"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 ..."
It is indeed. And each EU treaty works as a building bloc on the previous treaties unless they explicitly make them redundant. No EU treaty since the Treaty of Rome has made the Treaty of Rome redundant and it still applies with later modifications.
The important point being that Ever Closer Union is still part of the Treaty agreements that the UK has signed up to and continues to apply unless explicitly revoked by a later treaty. Cameron's deal does not do this.
Moreover the way EU treaties are interpreted by the ECJ is such that the preambles are given legal footing as the explanation of the aims of the treaty signatories and it is on that basis - including the aim of 'Ever Closer Union' that the ECJ will continue to interpret the Treaty of Rome and successor treaties.
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.
He is a "laughing stock" among contributors to a well-informed right-wing comments section on a political betting website. And Cameron wasn't very popular on Guardianista Twitter at GE 2015. Don't cry for him this time either.
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.
The Leave campaign isn't the government and will never be the government. Gove will do as he is told to by the PM or he can run for the leadership if he disagrees.
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.
There will be a rapid push from all sides for a quick deal. It will almost certainly be an EEA/EFTA deal I think, or something quite close to it but possibly re-badged.
Ten years from now the UK will be just as prosperous, if not more so, and much more content with the set up. Everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about in 2016, especially all the apocalyptic hysteria from the Prime Minister.
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.
It is not an argument. I lost the argument within the Leave campaign. It is simply my view of what will happen.
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.
I refer you to my reply to Richard N.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Boris's speech is actually quite good. He's been listening to Hannan more than Farage, talking about trade, regulation and sovereignty, rather than immigration so far.
I see an opportunity for some free money. Up to £1000 at evens available for reputable posters who are deluded enough to think that an EEA-style deal (ie one retaining our being subject to EU Directive 2004/38/EC or any reenactment thereof) is still on the cards, to be settled on the announcement of a deal between the UK and the EU following a Leave result. Bet void in the case of a Remain result. We can nominate an adjudicator, say @rcs1000 if he is willing.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Thank you.
It won't be Cameron's decision to make. It will be Parliament's.
@HappyBritScot: Dear @NatalieMcgarry, point of apology being pinned is so ppl can see it. Please sort, or regrettably there may be further from my solicitor
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
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.
There will be a rapid push from all sides for a quick deal. It will almost certainly be an EEA/EFTA deal I think, or something quite close to it but possibly re-badged.
Ten years from now the UK will be just as prosperous, if not more so, and much more content with the set up. Everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about in 2016, especially all the apocalyptic hysteria from the Prime Minister.
Well I think if we left for the EEA then Sweden and probably Denmark would follow us out after some time. We know that the Swiss and Norwegians are pretty restrictive on immigration already, the Danes even more than them. The EEA group could, over time, develop free movement between EEA/EFTA nations and the EU into enhanced movement of people rather than free movement of people. Allow both sides to impose mandatory job offers, medical insurance and other things which raise the cost of immigration but don't necessarily impede on someone's ability to move within the single market zone.
Anyone who says that overnight EU immigration will drop to less than 100k overnight after a leave vote is kidding themselves, it is going to be a long 10 years process in which the EU will be dragged kicking and screaming into making small changes which will eventually amount to something tangible.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Thank you.
It won't be Cameron's decision to make. It will be Parliament's.
Did I say that was Dave? Any PM would have to make the same speech if it is decided that the electorate didn't quite understand the question and needed to be educated about what is in their best interests.
As I said to @MaxPB - we remainers are often accused of ignoring one thing or another, but you guys need to understand the political reality, indeed impossibility of us somehow managing to finesse membership of EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote.
I see an opportunity for some free money. Up to £1000 at evens available for reputable posters who are deluded enough to think that an EEA-style deal (ie one retaining our being subject to EU Directive 2004/38/EC or any reenactment thereof) is still on the cards, to be settled on the announcement of a deal between the UK and the EU following a Leave result. Bet void in the case of a Remain result. We can nominate an adjudicator, say @rcs1000 if he is willing.
Any takers?
I would be up for £50. (all I can afford at the moment given job prospects)
Do I have any other outstanding bets with you at the moment?
Did I say that was Dave? Any PM would have to make the same speech if it is decided that the electorate didn't quite understand the question and needed to be educated about what is in their best interests.
As I said to @MaxPB - we remainers are often accused of ignoring one thing or another, but you guys need to understand the political reality, indeed impossibility of us somehow managing to finesse membership of EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote.
Again. What does any PM do if that is the will of Parliament?
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.
That is true. However, the fact that the 28 heads of government / state were able to agree it this time means that there should be no problem inserting that agreement into the next revision of the functioning treaties. With the ongoing challenges of Schengen and the Euro, a treaty revision probably will be needed sooner rather than later. Tusk seems quite reasonable about this even if Juncker isn't.
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
Was the PB comments consensus on the losing side? I thought that for a considerable time there was a view that Zac was losing it and certainly there were plenty of nominally right wing posters on here attacking Zac's campaign.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Thank you.
If you think the PM is going to take that road then you need to get your head examined. If he does react in this manner and lash out at the public for disagreeing with him then I would be reconsidering my support for him in the ensuing leadership battle.
I see an opportunity for some free money. Up to £1000 at evens available for reputable posters who are deluded enough to think that an EEA-style deal (ie one retaining our being subject to EU Directive 2004/38/EC or any reenactment thereof) is still on the cards, to be settled on the announcement of a deal between the UK and the EU following a Leave result. Bet void in the case of a Remain result. We can nominate an adjudicator, say @rcs1000 if he is willing.
Any takers?
I would be up for £50. (all I can afford at the moment given job prospects)
Do I have any other outstanding bets with you at the moment?
We have an old bet from around 2012 - from memory I think it was £100 at evens on the result of any referendum. I've got a note of the details at home.
If you'd like to add the £50 on the EEA-style bet, then I'd be very happy to accept your word.
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
I don't recall any consensus that Khan would lose. In fact, did anyone tip Goldsmith once the campaign was underway?
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
I don't recall any consensus that Khan would lose. In fact, did anyone tip Goldsmith once the campaign was underway?
'I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.'
If the risks to the economy are so great not to mention the threat of War do you really believe that Cameron would have risked having a referendum ?
Maybe you should ask Cameron why we bother being a NATO member.
Time for the Remain side to grow up if they want to retain any credibility.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
You may be correct when reading the nuances of his entire speech, but most people only ever read the headlines.
Yes I'm sure the PM and his friends will be horrified by those headlines and will quickly tell us that they are not what the PM meant at all.
What we keep seeing from the Govt REMAIN campaign is a series of dead cats flung on the table each week. This week we see WAR. Whilst may be one or two might be useful to REMAIN to draw attention, but we are seeing so many, that the voters will get numb to them.
Next week, Famine, as President Junker's ships and submarines blockade these sceptic isles to punish us for our defiance.
We have an old bet from around 2012 - from memory I think it was £100 at evens on the result of any referendum. I've got a note of the details at home.
If you'd like to add the £50 on the EEA-style bet, then I'd be very happy to accept your word.
Yep. Take that as agreed on the terms you stated. Lots of people who could be adjudicator if not Robert. I kind of think the general consensus acts as a good adjudicator in these matters when it comes to bets.
@tnewtondunn: Leave looked to Boris for a serious, statesmanlike response to Cameron... and he sings Ode to Joy in German on live TV. There's the clip.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Thank you.
If you think the PM is going to take that road then you need to get your head examined. If he does react in this manner and lash out at the public for disagreeing with him then I would be reconsidering my support for him in the ensuing leadership battle.
I am lost in levels of satire here. My post was, ahem, a joke, illustrating exactly what you say - that anyone who thinks the PM (whoever it is) would be able to join EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote, would indeed need their head examining.
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
Was the PB comments consensus on the losing side? I thought that for a considerable time there was a view that Zac was losing it and certainly there were plenty of nominally right wing posters on here attacking Zac's campaign.
The PB consensus forecast was correct on Khan's election - albeit incorrect in expecting his lead to be exaggerated by the polls, which was surprising, because last time the polls overstated the Conservative lead.
'I realise that Leavers are apoplectic at the very suggestion that Leaving might have a few consequences that would be unwelcome. Bluntly, they have to grow up and accept that there would be some different risks that Leaving would bring over Remaining. Weakened international cooperation and destabilising international relations are among them.
It is entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to point that out.'
If the risks to the economy are so great not to mention the threat of War do you really believe that Cameron would have risked having a referendum ?
Maybe you should ask Cameron why we bother being a NATO member.
Time for the Remain side to grow up if they want to retain any credibility.
Once again, "and" not "or".
It would be refreshing if some of the Leavers who think that what David Cameron said was outrageous actually troubled themselves to familiarise themselves with his argument. He's not suggesting that Germany is going to invade Poland three days after we leave the EU. He's suggesting that Britain should engage itself in the EU, that the EU has been a (not the) force for peace in Europe and weakening it could lead to unforeseen consequences, and that bearing in mind that we have seen military activities in the east of the continent recently, this would involve risk-taking.
You may be correct when reading the nuances of his entire speech, but most people only ever read the headlines.
Yes I'm sure the PM and his friends will be horrified by those headlines and will quickly tell us that they are not what the PM meant at all.
What we keep seeing from the Govt REMAIN campaign is a series of dead cats flung on the table each week. This week we see WAR. Whilst may be one or two might be useful to REMAIN to draw attention, but we are seeing so many, that the voters will get numb to them.
Next week, Famine, as President Junker's ships and submarines blockade these sceptic isles to punish us for our defiance.
Followed by Pestilence, when we are to be deprived of all the pharmaceutical products of Europe and the world....
Farmers operating under the various EU bans on pesticides might speak up on that one!
We have an old bet from around 2012 - from memory I think it was £100 at evens on the result of any referendum. I've got a note of the details at home.
If you'd like to add the £50 on the EEA-style bet, then I'd be very happy to accept your word.
Yep. Take that as agreed on the terms you stated. Lots of people who could be adjudicator if not Robert. I kind of think the general consensus acts as a good adjudicator in these matters when it comes to bets.
Sadiq Khan's election was historically momentous. Not just because he was the first son of a bus driver to be elected Mayor of London,
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
I don't recall any consensus that Khan would lose. In fact, did anyone tip Goldsmith once the campaign was underway?
By the pro-Goldsmith consensus I mean personal sentiment. The median PB comment is written by a more-or-less loyal but LEAVE Conservative. If I were to list the votes PB comments got wrong, it would of course have included GE 2015.
I stand before you here today as Prime Minister after your historic vote to Leave the European Union. As such, I feel it necessary to clarify what you have voted for. I know that the official Leave campaign manifesto told you we would finally be able to take control of immigration. However, it is quite clear to those of us in power that such a route would not be in our interests. There is other stuff also, about the single market, but I won't bore you with that. The point is, I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be signing up to a different European institution. Two of them in fact. I won't bother you with the details, but the main achievement is that membership of these institutions will ensure that the free movement of people will continue as before.
Thank you.
If you think the PM is going to take that road then you need to get your head examined. If he does react in this manner and lash out at the public for disagreeing with him then I would be reconsidering my support for him in the ensuing leadership battle.
I am lost in levels of satire here. My post was, ahem, a joke, illustrating exactly what you say - that anyone who thinks the PM (whoever it is) would be able to join EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote, would indeed need their head examining.
Did I say that was Dave? Any PM would have to make the same speech if it is decided that the electorate didn't quite understand the question and needed to be educated about what is in their best interests.
As I said to @MaxPB - we remainers are often accused of ignoring one thing or another, but you guys need to understand the political reality, indeed impossibility of us somehow managing to finesse membership of EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote.
Again. What does any PM do if that is the will of Parliament?
A Conservative leader isn't going to put a bill before Parliament that isn't supported by almost all of his own MPs, which the EEA option wouldn't be. He can't have it passed by Labour votes against the wishes of a large chunk of his own MPs, including those that led the successful Leave campaign.
@tnewtondunn: Leave looked to Boris for a serious, statesmanlike response to Cameron... and he sings Ode to Joy in German on live TV. There's the clip.
It was a good speech apart from that bit - but as you say, guess what the clip will be. He needs to turn down the sillyness just a little, he's not mayor now and needs to act a little more statesman like.
We have an old bet from around 2012 - from memory I think it was £100 at evens on the result of any referendum. I've got a note of the details at home.
If you'd like to add the £50 on the EEA-style bet, then I'd be very happy to accept your word.
Yep. Take that as agreed on the terms you stated. Lots of people who could be adjudicator if not Robert. I kind of think the general consensus acts as a good adjudicator in these matters when it comes to bets.
Boris's speech is actually quite good. He's been listening to Hannan more than Farage, talking about trade, regulation and sovereignty, rather than immigration so far.
It's excellent, interesting - lots of facts and making many pull out quotes. I'm very pleased with it.
"One wonders how Leavers think the Prime Minister can bring the subject up at all."
Ah, diddums. "Referee, referee, that's not fair."
Cameron let the advance publicity run away with itself, but even saying "We're here and we don't want to be there ... war, nastiness etc ... and maybe we'd better stay where we are just in case," he knew what the headlines would say. A ploy to engage the terminally stupid to take fright.
I doubt that argument worked with the Scots (money ... far more likely), so why does he reckon it will work here?
Boris made some good points (and I'm not a particular fan of him. He doesn't do details, but then I know someone else who doesn't). Yet the headlines will be bear little relation to his main points.
They're both experienced politicians and they're playing the game. A yellow card, Mr Meeks. for arguing with the referee (these are rugby rules).
@tnewtondunn: Leave looked to Boris for a serious, statesmanlike response to Cameron... and he sings Ode to Joy in German on live TV. There's the clip.
It was a good speech apart from that bit - but as you say, guess what the clip will be. He needs to turn down the sillyness just a little, he's not mayor now and needs to act a little more statesman like.
The room erupted in laughter when he sang Ode to Joy in German.
Boris's speech is actually quite good. He's been listening to Hannan more than Farage, talking about trade, regulation and sovereignty, rather than immigration so far.
It's excellent, interesting - lots of facts and making many pull out quotes. I'm very pleased with it.
Facts?
It is between taking back control of our money – or giving a further £100bn to Brussels before the next election
@LOS_Fisher: Boris quizzed on why precisely he wrote in his Churchill book that EU has been a huge force for stability & peace if he doesn't believe that
I listened to Boris with great interest and he gave a good speech in favour of Brexit and his tone was excellent. I could not argue with most of his points but still cannot understand how we get a trade deal with the EU without contributing and free movement. He is good for leave but I still will vote remain as I believe we need to be at the table
@tnewtondunn: Leave looked to Boris for a serious, statesmanlike response to Cameron... and he sings Ode to Joy in German on live TV. There's the clip.
It was a good speech apart from that bit - but as you say, guess what the clip will be. He needs to turn down the sillyness just a little, he's not mayor now and needs to act a little more statesman like.
The room erupted in laughter when he sang Ode to Joy in German.
Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
Completely O/T: well worth catching last night's documentary on Hillsborough. Outstanding. That police forces and their legal advisors were involved in such a sustained cover up, starting almost from the moment the tragedy happened, is deeply shocking. There was at the weekend a good article from Matthew Parris on the state of the police - not just Hillsborough, but Orgreave and Rotherham and others - and asking whether there should be a root and branch review of how the police operates. He made a good case for one.
Also a question for the techies on here: I have tried reading PB on my iPad - no trouble until now - but yesterday when I clicked on the "More Comments" button all I got was the screen flashing between the last comment and a new comment back and forth and never settling so essentially unreadable. Anyone know what might be going on and how to stop it?
Completely O/T: well worth catching last night's documentary on Hillsborough. Outstanding. That police forces and their legal advisors were involved in such a sustained cover up, starting almost from the moment the tragedy happened, is deeply shocking. There was at the weekend a good article from Matthew Parris on the state of the police - not just Hillsborough, but Orgreave and Rotherham and others - and asking whether there should be a root and branch review of how the police operates. He made a good case for one.
Also a question for the techies on here: I have tried reading PB on my iPad - no trouble until now - but yesterday when I clicked on the "More Comments" button all I got was the screen flashing between the last comment and a new comment back and forth and never settling so essentially unreadable. Anyone know what might be going on and how to stop it?
Completely O/T: well worth catching last night's documentary on Hillsborough. Outstanding. That police forces and their legal advisors were involved in such a sustained cover up, starting almost from the moment the tragedy happened, is deeply shocking. There was at the weekend a good article from Matthew Parris on the state of the police - not just Hillsborough, but Orgreave and Rotherham and others - and asking whether there should be a root and branch review of how the police operates. He made a good case for one.
Also a question for the techies on here: I have tried reading PB on my iPad - no trouble until now - but yesterday when I clicked on the "More Comments" button all I got was the screen flashing between the last comment and a new comment back and forth and never settling so essentially unreadable. Anyone know what might be going on and how to stop it?
Thanks.
It is high time Orgreave was looked at properly.
They should be looking at the role of the BBC in that as well.
A particular area of concern is foreign policy. Swing voters generally feel the Iraq War was a profound mistake, and it has badly tarnished their view of Tony Blair. However, they do not see Jeremy Corbyn as an antidote to Labour’s past errors. Instead they see someone incapable of standing up for the country. As one person said ‘imagine him in the White House – he’s like someone who got lost from the tour.’
I listened to Boris with great interest and he gave a good speech in favour of Brexit and his tone was excellent. I could not argue with most of his points but still cannot understand how we get a trade deal with the EU without contributing and free movement. He is good for leave but I still will vote remain as I believe we need to be at the table
Precisely - and that is why the EEA/EFTA route out of the EU is the safe route. You get out of the political arena first, remove yourself from the ECJ, ever closer Union, CAP/CFP, the customs union, foreign affairs, justice and home affairs.
Then you have time to extricate yourself from the EEA, by building a truly level single market at a higher level, by continuing the necessary shift of regulation to global level by the WTO TBT agreement, sector by sector rather than by area (i.e. TTIP) - probably by expanding the role of UNECE.
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
Greetings from Qatar Flight 10 to Doha. It's taken me a little while to get on-line, as Politicalbetting seems to be considered inappropriate content by the Qatar Airways firewall.
This flight (an A380) is deserted. They could have flown a 767 and it wouldn't have been full. Fortunately, they have all that oil (well, really gas) money to fall back on. Oh wait.
That being said, the food and service is excellent.
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.
There is an argument that the Tories are vastly more appealing and electable without their purple cousins support.
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tendency on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
That will not happen - end of story
See also:
The Conservatives will not get a majority. Trump will not win the nomination.
I listened to Boris with great interest and he gave a good speech in favour of Brexit and his tone was excellent. I could not argue with most of his points but still cannot understand how we get a trade deal with the EU without contributing and free movement. He is good for leave but I still will vote remain as I believe we need to be at the table
It is a mystery how the USA and China sell so many products into the EU without a trade deal and without free movement of people and without paying for the EU budget.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tenancy on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
It becomes more and more irrelevant by the year. The decisions on trade and international cooperation are now being made at levels well above the EU or EFTA. At least EFTA members get to sit on those bodies and take part in the decision making process. As EU members we simply abrogate that responsibility and power and give it to the EU to decide on our behalf, even if not in our interests.
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tenancy on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
But would you take a job which pays 50k now but with no or little prospect of promotions or pay rises over a job which pays 45K now but with no such limits. I know which I would take and that is the analogy for me for the UK in vs out. The sclerosis of the EU is growth killing. Our growth prospects, while taking a hit in the short-term, are far better outside, setting our own economic and regulatory policies to reflect the entire global market, not just the EU market.
Cue all the Inners' comments on how we couldn't ...
Iain Martin on form "The Prime Minister is extremely concerned about the risks posed by the possibility of Brexit. Boy, if he ever finds out who called this referendum he is going to give them a piece of his mind. Oh, hold on, it was the Prime Minister who called the referendum and said during his renegotiation that preceded it that he ruled nothing out. That means he considered recommending (over some footling benefits changes) the very Leave vote that he now says will mean the end of the world." http://capx.co/will-brexit-mean-world-war-iii/
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tenancy on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
This is incorrect. The EEA IS the single market. That is the treaty by which the single market operates.
Regulation of the single market operates by a twin pillar mechanism - where proposals are examined in a joint EFTA/EU system, then proposed to the EU and the normal legislative process undertaken. That is why you don't see the EEA (112/113) brake being used on a regular basis, as it is being assiduously avoided by all parties.
Most of these proposals where they relate to trade conformity are now handed down from Global bodies - WP29 for auto regs for example, Codex Alimentarius for Agricultural and food Regs and many others. This is the result of the WTO's Non Tariff Barrier agreement, to which the EU is a signatory.
Boris's speech is actually quite good. He's been listening to Hannan more than Farage, talking about trade, regulation and sovereignty, rather than immigration so far.
It's excellent, interesting - lots of facts and making many pull out quotes. I'm very pleased with it.
Facts?
It is between taking back control of our money – or giving a further £100bn to Brussels before the next election
Agree it's a good speech apart from that whopper.
Not far out - bear in mind the £18 billion gross isn't everything - we have to remit portions of VAT and other revenue. (For the left on pb £18 * 4 = £72 - and the amount is forecast to go up by another £2 billion a year.)
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tenancy on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
But would you take a job which pays 50k now but with no or little prospect of promotions or pay rises over a job which pays 45K now but with no such limits. I know which I would take and that is the analogy for me for the UK in vs out. The sclerosis of the EU is growth killing. Our growth prospects, while taking a hit in the short-term, are far better outside, setting our own economic and regulatory policies to reflect the entire global market, not just the EU market.
Cue all the Inners' comments on how we couldn't ...
Being outside the EU won't do anything to fix our chronic underinvestment in infrastructure - housing, railways, airports. If we show no willingness to address fundamental problems which are completely in our control, what gives you the confidence that we will suddenly acquire a new dynamism simply though leaving the EU?
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tendency on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
There's a tendency on the Remain side to pretend that there won't be any further EU integration, not necessarily to the benefit of 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.
How amusing, if true. This shows the risk of dealing in lurid headlines rather than serious argument. It's far too late to row back now.
Every newspaper is talking about WAR!! And the talking heads on the telly are doing the same. No attempt at speech message homeopathy is going to fix this one.
Wearing an old communications hat from the 1990s it looks to me that the govt PR person briefed the papers ahead of the speech with words about the threat of war to grab attention ahead of the speech and thought it was a smart move to make. They then wake up to the headlines, do not like the ridicule and tone down the actual speech.
'Iain Martin on form "The Prime Minister is extremely concerned about the risks posed by the possibility of Brexit. Boy, if he ever finds out who called this referendum he is going to give them a piece of his mind. Oh, hold on, it was the Prime Minister who called the referendum and said during his renegotiation that preceded it that he ruled nothing out. That means he considered recommending (over some footling benefits changes) the very Leave vote that he now says will mean the end of the world."
I listened to Boris with great interest and he gave a good speech in favour of Brexit and his tone was excellent. I could not argue with most of his points but still cannot understand how we get a trade deal with the EU without contributing and free movement. He is good for leave but I still will vote remain as I believe we need to be at the table
It is a mystery how the USA and China sell so many products into the EU without a trade deal and without free movement of people and without paying for the EU budget.
While I don't want to be accused of belabouring a point I've made several times before, there are quite a few trade treaties between the EU and the US. (And a number of other treaties to which either the EU or the US is a cosignatory). What there is not is a comprehensive "free trade agreement" between the US and the EU.
A thoughtful post. I have not seen the film though have read the reviews. I saw "Shoah" years ago - harrowing - and, to be honest, felt that I could not bear to see anything more about such a subject again.
The EU's role in helping to cement the post-war settlement is one of the good things about it. Clearly, a major country leaving will be an upset and has potential risks for the stability of Europe, particularly at a time when it is facing instability on its southern and eastern flanks. It is fair of the PM to point this out.
It is legitimate, though, to question whether the EU's role more recently has been as benign and as helpful as it should have been or as it thinks it is when it is in its insufferable self-congratulatory mode e.g. in relation to the Balkans where Europe failed utterly and it took the US help sort out a savage civil war exacerbated by inexcusable inaction by the British and ineffective and occasional malevolent interference by other countries. Did the EU help or hinder in relation to the Ukraine? Nor has it really covered itself in glory in relation to the migration issue.
Anyone sensible accepts that there is a risk in leaving, both for us and the rest of the EU. But there is also a risk in staying in an organisation which seeks to push for change in a way which does not have the wholehearted consent of the peoples within its constituent countries. Liberal democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Liberal democracies which have an increasing number of their populations voting for illiberal parties (as has happened in France, Holland, Greece, Austria, Germany) are at risk of fracture and also raise the (perhaps small) risk of violence. It is not encouraging to see older European demons reassert themselves in this new Europe and a bit more humility on the pro-EU side, a recognition that perhaps listening to the people rather than telling them, perhaps even a smidgen of recognition that perhaps this flight to illiberal and/or anti-EU parties is a reaction to an out of touch elite, would be welcome.
The risk is that in its understandable desire to avoid the European civil way which so disfigured the continent in the first half of the twentieth century the EU - in the way it is developing - lays the seeds for different sorts of conflicts. My view is that liberal democracies - truly liberal democracies properly upholding their values - are a better defence against war than an unhappy/grumbling collection of states cackhandedly glued together into some behemoth. The EU is not the USA and seems to have learnt none of the right lessons from how the original 13 states joined together to create one of the most long-lasting and effective political, legal and constitutional settlements.
'Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.'
Did she say how many Syrians she has managed to accommodate ?
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
How amusing, if true. This shows the risk of dealing in lurid headlines rather than serious argument. It's far too late to row back now.
Every newspaper is talking about WAR!! And the talking heads on the telly are doing the same. No attempt at speech message homeopathy is going to fix this one.
Wearing an old communications hat from the 1990s it looks to me that the govt PR person briefed the papers ahead of the speech with words about the threat of war to grab attention ahead of the speech and thought it was a smart move to make. They then wake up to the headlines, do not like the ridicule and tone down the actual speech.
It's very obvious - no way that different papers all took the same position without pre-briefing. The ridicule was instantaneous, just look at the last thread.
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
That's wishful thinking. The EEA is just the EU + a few satellites. It, or a similar organisation, is not going to include significant other continental blocks.
There's a tenancy on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
But would you take a job which pays 50k now but with no or little prospect of promotions or pay rises over a job which pays 45K now but with no such limits. I know which I would take and that is the analogy for me for the UK in vs out. The sclerosis of the EU is growth killing. Our growth prospects, while taking a hit in the short-term, are far better outside, setting our own economic and regulatory policies to reflect the entire global market, not just the EU market.
Cue all the Inners' comments on how we couldn't ...
Being outside the EU won't do anything to fix our chronic underinvestment in infrastructure - housing, railways, airports. If we show no willingness to address fundamental problems which are completely in our control, what gives you the confidence that we will suddenly acquire a new dynamism simply though leaving the EU?
Well at least we can row away from the EU loony-left anti-business pro-climate-change carbon-reduction-targets that are going to destroy all our manufacturing if we REMAIN.
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
I saw Son of Saul last night. It is an exceptional film, with the direction and cinematography capturing the claustrophobia and horror of a death camp very well.
Well worth seeing, but very hard to sleep well afterwards.
Following the headlines last night in the Mail, Telegraph and Times and the anger it caused to the leave campaign I said that I would judge the contents of David Cameron’s speech once I had heard it and if the headlines were accurate I would agree with leave that it is ‘over the top’. Having now heard his speech, which was unexpectedly introduced by David Miliband, there was nothing that leads me to believe the headlines of the leave leading newspapers. I would criticise it for being too long and some have said it was re-written but the lesson it should teach everyone is not to always believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Sky are saying they believe it was rewritten overnight in the face of the hostile reception from the papers.
How amusing, if true. This shows the risk of dealing in lurid headlines rather than serious argument. It's far too late to row back now.
Every newspaper is talking about WAR!! And the talking heads on the telly are doing the same. No attempt at speech message homeopathy is going to fix this one.
Wearing an old communications hat from the 1990s it looks to me that the govt PR person briefed the papers ahead of the speech with words about the threat of war to grab attention ahead of the speech and thought it was a smart move to make. They then wake up to the headlines, do not like the ridicule and tone down the actual speech.
It's very obvious - no way that different papers all took the same position without pre-briefing. The ridicule was instantaneous, just look at the last thread.
(Every newspaper is talking about WAR!!) Does any REMAINer disagree with this conclusion? It would add weight if they have some experience in this field of work.....
As always, thank you for an insightful and interesting post.
One thing I've been thinking more about is what would make my view different. (My view being that the EU is OK, but that it is not right for us.) And I must admit that, if I were living in Talinn, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of EU membership. Why?
Three reasons:
1. I would want to be as tied in with the rest of Western Europe as possible. One can, and I have done, argued that the security blanket of the EU is illusory. But equally, Russia is more dependent on the export of natural gas to the EU, than the other way around. Invading an EU country would no doubt incite incredibly painful economic consequences.
2. Like it or not, having a small and irrelevent currency is not much fun. Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania - should they wish to borrow - have always needed to do it in Deutschmark or Dollars, because even domestic savers would rather own Dollar or Euro assets than local currency ones.
3. My soveriegnty, as a small country surrounded by big ones, is much more constrained than if I were - say - the UK. Being part of something bigger (and full of vaguely friendly and democratic states fortunately lacking in territorial ambitions) is a lot better than being fully independent and being on Russia's doorstep, especially after the "invasion" of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, I am not living in Talinn. And therefore can put the sovereignty of my nation first. But I quite understand those who come from Vilnius or Talinn having a different view.
The only conclusion I can draw from Theresa May's appointment of a spokesman is that she thinks there is a fair chance of a leadership contest this year.
That might not necessarily require a Leave vote. But, if it is Leave, Theresa has laid a fair eurosceptic foundation for a run by her declaration she wishes to withdraw from the ECHR and non well-disguised statement that she would have got a better deal than Cameron, and made Britain a leader in Europe, and therefore should be trusted with the Brexit negotiations. Plus Brexit allows her to be even more hawkish on immigration.
Comments
The important point being that Ever Closer Union is still part of the Treaty agreements that the UK has signed up to and continues to apply unless explicitly revoked by a later treaty. Cameron's deal does not do this.
Moreover the way EU treaties are interpreted by the ECJ is such that the preambles are given legal footing as the explanation of the aims of the treaty signatories and it is on that basis - including the aim of 'Ever Closer Union' that the ECJ will continue to interpret the Treaty of Rome and successor treaties.
And Cameron wasn't very popular on Guardianista Twitter at GE 2015. Don't cry for him this time either.
Ten years from now the UK will be just as prosperous, if not more so, and much more content with the set up. Everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about in 2016, especially all the apocalyptic hysteria from the Prime Minister.
Thank you.
Any takers?
(... he's a WHAT?! ...)
but because it was the first time since 2005 that the right wing - and the PB comments consensus - was on the losing side of a major English vote. Two GEs, two European votes, two Boris mayoralties and a referendum, then Khan as combo-breaker. The polling evidence as far suggests that the European referendum will be a second vote in a row in which PB comments is on the losing side, which novel experience is perhaps the explanation for the slightly agitated tone on here.
Anyone who says that overnight EU immigration will drop to less than 100k overnight after a leave vote is kidding themselves, it is going to be a long 10 years process in which the EU will be dragged kicking and screaming into making small changes which will eventually amount to something tangible.
As I said to @MaxPB - we remainers are often accused of ignoring one thing or another, but you guys need to understand the political reality, indeed impossibility of us somehow managing to finesse membership of EFTA/EEA following a Leave vote.
Do I have any other outstanding bets with you at the moment?
If you'd like to add the £50 on the EEA-style bet, then I'd be very happy to accept your word.
Repeatedly.
I'm putting it down to Monday.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/does-anybody-actually-think-the-eu-guarantees-peace-and-stability/
Farmers operating under the various EU bans on pesticides might speak up on that one!
Good luck!
If I were to list the votes PB comments got wrong, it would of course have included GE 2015.
"One wonders how Leavers think the Prime Minister can bring the subject up at all."
Ah, diddums. "Referee, referee, that's not fair."
Cameron let the advance publicity run away with itself, but even saying "We're here and we don't want to be there ... war, nastiness etc ... and maybe we'd better stay where we are just in case," he knew what the headlines would say. A ploy to engage the terminally stupid to take fright.
I doubt that argument worked with the Scots (money ... far more likely), so why does he reckon it will work here?
Boris made some good points (and I'm not a particular fan of him. He doesn't do details, but then I know someone else who doesn't). Yet the headlines will be bear little relation to his main points.
They're both experienced politicians and they're playing the game. A yellow card, Mr Meeks. for arguing with the referee (these are rugby rules).
It is between taking back control of our money – or giving a further £100bn to Brussels before the next election
Agree it's a good speech apart from that whopper.
@jamesrbuk: Three out of five relate to curbing immigration. https://t.co/SWqkRiZGi6
http://www.bbc.co.uk/whodoyouthinkyouare/new-stories/boris-johnson/how-we-did-it_2.shtml
I understand that the Fixed Term Parliament legislation permits an early GE if 2/3 of the House votes for it. In such circumstances it would be a win/win for the new leader.
Either the Tories get the 2/3 with the support of the opposition or better still Labour MP's destined to lose their seats in a snap election with Corbyn in charge may oppose it!
Really worth a visit , it even has the Archduke's car and uniform on display
http://www.hgm.at/en/exhibitions/exhibitions/sarajevo.html
Completely O/T: well worth catching last night's documentary on Hillsborough. Outstanding. That police forces and their legal advisors were involved in such a sustained cover up, starting almost from the moment the tragedy happened, is deeply shocking. There was at the weekend a good article from Matthew Parris on the state of the police - not just Hillsborough, but Orgreave and Rotherham and others - and asking whether there should be a root and branch review of how the police operates. He made a good case for one.
Also a question for the techies on here: I have tried reading PB on my iPad - no trouble until now - but yesterday when I clicked on the "More Comments" button all I got was the screen flashing between the last comment and a new comment back and forth and never settling so essentially unreadable. Anyone know what might be going on and how to stop it?
Thanks.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/crispin-blunt-only-brexit-offers-a-positive-vision-for-britain-s-role-in-the-world-a3243351.html
Then you have time to extricate yourself from the EEA, by building a truly level single market at a higher level, by continuing the necessary shift of regulation to global level by the WTO TBT agreement, sector by sector rather than by area (i.e. TTIP) - probably by expanding the role of UNECE.
The EEA is going to become obsolete eventually, but the process that replaces it needs our voice rather than the EU's voice.
This flight (an A380) is deserted. They could have flown a 767 and it wouldn't have been full. Fortunately, they have all that oil (well, really gas) money to fall back on. Oh wait.
That being said, the food and service is excellent.
I don't know whether they are pro- or anti- Brexit, and I don't really care.
There's a tendency on the Leave side to idealise a particular vision of the world 100 years from now and then make erroneous conclusions about what is in our interests in the present day.
The Conservatives will not get a majority.
Trump will not win the nomination.
Cue all the Inners' comments on how we couldn't ...
http://capx.co/will-brexit-mean-world-war-iii/
Regulation of the single market operates by a twin pillar mechanism - where proposals are examined in a joint EFTA/EU system, then proposed to the EU and the normal legislative process undertaken. That is why you don't see the EEA (112/113) brake being used on a regular basis, as it is being assiduously avoided by all parties.
Most of these proposals where they relate to trade conformity are now handed down from Global bodies - WP29 for auto regs for example, Codex Alimentarius for Agricultural and food Regs and many others. This is the result of the WTO's Non Tariff Barrier agreement, to which the EU is a signatory.
@christopherhope: Theresa May prepares ground for Conservative leadership challenge by hiring Joey Jones as spokesman | @telegraphnews https://t.co/QagGaTIgpa
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/729609945675649024
'Iain Martin on form "The Prime Minister is extremely concerned about the risks posed by the possibility of Brexit. Boy, if he ever finds out who called this referendum he is going to give them a piece of his mind. Oh, hold on, it was the Prime Minister who called the referendum and said during his renegotiation that preceded it that he ruled nothing out. That means he considered recommending (over some footling benefits changes) the very Leave vote that he now says will mean the end of the world."
Could anyone make it up ?
The EU's role in helping to cement the post-war settlement is one of the good things about it. Clearly, a major country leaving will be an upset and has potential risks for the stability of Europe, particularly at a time when it is facing instability on its southern and eastern flanks. It is fair of the PM to point this out.
It is legitimate, though, to question whether the EU's role more recently has been as benign and as helpful as it should have been or as it thinks it is when it is in its insufferable self-congratulatory mode e.g. in relation to the Balkans where Europe failed utterly and it took the US help sort out a savage civil war exacerbated by inexcusable inaction by the British and ineffective and occasional malevolent interference by other countries. Did the EU help or hinder in relation to the Ukraine? Nor has it really covered itself in glory in relation to the migration issue.
Anyone sensible accepts that there is a risk in leaving, both for us and the rest of the EU. But there is also a risk in staying in an organisation which seeks to push for change in a way which does not have the wholehearted consent of the peoples within its constituent countries. Liberal democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Liberal democracies which have an increasing number of their populations voting for illiberal parties (as has happened in France, Holland, Greece, Austria, Germany) are at risk of fracture and also raise the (perhaps small) risk of violence. It is not encouraging to see older European demons reassert themselves in this new Europe and a bit more humility on the pro-EU side, a recognition that perhaps listening to the people rather than telling them, perhaps even a smidgen of recognition that perhaps this flight to illiberal and/or anti-EU parties is a reaction to an out of touch elite, would be welcome.
The risk is that in its understandable desire to avoid the European civil way which so disfigured the continent in the first half of the twentieth century the EU - in the way it is developing - lays the seeds for different sorts of conflicts. My view is that liberal democracies - truly liberal democracies properly upholding their values - are a better defence against war than an unhappy/grumbling collection of states cackhandedly glued together into some behemoth. The EU is not the USA and seems to have learnt none of the right lessons from how the original 13 states joined together to create one of the most long-lasting and effective political, legal and constitutional settlements.
'Interesting to hear Yvette Cooper talking of the possibility of an early election, if Cameron loses the referendum. He would surely need to step down and any new leader may well choose to go to the country.'
Did she say how many Syrians she has managed to accommodate ?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/ian-warren-nuneaton-charlatan-fabricate-front-page-news/
I don't think he really gets the idea of a focus group.
Well worth seeing, but very hard to sleep well afterwards.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vp6viBi5DA4avMgR2Y8lKrrAUqJp-0zL2LZB6iVD3uU/htmlview
Superb.
Does any REMAINer disagree with this conclusion? It would add weight if they have some experience in this field of work.....
As always, thank you for an insightful and interesting post.
One thing I've been thinking more about is what would make my view different. (My view being that the EU is OK, but that it is not right for us.) And I must admit that, if I were living in Talinn, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of EU membership. Why?
Three reasons:
1. I would want to be as tied in with the rest of Western Europe as possible. One can, and I have done, argued that the security blanket of the EU is illusory. But equally, Russia is more dependent on the export of natural gas to the EU, than the other way around. Invading an EU country would no doubt incite incredibly painful economic consequences.
2. Like it or not, having a small and irrelevent currency is not much fun. Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania - should they wish to borrow - have always needed to do it in Deutschmark or Dollars, because even domestic savers would rather own Dollar or Euro assets than local currency ones.
3. My soveriegnty, as a small country surrounded by big ones, is much more constrained than if I were - say - the UK. Being part of something bigger (and full of vaguely friendly and democratic states fortunately lacking in territorial ambitions) is a lot better than being fully independent and being on Russia's doorstep, especially after the "invasion" of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, I am not living in Talinn. And therefore can put the sovereignty of my nation first. But I quite understand those who come from Vilnius or Talinn having a different view.
That might not necessarily require a Leave vote. But, if it is Leave, Theresa has laid a fair eurosceptic foundation for a run by her declaration she wishes to withdraw from the ECHR and non well-disguised statement that she would have got a better deal than Cameron, and made Britain a leader in Europe, and therefore should be trusted with the Brexit negotiations. Plus Brexit allows her to be even more hawkish on immigration.
Clever Theresa.
I miss doing 'Balls deep in trouble' headlines.