you could say that a reformed EU means 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.
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
If a government believed a vote would lead to World War Three, it wouldn't hold the vote. It certainly wouldn't suggest a few months earlier it might support such a decision.
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.
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
That's a pretty lame comparison. Even you might concede a slight difference between occasional advisory referenda explicitly authorised by parliament on a case by case basis, and the general elections that have been at the heart of our democratic system for over two centuries. Hypobole much ?
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 have been swinging between Remain and Leave as the campaign unfolds.... Just realised that I'm a firm Leave when I have listened to Hannan or Gove in particular... then the swing back to Remain kicks in when the more rabid Leave supporters continue their unpleasantness. Remain sentiments were at their strongest after the vile way in which unashamedly racist taunts were thrown at people from Turkey last week... but Gove yesterday set me back on the path to voting Leave...
Time for plenty more changes of intent before the vote... though I expect that the once in a lifetime chance to reassert our independence and simplify our governance will trump any mistrust of the baser motivations I see on show.
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
You wouldn't put it past him to make use of anti-democratic laws designed for war time, in order to further his 'war' on 'capitalism' though. Maybe after he's used the Parliament Act to neuter or abolish the House of Lords first.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
If a government believed a vote would lead to World War Three, it wouldn't hold the vote. It certainly wouldn't suggest a few months earlier it might support such a decision.
Behind Camborne's risible hyperbole, the desperate fear of these men for their careers and legacies shows through clear as day.
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
That's a pretty lame comparison. Even you might concede a slight difference between occasional advisory referenda explicitly authorised by parliament on a case by case basis, and the general elections that have been at the heart of our democratic system for over two centuries. Hypobole much ?
The question back in the distant past was something like "if he thinks it's such a bad idea why did he agree to the referendum/why didn't he fight for more from the deal?"
My point was that as a pragmatic politician (and I will never stop congratulating UKIP on forcing the point), he agreed to a referendum, then achieved what I think is a perfectly sensible renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, and here we are today.
I saw a film last week which changed my views on one or two fundamental things. i can't remember a film having this effect on me since since I was in my 20's. It was called Son of Saul and it was set in a concentration camp.
It reminded me of the brutality which was was all over Europe just 70 years ago. I thought about Ken's throwaway references to Hitler and the rather arcane discussions over who suggested removing who to where and it struck me how many including me were missing the point
The 'civilized' in the film were the Germans. Those behaving like animals were the prisoners. Their humanity had been stripped away. Like most on here I don't think this could happen again. The tensions in Europe are different. But it did happen in the Balcans within most of our lifetimes. Anyone underestimating man's inhumanity to man is insensitive and blind.
It can happen anywhere. Anything that minimizes the risk is worth doing. Not just here but anywhere that we can make a difference. I think Cameron was right. The chances of a war in any part of Europe are small but they are lessened by the UK belonging to the EU. Unlike several recent examples of shooting from the hip I believe he's thought this one through
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
So you do agree the headlines were far removed from his speech
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
Well I guess the centre could stand against the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum and refuse to pass the required legislation, but it might be a touch courageous for their future electability. If the happened the government would fall, and UKIP would pick up about 30% of the vote in the ensuing fall out and clear evidence of bad faith.
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.
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
If this level of rhetoric is kept up by the Remain campaign for the next six weeks, followed by a narrow win and then all the EU stuff that's been held back for the last six months; there must be a reasonable chance of an SNP-style UKIP surge in the 2020 election, aided by a number of Tory defections.
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
The idea that we will get another opportunity to vote on this subject after this one is fanciful. The only way to leave the EU after a remain vote will be to vote in a party such as UKIP or to wait and hope that it falls apart which will have a much higher economic cost than what is currently on the table.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
So you do agree the headlines were far removed from his speech
Cameron's not very good at PR
he shouldn't have briefed the key points in if it wasn't what he was going to say
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
So you do agree the headlines were far removed from his speech
So a Prime Minister who used to work in PR, and his whole spin team give an over long and waffly speech and its supposed to be the media's fault that they fell asleep in the middle and only reported bits of his speech. Alastair Campbell is probably pissing himself laughing.
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.
That wasn't my point.
If it were truly believed that Brexit would be so perilous - up to the point of war - maybe, just maybe, other EU leaders might have been prepared to offer the UK a little bit more to make sure there was virtually no chance we would vote to leave. And, for his part, Cameron would have tried somewhat harder to get some sellable concessions.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
Too late – I don't think so. They got the headlines for the fright effect, then they rowed back so that they can deny it.
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
I doubt it very much, assuming a Remain result.
Of course, the usual suspects will froth at the mouth whenever there is some minor EU initiative, but if there is a Remain result most people (and the vast bulk of the Conservative Party) will regard the matter as settled, and certainly won't want a rerun of this campaign.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
Well I guess the centre could stand against the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum and refuse to pass the required legislation, but it might be a touch courageous for their future electability. If the happened the government would fall, and UKIP would pick up about 30% of the vote in the ensuing fall out and clear evidence of bad faith.
I was not thinking of the centre as more the left. The present HOC has a majority against leaving by circa 450 - 200 and that does not include the Lords which is more to the left, hence the governments present problems with legislation. I assume this is the reason for remain saying that uncertainty on leaving will go on for years
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.
Arhhh yes who can forget the great tampon tax reform of 2016...it will go down in the history books as one of the greatest achievements ever.
As it happens, it seems to have been very significant indeed:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b01bd53c-fc98-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html#ixzz489RYhFnC
Fed up with being dragged into political squabbles over tax rates on everything from tampons to ebooks, the European Commission on Thursday proposed a major overhaul that would transfer decision-making on valued added tax from Brussels to national capitals."
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
I doubt it very much, assuming a Remain result.
Of course, the usual suspects will froth at the mouth whenever there is some minor EU initiative, but if there is a Remain result most people (and the vast bulk of the Conservative Party) will regard the matter as settled, and certainly won't want a rerun of this campaign.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
Phillip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary (Who Changed His Mind) seemed rather embarrassed on 'Today' this morning - Nick Robinson found it hard not to mock .... Hammond kept saying "I don't write the headlines" ...
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
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
She did - I don't recall her saying it was well argued, I do recall her noting that all the stuff about war had been watered down, the speech contained 10mins on economics, and it took 20mins to mention Spitfires.
She didn't say it was well argued, that is my opinion but it was too long
It was far too long - when Sky cuts to something else after 40 prime times minutes of nothing much, I think they were right. His delivery smacked of phoned-in and the reviewers felt so too. He was reading it out - all the stuff that generated the WTF headlines had been excised. Too late.
So you do agree the headlines were far removed from his speech
Perhaps an early draft of the speech was issued by a disgruntled civil servant.
Or maybe the story about a disgruntled civil servant issuing an early draft of the speech was put about by a disgruntled civil servant.
So a Prime Minister who used to work in PR, and his whole spin team give an over long and waffly speech and its supposed to be the media's fault that they fell asleep in the middle and only reported bits of his speech. Alastair Campbell is probably pissing himself laughing.
-----------------------------
So to sum up, either
a) the PM's spin team made a terrible mess up and it's all their fault and that of the naughty newspapers
or b) the PM has engaged in deliberate dog whistle politics here
Incompetence or dishonesty. Good alternatives, both.
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
The idea that we will get another opportunity to vote on this subject after this one is fanciful. The only way to leave the EU after a remain vote will be to vote in a party such as UKIP or to wait and hope that it falls apart which will have a much higher economic cost than what is currently on the table.
I hear what you are saying but, as with the mechanics of the market, so with democracy. It is flawed, and takes more time than we would like, but usually the principles assert themselves. If enough of the people want a change in future, then the choice will be offered to them.
'So to sum up, the by-election is going to be a two horse race in a seat that Labour has held since its formation but where the Conservatives are going to have a relatively familiar candidate, where Labour are struggling in the polls far more than most mid-term opposition parties in an area that has been trending towards the Conservatives for two generations'
It won't be a mid-term by-election though - unless it is delayed until 2017!
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
I doubt it very much, assuming a Remain result.
Of course, the usual suspects will froth at the mouth whenever there is some minor EU initiative, but if there is a Remain result most people (and the vast bulk of the Conservative Party) will regard the matter as settled, and certainly won't want a rerun of this campaign.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
Wishful thinking.
How will the tories buy off their UKIP inclined wing in 2020? they can't.
The issue won't really be settled though will it ?
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
I doubt it very much, assuming a Remain result.
Of course, the usual suspects will froth at the mouth whenever there is some minor EU initiative, but if there is a Remain result most people (and the vast bulk of the Conservative Party) will regard the matter as settled, and certainly won't want a rerun of this campaign.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
It does not need a vote in the HoC for the government to formally inform the EU that it is leaving. The PM has said he will implement the decision of the referendum and would be removed by his MPs were he not to do so.
The role of the HoC would be to make consequential changes to English laws following our no longer being a member of the EU.
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 have been swinging between Remain and Leave as the campaign unfolds.... Just realised that I'm a firm Leave when I have listened to Hannan or Gove in particular... then the swing back to Remain kicks in when the more rabid Leave supporters continue their unpleasantness. Remain sentiments were at their strongest after the vile way in which unashamedly racist taunts were thrown at people from Turkey last week... but Gove yesterday set me back on the path to voting Leave...
Time for plenty more changes of intent before the vote... though I expect that the once in a lifetime chance to reassert our independence and simplify our governance will trump any mistrust of the baser motivations I see on show.
I think I have firmly decided in favour of Leave, but when I hear certain people making ridiculous and obviously untrue claims it really gets my back up. Not to the point of changing my mind, but certainly enough to stop me wanting to go campaign for a leave.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
Well I guess the centre could stand against the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum and refuse to pass the required legislation, but it might be a touch courageous for their future electability. If the happened the government would fall, and UKIP would pick up about 30% of the vote in the ensuing fall out and clear evidence of bad faith.
I was not thinking of the centre as more the left. The present HOC has a majority against leaving by circa 450 - 200 and that does not include the Lords which is more to the left, hence the governments present problems with legislation. I assume this is the reason for remain saying that uncertainty on leaving will go on for years
Same applies, if Labour MPs vote against the enabling legislation after a Leave vote, there will be a general election and Labour will get pounded by an unforgiving electorate, especially the sceptical WWC vote.
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
The idea that we will get another opportunity to vote on this subject after this one is fanciful. The only way to leave the EU after a remain vote will be to vote in a party such as UKIP or to wait and hope that it falls apart which will have a much higher economic cost than what is currently on the table.
Are you saying that if two thirds of Brits would rather leave the EU, then we will stay?
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
The idea that we will get another opportunity to vote on this subject after this one is fanciful. The only way to leave the EU after a remain vote will be to vote in a party such as UKIP or to wait and hope that it falls apart which will have a much higher economic cost than what is currently on the table.
I hear what you are saying but, as with the mechanics of the market, so with democracy. It is flawed, and takes more time than we would like, but usually the principles assert themselves. If enough of the people want a change in future, then the choice will be offered to them.
Possibly, if the Leave camp continues its takeover of the party and we get a leaver at the top. Remember, John Major faced down 30-40 MPs and possibly 20-30% of the party, Dave is facing down over half of his MPs and over half of the party. The Leave side is the majority in the Tory party, especially when you count those MPs who are toadying up to their bosses like Javid and Hammond.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
And what ties the hands of their successors, Richard?
I don't know how you can all calmly read a thread about a by-election when the very future of our nation is at stake!
A Leave vote on 23rd Jun WILL PLUNGE US INTO WAR!!!
Famine, pestilence, disease, anarchy and death will surely follow FOR US ALL within weeks
Or just possibly Cameron is getting more and more ridiculous every day.
Yup. The private polling must be worrying him witless. It is the only explanation....
Does anyone from Remain really think that the UK would do anything differently regarding working with nations currently inside or outside the EU to protect us all from terrorism? I mean really? I'm sure the Leave camp will be very happy to confirm that nothing will change FROM OUR SIDE.
Which means these fears are coming from our erstwhile fellow EU-ers. Would THEY like to confirm that they would do nothing differently to protect us all from terrorism? If they confirm - NON-STORY. But if they won't confirm....oh dear oh dear Mr. Cameron. What friends you have super-glued yourself to...
''The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't. ''
Phillip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary (Who Changed His Mind) seemed rather embarrassed on 'Today' this morning - Nick Robinson found it hard not to mock .... Hammond kept saying "I don't write the headlines" ...
Yes he was floundering and adopting a more reasonable tone - possibly recognising that LEAVE's chances have improved? Irony is his career is over if REMAIN win... LMAO.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
And what ties the hands of their successors, Richard?
Well, obviously, what man puts together man can put asunder, subject to the institutional constraints and treaties (a formidable set of constraints in this case). But that's a bizarre argument; what would tie the hands of future EU politicians in any trade agreement? Are you saying that if we left the EU and negotiated a favourable settlement, we would be at grave risk because they might change their minds later?
You do know that we can vote to leave the EU any damn time we want, don't you?
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
The idea that we will get another opportunity to vote on this subject after this one is fanciful. The only way to leave the EU after a remain vote will be to vote in a party such as UKIP or to wait and hope that it falls apart which will have a much higher economic cost than what is currently on the table.
Are you saying that if two thirds of Brits would rather leave the EU, then we will stay?
Come on Max.
I think the vote won't be offered to us and that the subject won't be important enough for people to vote UKIP in as the main party of government. Unless the Conservatives become a party in favour of Leave then I just don't see it happening. It is possible, as I said just now, the number of MPs in favour of leaving is at an all time high, and the membership is broadly in favour of leaving too.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
Well I guess the centre could stand against the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum and refuse to pass the required legislation, but it might be a touch courageous for their future electability. If the happened the government would fall, and UKIP would pick up about 30% of the vote in the ensuing fall out and clear evidence of bad faith.
I was not thinking of the centre as more the left. The present HOC has a majority against leaving by circa 450 - 200 and that does not include the Lords which is more to the left, hence the governments present problems with legislation. I assume this is the reason for remain saying that uncertainty on leaving will go on for years
Same applies, if Labour MPs vote against the enabling legislation after a Leave vote, there will be a general election and Labour will get pounded by an unforgiving electorate, especially the sceptical WWC vote.
It isnt just labour and I do not follow how we would get a general election
I think I have firmly decided in favour of Leave, ...
Even though Michael Gove has confirmed that we'd leave the Single Market?
Not to speak for Robert, but some lawyers acting for financial services firms found that Fund Managers were more likely to favour Leave as they see their centre of gravity moving across the atlantic towards the US, while other participants broadly preferred Remain.
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'd be very pro the silliest claim of the day award!
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
Not really. Germany and more especially France want to create a EU with us locked in it. The EU parliament is full of MEPs wanting to revise a deal and hasn't yet approved it. The commission has its own agenda on ever closer Union and will simply push on with legislation which de facto means a single state. Your City guarantees only time will tell and the so-called referendum lock isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
... 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.
eh? What about Hungary and Czechoslovakia?
Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and E Germany in the late 1940s and Poland in 1980) were within the Soviet sphere of influence. The risk of war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact came from interaction between the two. In terms of the pressure points, it was nearly always the Americans who adopted the aggressive stance.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
And what ties the hands of their successors, Richard?
Well, obviously, what man puts together man can put asunder, subject to the institutional constraints and treaties. But that's a bizarre argument; what would tie the hands of future EU politicians in any trade agreement? Are you saying that if we left the EU and negotiated a favourable settlement, we would be at grave risk because they might change their minds later?
Well that would be EU law and then the resulting directives would have to be integrated into national law, this is political agreement, not EU law. Only treaty change can give us the legal protections we require for the opt-out.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
Looks like the opt-out from the European Public Prosecutor's Office is not quite an opt-out...
With regard to the question of whether the UK’s opt-out from the jurisdiction of the EPPO will be rendered ineffective owing to the ability of the EPPO to initiate the issue of an EAW and secure its execution in the UK, it is quite clear that it would.
Well that would be EU law and then the resulting directives would have to be integrated into national law, this is political agreement, not EU law. Only treaty change can give us the legal protections we require for the opt-out.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
Your first point is disputed, but in any case political agreement is as important as strict legal protection.
Your second point is odd. If we are protected already, under the treaties, then that's great. It's nice to have it reaffirmed in a political agreement, and it means that one argument of the Leave side is demolished. In fact it becomes an argument against leaving, because obviously we'd lose that protection if we withdrew from the treaties.
I think I have firmly decided in favour of Leave, ...
Even though Michael Gove has confirmed that we'd leave the Single Market?
Gove has confirmed nothing. He has given his preference which we must assume as the official spokesman for Leave is also the Leave official position.
What actually happens afterwards will have nothing to do with the Leave campaign beyond informing some MPs votes. It is Parliament who will decide the nature of our future relationship with the EU.
This is why I have my doubts about the honesty of some Leave campaigners. There are those like myself and RCS who will vote for Leave even though they are not choosing our preferred post Brexit option. Basically anything on offer is better than EU membership and we still believe that everything is up for grabs after a Leave vote. We at least are open about that.
I think others including the official campaign have done the calculation that Immigration gives them more chance of success than the single market. I am not sure I agree with this but that is the calculation they have made. So officially that is their position. I am not sure that there aren't some of them still thinking that once we do vote Leave they are well aware of what Parliament's most likely view is going to be and so are trying to have their cake and eat it.
I have no idea if they are right or wrong about this but the cynic in me when it comes to politicians - even the ones on my 'side' means I would put nothing beyond them.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
Oh dear, we are back to that pathetic old line are we?
'no-one is talking about a European super state'
'the idea of a single currency is a fantasy'
'Maastricht puts the break on Federalism'
'the EU is coming our way'
etc etc.
You don't even believe this yourself Richard. Why are you demeaning yourself by repeating this tired, dishonest propaganda?
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
That's a pretty lame comparison. Even you might concede a slight difference between occasional advisory referenda explicitly authorised by parliament on a case by case basis, and the general elections that have been at the heart of our democratic system for over two centuries. Hypobole much ?
Given that women have had the vote for less than a century, talk of "our democratic system for over two centuries" would be merely sexist if it were not for the fact that the male franchise has only been democratic since 1885.
Well that would be EU law and then the resulting directives would have to be integrated into national law, this is political agreement, not EU law. Only treaty change can give us the legal protections we require for the opt-out.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
Your first point is disputed, but in any case political agreement is as important as strict legal protection.
Your second point is odd. If we are protected already, under the treaties, then that's great. It's nice to have it reaffirmed in a political agreement, and it means that one argument of the Leave side is demolished. In fact it becomes an argument against leaving, because obviously we'd lose that protection if we withdrew from the treaties.
So I'll come back to my original question, what binds the hands of their successors who may be of different political persuasion.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
History repeats itself; first as GE 2015, second as Brexit. The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness. Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
Could Maomentum hijack the labour selction in tooting? I predict chaos in Labour ranks. No UKIP factor here so no talk of them coming second if anything I think the spotlight will be on the greens taking some Labour votes but having said all of that I still think Labour hold in a very tight close race because we Cons are fighting from mid-term. Also I hate to break it to the regulars on this site but although Corbyn's anti-aspiration politics would be unpopular in this seat most people don't know who he is or what he stands for. Ed Miliban was even more known and people knew "labour want to continue spending" because Ed was in government .
Td;LR Labour hold, increased but still small majority in Tooting.
Except of course we've been hearing the same story on UK integration since 1973, Cameron isn't around to ensure his "deal" and the European side of our Union are saying we'll eventually have to fall in to line.
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
No, they haven't. They have signed up to not using the term "ever closer union", which strangely doesn't appear in any of the current treaties. But even if we take what was said at face value, its not a treaty, so the federalist ECJ, which ONLY judges using the treaties, will continue to rule against us on an matter regarding ever closer union.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
No they haven't. A small set of politicians have signed a deal that might do some of what you say but is by no means guaranteed. Other sets of EU politicians including the European Parliament have the right and perhaps also the inclination to strike down significant parts of the deal. It has been confirmed that parts of it can also be overturned by the ECJ.
Meanwhile the decision on whether or not to have a referendum on further integration outside of a new treaty rests with the Government of the day in the UK. As we have seen since the so called 'lock' came in they have already been happy to sign away powers without a referendum.
Looking beyond the referendum and in the event of a leave vote can anyone explain to me how the right of the conservative party are going to get legislation through the HOC and the Lords to enable a smooth transition
Well I guess the centre could stand against the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum and refuse to pass the required legislation, but it might be a touch courageous for their future electability. If the happened the government would fall, and UKIP would pick up about 30% of the vote in the ensuing fall out and clear evidence of bad faith.
I was not thinking of the centre as more the left. The present HOC has a majority against leaving by circa 450 - 200 and that does not include the Lords which is more to the left, hence the governments present problems with legislation. I assume this is the reason for remain saying that uncertainty on leaving will go on for years
Same applies, if Labour MPs vote against the enabling legislation after a Leave vote, there will be a general election and Labour will get pounded by an unforgiving electorate, especially the sceptical WWC vote.
Hard to say how the issues would be framed. I don't think Labour would nakedly refuse to accept the result of the referendum. They would say they were ready to enact Leave but it had to be a "Labour Leave" or "People's Leave" not a "Tory Leave". Ie, they would demand concessions from the Tories for their support which would be calculated to be things the Tories wouldn't agree to. It's far from certain that voters would punish Labour at an ensuing election. After all, it wouldn't have been Labour that precipitated the crisis.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
The EEA option has been ruled out by almost all the Leave campaigns, and of course most notably by the official Leave campaign (as I predicted it would).
I think I have firmly decided in favour of Leave, ...
Even though Michael Gove has confirmed that we'd leave the Single Market?
Gove has confirmed nothing. He has given his preference which we must assume as the official spokesman for Leave is also the Leave official position.
What actually happens afterwards will have nothing to do with the Leave campaign beyond informing some MPs votes. It is Parliament who will decide the nature of our future relationship with the EU.
This is why I have my doubts about the honesty of some Leave campaigners. There are those like myself and RCS who will vote for Leave even though they are not choosing our preferred post Brexit option. Basically anything on offer is better than EU membership and we still believe that everything is up for grabs after a Leave vote. We at least are open about that.
I think others including the official campaign have done the calculation that Immigration gives them more chance of success than the single market. I am not sure I agree with this but that is the calculation they have made. So officially that is their position. I am not sure that there aren't some of them still thinking that once we do vote Leave they are well aware of what Parliament's most likely view is going to be and so are trying to have their cake and eat it.
I have no idea if they are right or wrong about this but the cynic in me when it comes to politicians - even the ones on my 'side' means I would put nothing beyond them.
Well I think the simple part is that Vote Leave aren't the government and the government of the day will be setting out our position for a post-Brexit future. Gove and Boris will be consulted but it will be Cameron who makes the final decision.
I think I have firmly decided in favour of Leave, ...
Even though Michael Gove has confirmed that we'd leave the Single Market?
Gove has confirmed nothing. He has given his preference which we must assume as the official spokesman for Leave is also the Leave official position.
What actually happens afterwards will have nothing to do with the Leave campaign beyond informing some MPs votes. It is Parliament who will decide the nature of our future relationship with the EU.
This is why I have my doubts about the honesty of some Leave campaigners. There are those like myself and RCS who will vote for Leave even though they are not choosing our preferred post Brexit option. Basically anything on offer is better than EU membership and we still believe that everything is up for grabs after a Leave vote. We at least are open about that.
I think others including the official campaign have done the calculation that Immigration gives them more chance of success than the single market. I am not sure I agree with this but that is the calculation they have made. So officially that is their position. I am not sure that there aren't some of them still thinking that once we do vote Leave they are well aware of what Parliament's most likely view is going to be and so are trying to have their cake and eat it.
I have no idea if they are right or wrong about this but the cynic in me when it comes to politicians - even the ones on my 'side' means I would put nothing beyond them.
Gove's comments yesterday have made it very difficult for those of us who are campaigning for an economically safe brexit to continue to press our case. Every time we now suggest that EEA/EFTA will be the preferred route of Government (which we know it will be), then Remain simply throws the moronic Gove statement back at us.
Well that would be EU law and then the resulting directives would have to be integrated into national law, this is political agreement, not EU law. Only treaty change can give us the legal protections we require for the opt-out.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
Your first point is disputed, but in any case political agreement is as important as strict legal protection.
Your second point is odd. If we are protected already, under the treaties, then that's great. It's nice to have it reaffirmed in a political agreement, and it means that one argument of the Leave side is demolished. In fact it becomes an argument against leaving, because obviously we'd lose that protection if we withdrew from the treaties.
So I'll come back to my original question, what binds the hands of their successors who may be of different political persuasion.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
I think you continue to tell us how much better it would be in the EEA because it fits your narrative, and you can't believe that we would do something as bonkers as voluntarily vote to leave the single market.
Trouble is, the narrative of VL is wholly incompatible with EEA membership.
Edit: and yes, yes I get it; it will be the government not VL who decides what we do but it would surely be the bravest of brave politicians who re-signed us back up to a different flavour of EU alphabet institution (we would go EFTA then decide to join EEA) and, lo and behold, be saddled once more with unlimited EU immigration.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
The EEA option has been ruled out (as I predicted it would).
By who? Vote Leave, and who gives a shit what they say, they aren't the government, only Gove has any real power and he's not the PM. Anything Vote Leave say about what happens post-Brexit is completely and utterly meaningless. They won't be making the decisions, will the PM really be on the phone to Domonic Cummings and asking for his permission while he draws up a plan? Sounds plausible.
The EEA option has been ruled out by almost all the Leave campaigns, and of course most notably by the official Leave campaign (as I predicted it would).
Until it is ruled in again by Parliament sometime after 24th June (in the case of a Leave vote)
History repeats itself; first as GE 2015, second as Brexit. The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness. Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
Cameron's had his Edstome moment. He's a public laughing stock.
Well that would be EU law and then the resulting directives would have to be integrated into national law, this is political agreement, not EU law. Only treaty change can give us the legal protections we require for the opt-out.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
Your first point is disputed, but in any case political agreement is as important as strict legal protection.
Your second point is odd. If we are protected already, under the treaties, then that's great. It's nice to have it reaffirmed in a political agreement, and it means that one argument of the Leave side is demolished. In fact it becomes an argument against leaving, because obviously we'd lose that protection if we withdrew from the treaties.
So I'll come back to my original question, what binds the hands of their successors who may be of different political persuasion.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
I think you continue to tell us how much better it would be in the EEA because it fits your narrative, and you can't believe that we would do something as bonkers as voluntarily vote to leave the single market.
Trouble is, the narrative of VL is wholly incompatible with EEA membership.
Edit: and yes, yes I get it; it will be the government not VL who decides what we do but it would surely be the bravest of brave politicians who re-signed us back up to a different flavour of EU alphabet institution (we would go EFTA then decide to join EEA) and, lo and behold, be saddled once more with unlimited EU immigration.
Council by elections held last Thursday - results Con defended 30 held 19 lost 5 to Lab 2 to LD 3 to UKIP 1 to Ind Lab defended 18 held 18 lost 1 to SNP LD defended 1 held 1 UKIP defended 3 held 1 lost 1 to Lab 1 to Con Ind defended 1 held 1
History repeats itself; first as GE 2015, second as Brexit. The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness. Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
Sounds like you are whistling to keep your spirits up to me
Gove's comments yesterday have made it very difficult for those of us who are campaigning for an economically safe brexit to continue to press our case. Every time we now suggest that EEA/EFTA will be the preferred route of Government (which we know it will be), then Remain simply throws the moronic Gove statement back at us.
I agree. But that is politics. You take the hand you are dealt.
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
The EEA option has been ruled out (as I predicted it would).
By who? Vote Leave, and who gives a shit what they say, they aren't the government, only Gove has any real power and he's not the PM. Anything Vote Leave say about what happens post-Brexit is completely and utterly meaningless. They won't be making the decisions, will the PM really be on the phone to Domonic Cummings and asking for his permission while he draws up a plan? Sounds plausible.
Agreed, but how do you tell the man on the street that and have it believed. Gove has screwed us all. I can only assume that this has been a deliberate tactic, because only an idiot could have done this by mistake.
History repeats itself; first as GE 2015, second as Brexit. The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness. Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
Cameron's had his Edstome moment. He's a public laughing stock.
Neville Chamberlain at least came back with a signed piece of paper.
The EU politicians - unanimously - have signed up to a deal explicitly acknowledging the end of ever-closer union in respect of the UK, guaranteeing our opt-outs, and agreeing to protection of the City from Eurozone hegemony. The referendum lock is in place as regards specific treaty changes. All UK political parties, even the LibDems, are agreed that we don't want further integration. Within other EU countries, the appetite for closer union has definitely collapsed.
No, they haven't. They have signed up to not using the term "ever closer union", which strangely doesn't appear in any of the current treaties. But even if we take what was said at face value, its not a treaty, so the federalist ECJ, which ONLY judges using the treaties, will continue to rule against us on an matter regarding ever closer union.
"Ever closer union" is there right at the very outset of the Treaty of Rome. This is the Preamble:
"His Majesty The King of the Belgians, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty The Queen of the Netherlands,
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
Desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
Have decided to create a European Economic Community ..."
'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..'.
And Iberia pilots telling Argentina the position of our ships.
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'm sure he thinks that a Corbyn-led Labour government would pose an extreme risk of destabilisation and ruin.
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
That's a pretty lame comparison. Even you might concede a slight difference between occasional advisory referenda explicitly authorised by parliament on a case by case basis, and the general elections that have been at the heart of our democratic system for over two centuries. Hypobole much ?
Given that women have had the vote for less than a century, talk of "our democratic system for over two centuries" would be merely sexist if it were not for the fact that the male franchise has only been democratic since 1885.
The EEA option has been ruled out by almost all the Leave campaigns, and of course most notably by the official Leave campaign (as I predicted it would).
Until it is ruled in again by Parliament sometime after 24th June (in the case of a Leave vote)
Presumably, if Cameron doesn't resign on a Leave vote, then he will attempt to negotiate a deal that is as close to our current arrangement as is possible.
Could Maomentum hijack the labour selction in tooting? I predict chaos in Labour ranks. No UKIP factor here so no talk of them coming second if anything I think the spotlight will be on the greens taking some Labour votes but having said all of that I still think Labour hold in a very tight close race because we Cons are fighting from mid-term. Also I hate to break it to the regulars on this site but although Corbyn's anti-aspiration politics would be unpopular in this seat most people don't know who he is or what he stands for. Ed Miliban was even more known and people knew "labour want to continue spending" because Ed was in government .
Td;LR Labour hold, increased but still small majority in Tooting.
Nunu, if there was a referendum to criminalise the Labour Party and all it stands for, which way would you vote? (I'd like to ask this question of a few other right-wing Peebies, too.)
I love this argument! 'Voting Leave is a good idea because the principal benefits the Leave campaign are touting won't actually be realised.'
In actual fact, the EEA option is dead, as all of those who'd actually be leading the negotiations - be it Gove or Boris who becomes PM in that scenario - have confirmed. That's the one piece of genuine new information which we have got out of the campaign.
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, ."
Even worse, we will still be held to that by the ECJ since it is a functioning treaty and the intergovernmental agreement from the renegotiation is not.
History repeats itself; first as GE 2015, second as Brexit. The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness. Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
And people wonder why leave use the immigration argument so much.
Comments
He ain't about to ban general elections, though, is he?
'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'
Not just the threat of war but economic collapse in the UK.
In his speech not even six months ago he told us everything would be fine if we left but it would not be an optimal solution, and now we are supposed to believe economic meltdown and the nine plagues devastating the land ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-would-do-okay-outside-the-european-union-david-cameron-says-a6727031.html
I know that according to some on here, it seems as though the yoke of EU oppression is omnipotent but as we are and will remain in full possession of our own sovereignty, then we can do as we please later on if the EU annoys us to that degree.
If a government believed a vote would lead to World War Three, it wouldn't hold the vote. It certainly wouldn't suggest a few months earlier it might support such a decision.
When the EU kicks off more integration and stiffs us for more money, the whole thing will kick off again.
Time for plenty more changes of intent before the vote... though I expect that the once in a lifetime chance to reassert our independence and simplify our governance will trump any mistrust of the baser motivations I see on show.
My point was that as a pragmatic politician (and I will never stop congratulating UKIP on forcing the point), he agreed to a referendum, then achieved what I think is a perfectly sensible renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, and here we are today.
Why all the fuss?
It reminded me of the brutality which was was all over Europe just 70 years ago. I thought about Ken's throwaway references to Hitler and the rather arcane discussions over who suggested removing who to where and it struck me how many including me were missing the point
The 'civilized' in the film were the Germans. Those behaving like animals were the prisoners. Their humanity had been stripped away. Like most on here I don't think this could happen again. The tensions in Europe are different. But it did happen in the Balcans within most of our lifetimes. Anyone underestimating man's inhumanity to man is insensitive and blind.
It can happen anywhere. Anything that minimizes the risk is worth doing. Not just here but anywhere that we can make a difference. I think Cameron was right. The chances of a war in any part of Europe are small but they are lessened by the UK belonging to the EU. Unlike several recent examples of shooting from the hip I believe he's thought this one through
he shouldn't have briefed the key points in if it wasn't what he was going to say
Deadline for candidate applications: 10am on Tuesday 10 May
Interviews by NEC panel: Wednesday 11 May
Selection meeting: Saturday morning 14 May
If it were truly believed that Brexit would be so perilous - up to the point of war - maybe, just maybe, other EU leaders might have been prepared to offer the UK a little bit more to make sure there was virtually no chance we would vote to leave. And, for his part, Cameron would have tried somewhat harder to get some sellable concessions.
Of course, the usual suspects will froth at the mouth whenever there is some minor EU initiative, but if there is a Remain result most people (and the vast bulk of the Conservative Party) will regard the matter as settled, and certainly won't want a rerun of this campaign.
Essentially this is because ever-closer-union is dead in the water, thanks partly to Cameron but also to wider geopolitical forces. The focus within the EU has to move now to sorting out the unfinished business of making the Eurozone work better, which won't involve us getting pulled in to further integration.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b01bd53c-fc98-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html#axzz489RSqJkT
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b01bd53c-fc98-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html#ixzz489RYhFnC
Fed up with being dragged into political squabbles over tax rates on everything from tampons to ebooks, the European Commission on Thursday proposed a major overhaul that would transfer decision-making on valued added tax from Brussels to national capitals."
It was only settled when Nato intervened. An arrangement that has stood the test of time.
Or maybe the story about a disgruntled civil servant issuing an early draft of the speech was put about by a disgruntled civil servant.
So a Prime Minister who used to work in PR, and his whole spin team give an over long and waffly speech and its supposed to be the media's fault that they fell asleep in the middle and only reported bits of his speech. Alastair Campbell is probably pissing himself laughing.
-----------------------------
So to sum up, either
a) the PM's spin team made a terrible mess up and it's all their fault and that of the naughty newspapers
or b) the PM has engaged in deliberate dog whistle politics here
Incompetence or dishonesty. Good alternatives, both.
A Leave vote on 23rd Jun WILL PLUNGE US INTO WAR!!!
Famine, pestilence, disease, anarchy and death will surely follow FOR US ALL within weeks
Or just possibly Cameron is getting more and more ridiculous every day.
So to drag it full circle and back on topic: Lab Hold 5K + majority...
It won't be a mid-term by-election though - unless it is delayed until 2017!
The problem for Cameron is that the EU politicians are the ones who have been straight with the UK electorate, whereas our own politicians haven't.
** and the next 6 weeks, I fear.
The role of the HoC would be to make consequential changes to English laws following our no longer being a member of the EU.
Come on Max.
Does anyone from Remain really think that the UK would do anything differently regarding working with nations currently inside or outside the EU to protect us all from terrorism? I mean really? I'm sure the Leave camp will be very happy to confirm that nothing will change FROM OUR SIDE.
Which means these fears are coming from our erstwhile fellow EU-ers. Would THEY like to confirm that they would do nothing differently to protect us all from terrorism? If they confirm - NON-STORY. But if they won't confirm....oh dear oh dear Mr. Cameron. What friends you have super-glued yourself to...
Excellent point.
As for the non-discrimination of currencies, it has already been tested at the ECJ and we've already won under existing rules. They are giving us something we already have.
EU Army
The legal opinion of Jonathan Fisher can be found here:
http://www.tfa.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OpinionJonathanFisher-QC.7.10.pdf
Your second point is odd. If we are protected already, under the treaties, then that's great. It's nice to have it reaffirmed in a political agreement, and it means that one argument of the Leave side is demolished. In fact it becomes an argument against leaving, because obviously we'd lose that protection if we withdrew from the treaties.
What actually happens afterwards will have nothing to do with the Leave campaign beyond informing some MPs votes. It is Parliament who will decide the nature of our future relationship with the EU.
This is why I have my doubts about the honesty of some Leave campaigners. There are those like myself and RCS who will vote for Leave even though they are not choosing our preferred post Brexit option. Basically anything on offer is better than EU membership and we still believe that everything is up for grabs after a Leave vote. We at least are open about that.
I think others including the official campaign have done the calculation that Immigration gives them more chance of success than the single market. I am not sure I agree with this but that is the calculation they have made. So officially that is their position. I am not sure that there aren't some of them still thinking that once we do vote Leave they are well aware of what Parliament's most likely view is going to be and so are trying to have their cake and eat it.
I have no idea if they are right or wrong about this but the cynic in me when it comes to politicians - even the ones on my 'side' means I would put nothing beyond them.
'no-one is talking about a European super state'
'the idea of a single currency is a fantasy'
'Maastricht puts the break on Federalism'
'the EU is coming our way'
etc etc.
You don't even believe this yourself Richard. Why are you demeaning yourself by repeating this tired, dishonest propaganda?
By single market rules, all nations in the single market can deal in all single market currencies with no impediment, was essentially the ruling. In the EEA we would still be in the single market and still be protected by the same ruling.
The PB LeeVees play the role of Milifans; outraged claiming amusement by the Cameron campaign, they wonder how the ordinary voter could possibly be convinced by his simplistic and over-dramatic arguments while all the clever folk like Dan Han Nan are on the side of righteousness.
Then the low-information voters turn out to get just as many votes as clever politicos do. We know how this story ends.
Td;LR Labour hold, increased but still small majority in Tooting.
Meanwhile the decision on whether or not to have a referendum on further integration outside of a new treaty rests with the Government of the day in the UK. As we have seen since the so called 'lock' came in they have already been happy to sign away powers without a referendum.
Basically your deal is worthless.
Trouble is, the narrative of VL is wholly incompatible with EEA membership.
Edit: and yes, yes I get it; it will be the government not VL who decides what we do but it would surely be the bravest of brave politicians who re-signed us back up to a different flavour of EU alphabet institution (we would go EFTA then decide to join EEA) and, lo and behold, be saddled once more with unlimited EU immigration.
Anything Cameron has is not worth the paper it isn't even printed on.
Con defended 30 held 19 lost 5 to Lab 2 to LD 3 to UKIP 1 to Ind
Lab defended 18 held 18 lost 1 to SNP
LD defended 1 held 1
UKIP defended 3 held 1 lost 1 to Lab 1 to Con
Ind defended 1 held 1
"His Majesty The King of the Belgians, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty The Queen of the Netherlands,
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
Desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
Have decided to create a European Economic Community ..."
'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..'.
And Iberia pilots telling Argentina the position of our ships.
EU solidarity in action.
In actual fact, the EEA option is dead, as all of those who'd actually be leading the negotiations - be it Gove or Boris who becomes PM in that scenario - have confirmed. That's the one piece of genuine new information which we have got out of the campaign.