Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
It is as if they did not notice that the fear-based "bitter together" campaign almost led to an independent Scotland. Remain needs to present a positive case for staying in (and likewise Leave for coming out).
I have been wondering whether Scots hoping for another Indie referendum will decide to vote Leave as a means of achieving it.
But if too many decide to do that, Scotland will have voted Leave & there will be no pretext for a 2nd Indieref.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM told mayor he was "very keen for Sadiq to mobilise his election winning coalition" in support of staying in EU.
A mysterious ague spreads among them. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I am not going to google ague but in any case that is tommyrot.
Remain aren't panicking. They have set out a position, with clarity, about their satisfaction with the new relationship Dave has negotiated between the UK and the EU.
Remainers cannot of course promise that at some point in the future, the leaders of "The 27", from deep within their volcanic lair, won't authorise an airstrike on Hull. Or get the ECJ to forbid all future referendums in the UK on the subject of the EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New relationship that will be ignored by future EU leaders, struck down by the ECJ, ignored in any case as the EU Army is formed (C-I-C: Jacques Delors), blah, blah, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory, siamese cat...
Of course it is a new relationship. No ECU, no EZ/non-EZ discrimination and se other fluff also. No ECU codified by the 28 leaders in an EU document (yes, yes, I know it is not yet in a treaty dear god give me strength), is about as much a new relationship as it can get.
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What has Osborne got to do with the deal that Dave negotiated or is it a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend?
Oh well if we're talking about Dave I woudn't go off in his direction either. He's splitting his party needlessly.
Well I have been staring at election results here in the Philippines for the past 18 hrs and to be honest the results now are pretty much what they were 18hrs ago in percentage terms.
Tell us a bit about the candidates? I only have the vaguest impression of Filipino politics.
Of course it is a new relationship. No ECU, no EZ/non-EZ discrimination and some other fluff also. No ECU codified by the 28 leaders in an EU document (yes, yes, I know it is not yet in a treaty dear god give me strength), is about as much a new relationship as it can get.
Calm down, you are going to start embarrassing Meeks and Nabavi with your Europhilia, and your chance of changing anyone's mind here now is the square root of zero
As I said, it is easy to have a rose-tinted view of what the UK is or should be or once was when you are 5,000 miles away.
For those of us who live here, we deal with the pragmatism of the situation.
Edit: sorry, that was unnecessarily rude.
and bad geography :-)
Dear god out by 2,000 miles. And I used to live in Honkers so I have no excuse.
It's only numbers as the greek finance minister would say
1) The site is expanding all conversations so all nesting is viable making threads huge. 2) To correct edit function now only opens a very small window so difficult to see what you are editing( one line visible) 3) Once the selection of the position of the cursor in edit window is made you can't change it to somewhere else without cancelling and reentering edit mode
This started over the weekend on Chrome. Never been an issue up to this moment. It makes using the site very difficult and also to read and to use.
I use chrome as I cannot log in on any other engine. Not sure why only chrome allows the log in.
Yes all of the above. Although it only seems to expand the conversation I post to be fair and if i reload it shrinks back to just the top level and first nesting. But 2 and 3 are a huge pain in the arse. (Latest Chrome on either W8 or W10)
Hold on. I've never had threading. Have I missed a tick-box somewhere or are you running some extension or other?
I don't have threading either, I have a list of comments, some of which quote other comments, which might quote other comments. When I create a new comment (with a proper full sized edit window) quoting a comment and post it, I see all the quotes nested all the ways down the rabbit hole. If I refresh the screen I see only the list of comments with just the top quoted comment, and all the comments quote in that quote comment are collapsed into a "show previous quotes" tag. If I try and edit that comment, or any other comment I get a two and a half line tall, really annoying edit window. I trust I make myself opaque
I am running an extension, but its only the beta version of my ignore list extension which helps preserve my fragile sanity
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I am not going to google ague but in any case that is tommyrot.
Remain aren't panicking. They have set out a position, with clarity, about their satisfaction with the new relationship Dave has negotiated between the UK and the EU.
Remainers cannot of course promise that at some point in the future, the leaders of "The 27", from deep within their volcanic lair, won't authorise an airstrike on Hull. Or get the ECJ to forbid all future referendums in the UK on the subject of the EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New relationship that will be ignored by future EU leaders, struck down by the ECJ, ignored in any case as the EU Army is formed (C-I-C: Jacques Delors), blah, blah, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory, siamese cat...
Of course it is a new relationship. No ECU, no EZ/non-EZ discrimination and se other fluff also. No ECU codified by the 28 leaders in an EU document (yes, yes, I know it is not yet in a treaty dear god give me strength), is about as much a new relationship as it can get.
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What has Osborne got to do with the deal that Dave negotiated or is it a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend?
Oh well if we're talking about Dave I woudn't go off in his direction either. He's splitting his party needlessly.
Well he would in all likelihood have lost the election if he hadn't offered it. As I mentioned earlier today, repec' for UKIP for forcing the issue. Howsoever it came about, we have ourselves a referendum. We don't have a reformed EU but we have a reformed relationship (let's call it "new" ) with the EU, so in one sense it is reformed.
If we look at the deal, it codifies some pretty fundamental issues.
So I'm not sure which bit was needless. He could I suppose have said "it's a cr4p deal, I'm out" but I have to believe that career progression notwithstanding around 50% of the 170 pro MPs would still have been pro.
So although he has split his party, I don't see how it was needless or how he could have avoided it.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I am not going to google ague but in any case that is tommyrot.
Remain aren't panicking. They have set out a position, with clarity, about their satisfaction with the new relationship Dave has negotiated between the UK and the EU.
Remainers cannot of course promise that at some point in the future, the leaders of "The 27", from deep within their volcanic lair, won't authorise an airstrike on Hull. Or get the ECJ to forbid all future referendums in the UK on the subject of the EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New relationship that will be ignored by future EU leaders, struck down by the ECJ, ignored in any case as the EU Army is formed (C-I-C: Jacques Delors), blah, blah, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory, siamese cat...
Of course it is a new relationship. No ECU, no EZ/non-EZ discrimination and se other fluff also. No ECU codified by the 28 leaders in an EU document (yes, yes, I know it is not yet in a treaty dear god give me strength), is about as much a new relationship as it can get.
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What has Osborne got to do with the deal that Dave negotiated or is it a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend?
Oh well if we're talking about Dave I woud issues.
So I'm not sure which bit was needless. He could I suppose have said "it's a cr4p deal, I'm out" but I have to believe that career progression notwithstanding around 50% of the 170 pro MPs would still have been pro.
So although he has split his party, I don't see how it was needless or how he could have avoided it.
The problem with victory at all costs is eventually the bill turns up.
Like you I believe Remain will win, so I can't see the point in makinga party split more acrimonious. The how he wins is as important as the winning itself.
I had the same argument with the Nats in Indyref where I said they were forcing deep splits in the scottish people. At the time the Nats poo pooed the idea and said all would be friends post the event. That hasn't turned out quite as they assured me.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM told mayor he was "very keen for Sadiq to mobilise his election winning coalition" in support of staying in EU.
A mysterious ague spreads among them. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I am not going to google ague but in any case that is tommyrot.
Remain aren't panicking. They have set out a position, with clarity, about their satisfaction with the new relationship Dave has negotiated between the UK and the EU.
Remainers cannot of course promise that at some point in the future, the leaders of "The 27", from deep within their volcanic lair, won't authorise an airstrike on Hull. Or get the ECJ to forbid all future referendums in the UK on the subject of the EU. Or...or...
You do realise that the rest of the EU don't get to vote on this satisfactory " new relationship" until after our referendum. I am sure the timing has little to do with the plebes te here of course.
To be fair though given Dave asked for the square root of absolutely feck all and came away with even less they almost certainly would vote in favour ......after they have stopped laughing of course.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
Yes some of the pronouncements, some of the assumptions of the electorate's idiocy or laziness, some of the knowing how an otherwise anodyne statement would immediately be spun as project fear by the media by Dave et al has been unedifying to say the least.
“You want a charismatic leader and to me he’s more like Worzel Gummidge,” said one woman.
“They’ve more or less fallen out with themselves at the minute. It’s just a shambles, so how can you vote for someone to run the country when they can’t even sit in the room together. No,” said one man.
The survey was conduced by former Ed Miliband pollsters James Morris and Ian Warren for Election Data in association with Greenberg Quinlan Rosler.
The men and women from Nuneaton had all voted for Labour in 2005 or 2010 but Conservative in 2015
David Cameron should not get too excited however, as the Conservative Party was also described as being “full of crap”.
“I imagine him in the White House – he’s like someone who got lost from the tour,” man.
“The only times you ever hear him – he picks up on stupid things and would say ‘oh David Cameron was slagging off my tie today,” man.
“Scruffy, very scruffy and flaky looking. Flaky – he does. He just – he never seems like he’s presentable,” woman.
“If he has a viewpoint he tends to stick to it and will say something even if it sounds stupid,” man.
George Osborne, who on Sunday said any Tory leadership contest would not happen until the “end of the decade”, was described as “slimy”.
One woman said of the chancellor: “He looks a bit like Mr. Benn – a bit round and weasely.”
Another woman added: “I voted Conservative last time and I just think – I dunno – I don’t think they’ve delivered on anything. I just think they’re absolutely full of crap.”
Corbyn may be seen as “scruffy” But other Labour figures and future leadership contenders were not well known by the voters of Nuneaton.
Asked if anyone knew Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who has been touted as possible leadership contender, one of the group asked: “Is she a relative of Tony?”
Two of the focus group had heard of John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, thanks to the Little Red Book he threw at Osborne.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
It is as if they did not notice that the fear-based "bitter together" campaign almost led to an independent Scotland. Remain needs to present a positive case for staying in (and likewise Leave for coming out).
I totally agree. Mrs Moses said tonight she has no idea how to vote. She said Neither side cover themselves in glory and she would like a completely independent person to explain pros and cons. As it is she says that's not going to happen so she probably isn't going to bother to vote.
I presume that favours remain along the lines off keep things as they are. Alternatively it could be dangerous for remain as the lack of turnout compared to the leavers who have a once in a lifetime opportunity could tip the balance....... Maybe?
Well I have been staring at election results here in the Philippines for the past 18 hrs and to be honest the results now are pretty much what they were 18hrs ago in percentage terms.
Tell us a bit about the candidates? I only have the vaguest impression of Filipino politics.
The article on AP today written by their local correspondents is pretty good.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot honestly believe we have a "new" relationship with the EU as a result of Dave's "deal".
We have a few wholly meaningless phrases attached to a promise - a PROMISE- that they will be introduced into a new EU Treaty as and when the EU decides to have a new Treaty, and besides the EU Parliament and the ECJ have likewise promised to overturn anything they don't like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
It is as if they did not notice that the fear-based "bitter together" campaign almost led to an independent Scotland. Remain needs to present a positive case for staying in (and likewise Leave for coming out).
I have been wondering whether Scots hoping for another Indie referendum will decide to vote Leave as a means of achieving it.
But if too many decide to do that, Scotland will have voted Leave & there will be no pretext for a 2nd Indieref.
Could never quite understand the logic of Sturgeon shouting for independence only to throw the country back into the black hole of the EU while tying her currency to the auld enemy south of the border just as the oil price collapsed.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
The Democratic part won't mind. And personally I think he's very funny about 70% of the time - in the last year he's gone a little nuts with the partisan talk, and gets extremely lazy at times as a result.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot honestly believe we have a "new" relationship with the EU as a result of Dave's "deal".
We have a few wholly meaningless phrases attached to a promise - a PROMISE- that they will be introduced into a new EU Treaty as and when the EU decides to have a new Treaty, and besides the EU Parliament and the ECJ have likewise promised to overturn anything they don't like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
Cameron promised to play a football match, he played a football match, he didn't win but it was the taking part that was important
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot honestly believe we have a "new" relationship with the EU as a result of Dave's "deal".
We have a few wholly meaningless phrases attached to a promise - a PROMISE- that they will be introduced into a new EU Treaty as and when the EU decides to have a new Treaty, and besides the EU Parliament and the ECJ have likewise promised to overturn anything they don't like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No secret mission to deceive. Just the endless, grinding, process of More Europe.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
Perhaps, the Year of Giving The Elites a Kick-Up Their Ars*s has spread across The Atlantic.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot ho like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
Cameron promised to play a football match, he played a football match, he didn't win but it was the taking part that was important
Obscure analogy of the evening award.
It is a referendum. If you don't like the deal, or believe the EU is a huge conspiracy to undermine and do down the UK....then vote Leave.
Would we be having this conversation if Dave hadn't offered the referendum? No good deed unpunished, etc...
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
The word is well chosen - one of the big problems with the EU is they see most reform or any limitation or even slowdown in its power creep as something to be feared, something wrong, and so will take whatever path will limit the exposure to that. It's why their pronouncements on reform cannot be believed, because there is no genuine wish for it at the heart of the EU, no acknowledgement it is really needed, just that something might be necessary to stop the 'contagion' from spreading.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
Interesting and certainly a spreading fear for "the project" that referendums are contagious. Denmark is noted as being increasingly anti EU. I have noted this quite a bit working there though I think they remain more in than out just at the moment but retaining control of their currency shows a certain hedging of bets.
I think the last comment sums it up in that link.
Philip Foster Works at Sheffield City Council "If Europe want to keep us in the EU then they should let us win Eurovision."
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot ho like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
Cameron promised to play a football match, he played a football match, he didn't win but it was the taking part that was important
Obscure analogy of the evening award.
It is a referendum. If you don't like the deal, or believe the EU is a huge conspiracy to undermine and do down the UK....then vote Leave.
Would we be having this conversation if Dave hadn't offered the referendum? No good deed unpunished, etc...
Well when he promised it a) He was worried about UKIP taking Tory Voters b) He didn't expect to win an c) REMAIN had a 20% lead in the polls. Events, dear boy, events.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot honestly believe we have a "new" relationship with the EU as a result of Dave's "deal".
We have a few whollyngs it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all thinreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No secret mission to deceive. Just the endless, grinding, process of More Europe.
Yes I agree. That is what the EU is there to do. A cursory glance at its literature will tell you that.
And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal. Just as with the Fiscal Compact, we can say no if we deem it to be part of the ever closer union. We did it then and we can do it in future. Is my belief.
Now of course if, for example, you are a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger and fear that a future Labour government might not be so robust, then yes I see the point, although of course that future Labour government will have been democratically elected, god help us.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
It is as if they did not notice that the fear-based "bitter together" campaign almost led to an independent Scotland. Remain needs to present a positive case for staying in (and likewise Leave for coming out).
I have been wondering whether Scots hoping for another Indie referendum will decide to vote Leave as a means of achieving it.
But if too many decide to do that, Scotland will have voted Leave & there will be no pretext for a 2nd Indieref.
Could never quite understand the logic of Sturgeon shouting for independence only to throw the country back into the black hole of the EU while tying her currency to the auld enemy south of the border just as the oil price collapsed.
Lots of passionate but intelligent Nats on Twitter think a BREXIT would be the worst possible outcome for their cause, as it would make a scottish indyvote followed by renegotiated entrance to the EU impossibly complicated and horribly off-putting to voters - forever. e.g. the Spanish, post Brexit, would want to make things as gruesome as possible to Scotland, pour descourager les autres.
The Nats have a point. It can certainly be argued both ways.
If it is a narrow UK Remain with England voting out could see England do it for them!
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
...If the government lose the EU referendum and the UK public votes to Leave, do they legally have to accept it?
The simple and honest answer is "It's advisory. The UK Government is not legally bound to initiate a LEAVE even if the vote is 100% LEAVE."
There are two complications to this answer * A Government that ignores the result of a referendum would presumably be very unpopular and the MPs may lose seats. So it would either initiate the LEAVE or its MPs would force the PM to resign * Define "LEAVE"! This is not a trivial question. The Government can execute article 50 to initiate the departure process (which takes two years and is difficult to abort). It can repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (which involves an instantaneous and very messy departure). Or it can begin initial discussions prior to executing article 50. This latter is the current preference of LEAVE.
...Is there any wriggle-room at their disposal where they can crawl their way out of it, either call the result null and void or order another vote?...
The "informal discussions" is where the wriggle-room comes in. Article 50 is a bomb countdown that is difficult to abort and repeal EC72 is an instant explosion, but either way the result is the same: UK LEAVEs. But "informal discussions" can drag on for quite some time and can be difficult to distinguish from "ignoring the vote". If at the end of the "informal discussions" a new deal is reached and that deal just happened to be put to a new vote...is the original LEAVE vote being respected or ignored? What is the difference?
I abhor procedural flim-flam (no surprise there) and would prefer an instant Article 50 the morning after the vote. But others have different views and their voices may carry.
The whiff of panic, if not terror, is now unmistakeable, coming from the REMAIN camp.
@joncraig Sadiq Khan spokesman says PM tolthem. Fearsome portents are seen by night. Mastiffs howl.
No I amthe EU. Or...or...
new relationship ?
LOL
New
you have a charmingly restricted perspective.
And you have an I wouldn't have started from here one.
Not at all
I always start from here, it's just I wouldn't go in the direction of the Osbornites.
Cliffs and lemmings - bad mix.
What ha my friend?
Ohssly.
d it.
You're a smart guy (girl?). You cannot ho like, anyway.
It's the most ludicrous pile of fetid old pants. No one sane can be swayed by it. Even Cameron has completely stopped talking about the "deal" because everyone laughs when he brings it up.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all things). A promise. From the leaders of the other 27 members of the EU.
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; oon the matter?
Cameron promised to play a football match, he played a football match, he didn't win but it was the taking part that was important
Obscure analogy of the evening award.
It is a referendum. If you don't like the deal, or believe the EU is a huge conspiracy to undermine and do down the UK....then vote Leave.
Would we be having this conversation if Dave hadn't offered the referendum? No good deed unpunished, etc...
What to say Mr T, you know I will be voting Leave much as I know you will vote remain we won't change our minbds. There's really only the farce of this campign to enjoy and to place awards oin the most ludicrous statements from our politicians. And in Cameron's case to watch bemused as he wrecks his party.
Yes, yes and yes. And here we are with it. Are we criticising him for offering it, for whatever reason? Would we all have preferred no promise and another coalition or EdM at No.10?
Politics is the art of the possible.
I still therefore don't see how his offering it was needless. As you rightly said, it was absolutely necessary.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
As was the case with Denmark... the ECJ does not care what the leaders agreed, it only cares about the ratified treaties, I don't know how I can make this point any clearer.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
'An attack has been launched on Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour top team from an unusual source: the House of Commons library. Or at least through one librarian, who complained to QC and media commentator Jo lyon Maugham.
Today he recounted a conversation he’d had with one of the custodians of the library, where MPs go to source information for their debates and papers. It holds 350,000 items on history, politics and policy.
“Chatted to Labour-friendly House of Commons librarian over the weekend,” Maugham tweeted this morning, “who said requests from Labour MPs had gone down by about 90 per cent.” “Listening to some Labour performances on the floor of the Commons,” his acquaintance added, was “awful — many shadow ministers [are] making no effort to get on top of their briefs”. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-corbyn-s-cabal-has-no-need-for-libraries-a3243571.html
If they needed further evidence, they might check Emily Thornberry’s performance on Sky News yesterday. “I don’t know the official definition of Defcon two,” the shadow defence secretary said, “but I can tell you that when I am secretary of state for defence I will know it.” Oh Labour, never change.
That made me laugh. Bet she said it utterly deadpan too.
There are times when you think that some Tories are seriously over promoted. Nicky Morgan immediately springs to mind and then you remember that Chris Grayling still has a more important job than opening doors for people.
But when you compare them with their shadows almost without exception they suddenly look, well, competent. A government has got to be held to a higher standard than this. It is not good for the government and it is not good for the country.
Normal precautions advised as the specific polls are not identified so could be voodoo.
Average of 6 polls Shows 50/50 vote split for remain / leave conducted between 25/04/16 and 03/05/16.
"This is why the fear factor was being ramped up by Cameron this morning. Nothing is working. The script had it that by this stage every official authority, foreign government, non-governmental organisation and international organisation backing the status quo would convince a fearful British public that poor old Blighty could not cope in the big bad world on her own. The Great British public seem to think “sod ’em all”…
See here:
"[foreign EU] officials admit they gather from recent conversations with Downing Street, and diplomatic backchannels, that the probability of a Leave victory is higher than hoped"
Or is that just the usual fear crap to get voters to turnout a la Indyref ?
Today's farcical predictions of "World War" imply that Downing St is genuinely worried. Cameron knows this ridiculous twaddle damages him, personally, but he clearly thinks he has no choice. He's in trouble. It's the only explanation.
A campaign that was coasting to victory would not be warning of "genocide" should we vote OUT.
Anecdote warning
People at work today were laughing at Cameron's war threats.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
“Chatted to Labour-friendly House of Commons librarian over the weekend,” Maugham tweeted this morning, “who said requests from Labour MPs had gone down by about 90 per cent.” “Listening to some Labour performances on the floor of the Commons,” his acquaintance added, was “awful — many shadow ministers [are] making no effort to get on top of their briefs”. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-corbyn-s-cabal-has-no-need-for-libraries-a3243571.html
Irrespective of the accuracy, that's a bit naughty - the Library prides itself on its neutrality, and if the librarian is identified by his colleagues - and there aren't very many of them - it'll be awkward for him both to be described as pro-Labour and to be used to have a go at shadow ministers.
Is that really the point Nick? I mean really? Where the hell is the opposition and when are they finally going to point out some mistakes before they are made?
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
As was the case with Denmark... the ECJ does not care what the leaders agreed, it only cares about the ratified treaties, I don't know how I can make this point any clearer.
Well. If we agree a deal, together with the other 27 leaders, and the ECJ says: "Non", what chance do you think a political party, the Conservatives perhaps, will say: "well this is intolerable, vote for us and either a) we will give you another referendum on the subject; or b) we will take ourselves straight out of the EU"?
This is the crux of the sovereignty debate. We have absolute sovereignty because we can leave the EU at any time. We just have to vote for the party which wants to leave.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
In an interview with The Sun newspaper, The Who frontman claimed the European project was “set up by a bunch of crooks” adding:
“But that’s how they did this, we all thought we were voting for a common trade area. We voted for an apple and they gave us a bunch of bloody grapes!”
Mr. Daltrey said the EU is a “wonderful idea” but the only way to get a Europe people want is to “get rid of this bunch of fucking useless wankers that are running it.”
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independ it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
y only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Agree. And then, once they have scandalously struck down a deal we negotiated in good faith, we vote for the party which says it will leave the EU. The Conservatives, I hope, in that case.
And if you think I am going back to edit that last post because the quotes were wrong and all I have is a half inch window to do it....you are very much mistaken.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
It is an online poll that is why, ICM phone polls were the gold standard
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independ it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
y only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Agree. And then, once they have scandalously struck down a deal we negotiated in good faith, we vote for the party which says it will leave the EU. The Conservatives, I hope, in that case.
Well done Fox. I tell you it really seems like the Leicester takeover is upon us all. First the Premiership, then PbCOM, and then.....the Universe......
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independ it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
y only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Agree. And then, once they have scandalously struck down a deal we negotiated in good faith, we vote for the party which says it will leave the EU. The Conservatives, I hope, in that case.
Do you think they'll still exist at that point ?
They will be in power (thanks to Jezza). Conservative MPs may be idiotic, solipsistic fools, but they are self-interested idiotic, solipsistic fools.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
And if you think I am going back to edit that last post because the quotes were wrong and all I have is a half inch window to do it....you are very much mistaken.
In some browsers you can grab the lower right corner of the edit box, and stretch the edit window larger.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independ it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
y only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Agree. And then, once they have scandalously struck down a deal we negotiated in good faith, we vote for the party which says it will leave the EU. The Conservatives, I hope, in that case.
In an interview with The Sun newspaper, The Who frontman claimed the European project was “set up by a bunch of crooks” adding:
“But that’s how they did this, we all thought we were voting for a common trade area. We voted for an apple and they gave us a bunch of bloody grapes!”
Mr. Daltrey said the EU is a “wonderful idea” but the only way to get a Europe people want is to “get rid of this bunch of fucking useless wankers that are running it.”
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independ it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
y only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Agree. And then, once they have scandalously struck down a deal we negotiated in good faith, we vote for the party which says it will leave the EU. The Conservatives, I hope, in that case.
Do you think they'll still exist at that point ?
They will be in power (thanks to Jezza). Conservative MPs may be idiotic, solipsistic fools, but they are self-interested idiotic, solipsistic fools.
Banking the future on the longevity of a single politician never seems sensible.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No you are just conflating different independent parts of the EU.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
As was opined upon by far greater legal minds than mine when Michael Gove made his cheeky monkey statement, while in theory they could strike down the deal, WHY ON EARTH would they, given that it has just been agreed by the heads of all EU members.
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
Yes indeed, but that only strengthens Richard's point really: the ECJ will interpret things with a particular slant, we know - towards ever closer union. Which means it is very likely to override or disregard any supposed agreement which supposedly restrains or circumvents ever closer union. Especially if such an agreement is a mere piece of paper with no presence in treaties.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all thinreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No secret mission to deceive. Just the endless, grinding, process of More Europe.
Yes I agree. That is what the EU is there to do. A cursory glance at its literature will tell you that.
And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal. Just as with the Fiscal Compact, we can say no if we deem it to be part of the ever closer union. We did it then and we can do it in future. Is my belief.
Now of course if, for example, you are a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger and fear that a future Labour government might not be so robust, then yes I see the point, although of course that future Labour government will have been democratically elected, god help us.
"And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal"
-------------------- I don't intend any rudeness but I am summiseing you are quite young. Having seen this over the last 40 years any deal with the EU is meaningless. The words from Lewis Carroll summed up what the EUs approach to any treaty means......
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Except if you are French of course and then you just ignore it.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
Noah seems like a generally funny guy to me, but a major problem I have is it seems obvious he's reading a script about things he may know or care little about. Maybe that's not the case, but despite both being foreigners, I actually buy that Oliver cares about the things he rants about, not least because while he indulges in the partisan anti-republican stuff, he also tackles general societal ills in american society, as he sees it, even ones Democrats may not even agree with him on all the time.
In an interview with The Sun newspaper, The Who frontman claimed the European project was “set up by a bunch of crooks” adding:
“But that’s how they did this, we all thought we were voting for a common trade area. We voted for an apple and they gave us a bunch of bloody grapes!”
Mr. Daltrey said the EU is a “wonderful idea” but the only way to get a Europe people want is to “get rid of this bunch of fucking useless wankers that are running it.”
Because the job of the ECJ is not to do the bidding of the EU member states. It's job is to interpret EU Law on the basis of the treaties. If a case is brought to them by an EU citizen then the ECJ will adjudicate based on its own case law and the treaties. Not on the basis of what the ministers might have signed up to.
Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
Yes indeed, but that only strengthens Richard's point really: the ECJ will interpret things with a particular slant, we know - towards ever closer union. Which means it is very likely to override or disregard any supposed agreement which supposedly restrains or circumvents ever closer union. Especially if such an agreement is a mere piece of paper with no presence in treaties.
Of course it will.
The key question for this referendum is not whether our relationship with the EU now is tolerable (arguable either way to be honest) but whether it will be tolerable in 10 or 20 years time. This is not a vote on now. It is a vote on the path we want to follow. I do not believe that the majority will want to remain if they appreciate that.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
Noah seems like a generally funny guy to me, but a major problem I have is it seems obvious he's reading a script about things he may know or care little about. Maybe that's not the case, but despite both being foreigners, I actually buy that Oliver cares about the things he rants about, not least because while he indulges in the partisan anti-republican stuff, he also tackles general societal ills in american society, as he sees it, even ones Democrats may not even agree with him on all the time.
I think those are good points. I rarely watch the Daily Show these days because it doesn't really make me laugh. Where as Oliver's show I find very funny, reminds a bit of Mark Thomas Comedy Product back in the day.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
And if you think I am going back to edit that last post because the quotes were wrong and all I have is a half inch window to do it....you are very much mistaken.
My webpage has also now assumed an interesting habit of slowly scrolling back up the thread after I make a post. If it went the other way I could auto read while eating crisps and drinking beer. A true multi tasking position.
In an interview with The Sun newspaper, The Who frontman claimed the European project was “set up by a bunch of crooks” adding:
“But that’s how they did this, we all thought we were voting for a common trade area. We voted for an apple and they gave us a bunch of bloody grapes!”
Mr. Daltrey said the EU is a “wonderful idea” but the only way to get a Europe people want is to “get rid of this bunch of fucking useless wankers that are running it.”
I often tested people by asking them to name 'The President'! Amusement was had by all. Those clips of the EU would solidify my intention to vote LEAVE, were it not for the fact that its already rock solid.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
Noah seems like a generally funny guy to me, but a major problem I have is it seems obvious he's reading a script about things he may know or care little about. Maybe that's not the case, but despite both being foreigners, I actually buy that Oliver cares about the things he rants about, not least because while he indulges in the partisan anti-republican stuff, he also tackles general societal ills in american society, as he sees it, even ones Democrats may not even agree with him on all the time.
I think those are good points. I rarely watch the Daily Show these days because it doesn't really make me laugh. Where as Oliver's show I find very funny, reminds a bit of Mark Thomas Comedy Product back in the day.
Jon Stewart is a terrible loss and I wish he would get back on the telly. He was so much more subtle and so much funnier than any of his imitators.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than online polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Not really, I've looked at the evidence, presented by ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh. ComRes have turned down clients because they refuse to do online polls for the EU Referendum as they don't like the sampling issues it causes.
If the phone polls start showing Leave leads, I'll still maintain my position about their accuracy.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Yep. I am afraid TSE's position as an informed and balanced opinion on this site has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few weeks. It is sad to see.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Personally, I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls.
But, the onlines were pretty accurate for the London Mayor and Scottish Parliament.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
Noah seems like a generally funny guy to me, but a major problem I have is it seems obvious he's reading a script about things he may know or care little about. Maybe that's not the case, but despite both being foreigners, I actually buy that Oliver cares about the things he rants about, not least because while he indulges in the partisan anti-republican stuff, he also tackles general societal ills in american society, as he sees it, even ones Democrats may not even agree with him on all the time.
I think those are good points. I rarely watch the Daily Show these days because it doesn't really make me laugh. Where as Oliver's show I find very funny, reminds a bit of Mark Thomas Comedy Product back in the day.
Jon Stewart is a terrible loss and I wish he would get back on the telly. He was so much more subtle and so much funnier than any of his imitators.
I think the subtlety is a key point. There was no mistaking which side of politics he was in favour of, and he would be partisanly blunt and castigating at times, but compared to the new Daily Show, which has had some fun segments, he was practically a neutral by comparison.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
As a Top Gear fan, I note that the new BBC show starts May 29. As Monday at 9pm is the usual Top Gear slot on BBC America, presumably we'll see it the next day.
From what I hear all has not gone well so far. Apparently a producer has quit over Chris Evans' attitude, Evans and LeBlanc have a problematic relationship, and Evans is prone to car sickness. Combine that with a lineup of something like 8 hosts, and what are the expectations for the show?
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than online polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Not really, I've looked at the evidence, presented by ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh. ComRes have turned down clients because they refuse to do online polls for the EU Referendum as they don't like the sampling issues it causes.
If the phone polls start showing Leave leads, I'll still maintain my position about their accuracy.
Did the evidence examine the correct question, or did they simply look at Conservative v Labour?
Comments
But if too many decide to do that, Scotland will have voted Leave & there will be no pretext for a 2nd Indieref.
I am running an extension, but its only the beta version of my ignore list extension which helps preserve my fragile sanity
If we look at the deal, it codifies some pretty fundamental issues.
So I'm not sure which bit was needless. He could I suppose have said "it's a cr4p deal, I'm out" but I have to believe that career progression notwithstanding around 50% of the 170 pro MPs would still have been pro.
So although he has split his party, I don't see how it was needless or how he could have avoided it.
If the government lose the EU referendum and the UK public votes to Leave, do they legally have to accept it?
Is there any wriggle-room at their disposal where they can crawl their way out of it, either call the result null and void or order another vote?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tebans1dOYo
To be fair though given Dave asked for the square root of absolutely feck all and came away with even less they almost certainly would vote in favour ......after they have stopped laughing of course.
Yes some of the pronouncements, some of the assumptions of the electorate's idiocy or laziness, some of the knowing how an otherwise anodyne statement would immediately be spun as project fear by the media by Dave et al has been unedifying to say the least.
“You want a charismatic leader and to me he’s more like Worzel Gummidge,” said one woman.
“They’ve more or less fallen out with themselves at the minute. It’s just a shambles, so how can you vote for someone to run the country when they can’t even sit in the room together. No,” said one man.
The survey was conduced by former Ed Miliband pollsters James Morris and Ian Warren for Election Data in association with Greenberg Quinlan Rosler.
The men and women from Nuneaton had all voted for Labour in 2005 or 2010 but Conservative in 2015
David Cameron should not get too excited however, as the Conservative Party was also described as being “full of crap”.
“I imagine him in the White House – he’s like someone who got lost from the tour,” man.
“The only times you ever hear him – he picks up on stupid things and would say ‘oh David Cameron was slagging off my tie today,” man.
“Scruffy, very scruffy and flaky looking. Flaky – he does. He just – he never seems like he’s presentable,” woman.
“If he has a viewpoint he tends to stick to it and will say something even if it sounds stupid,” man.
George Osborne, who on Sunday said any Tory leadership contest would not happen until the “end of the decade”, was described as “slimy”.
One woman said of the chancellor: “He looks a bit like Mr. Benn – a bit round and weasely.”
Another woman added: “I voted Conservative last time and I just think – I dunno – I don’t think they’ve delivered on anything. I just think they’re absolutely full of crap.”
Corbyn may be seen as “scruffy” But other Labour figures and future leadership contenders were not well known by the voters of Nuneaton.
Asked if anyone knew Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who has been touted as possible leadership contender, one of the group asked: “Is she a relative of Tony?”
Two of the focus group had heard of John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, thanks to the Little Red Book he threw at Osborne.
Dan Jarvis had some name recognition thanks to his time in the army. And Chuka Umunna was familiar thanks to the former shadow cabinet minister’s visits to Coventry."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-a-scruffy-worzel-gummidge-say-voters-of-nuneaton_uk_572fbc08e4b0ade291a20770?icid=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl9|sec3_lnk4&pLid=457610
I presume that favours remain along the lines off keep things as they are. Alternatively it could be dangerous for remain as the lack of turnout compared to the leavers who have a once in a lifetime opportunity could tip the balance....... Maybe?
Clinton 55 .. Trump 31
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/08/trump-faces-steep-climb-mass/L391H6NMgi8gW3uoud0hrN/story.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/philippine-officials-voting-president-vice-president-posts-opens-38971136
(and I dropped you a quick vanilla)
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/729675436314263552
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/729676052012863488
I can discuss the merits of otherwise of EFTA/EEA; of whether the govt, post a Leave vote could or would go the EFTA/EEA route, or whether trade would be better under WTO terms (or whether we abolish tariffs completely as Patrick Minford would prefer).
What I find more problematic is to have a discussion about whether or not the EU has some secret mission to lure the UK into a Remain vote and then KAPOW, renege on the very agreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
One doesn't know whether to laugh, or weep.
It is a referendum. If you don't like the deal, or believe the EU is a huge conspiracy to undermine and do down the UK....then vote Leave.
Would we be having this conversation if Dave hadn't offered the referendum? No good deed unpunished, etc...
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/729426451032883200
Multi centric, a la carte and no verriding cnetralism. leave europeans to develop at their own pace.
The Council of Ministers may well have introduced this agreement in good faith.
They do not control what happens when the entirely independent European Parliament vote on this agreement and amend it if they feel the need.
They do not control what happens when any of it is challenged before the ECJ which explicitly only makes judgements on the basis of the ratified treaties.
If you don't believe me about the ECJ, ask the Danes, who were given a Council of Europe political promise and international agreement structurally similar in almost every way to the agreement Dave got, after they rejected Maastricht in order to get them to agree to holding a second referendum which was struck down by the ECJ and subsequently ignored 70+ times
https://goo.gl/sqpA3k
I think the last comment sums it up in that link.
Philip Foster
Works at Sheffield City Council
"If Europe want to keep us in the EU then they should let us win Eurovision."
And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal. Just as with the Fiscal Compact, we can say no if we deem it to be part of the ever closer union. We did it then and we can do it in future. Is my belief.
Now of course if, for example, you are a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger and fear that a future Labour government might not be so robust, then yes I see the point, although of course that future Labour government will have been democratically elected, god help us.
This role falls to the EU where electoral body swerving and ignoring democratic decisions is the official duty of the EU commission.
There are two complications to this answer
* A Government that ignores the result of a referendum would presumably be very unpopular and the MPs may lose seats. So it would either initiate the LEAVE or its MPs would force the PM to resign
* Define "LEAVE"! This is not a trivial question. The Government can execute article 50 to initiate the departure process (which takes two years and is difficult to abort). It can repeal the
European Communities Act 1972 (which involves an instantaneous and very messy departure). Or it can begin initial discussions prior to executing article 50. This latter is the current preference of LEAVE. The "informal discussions" is where the wriggle-room comes in. Article 50 is a bomb countdown that is difficult to abort and repeal EC72 is an instant explosion, but either way the result is the same: UK LEAVEs. But "informal discussions" can drag on for quite some time and can be difficult to distinguish from "ignoring the vote". If at the end of the "informal discussions" a new deal is reached and that deal just happened to be put to a new vote...is the original LEAVE vote being respected or ignored? What is the difference?
I abhor procedural flim-flam (no surprise there) and would prefer an instant Article 50 the morning after the vote. But others have different views and their voices may carry.
Yes, yes and yes. And here we are with it. Are we criticising him for offering it, for whatever reason? Would we all have preferred no promise and another coalition or EdM at No.10?
Politics is the art of the possible.
I still therefore don't see how his offering it was needless. As you rightly said, it was absolutely necessary.
But when you compare them with their shadows almost without exception they suddenly look, well, competent. A government has got to be held to a higher standard than this. It is not good for the government and it is not good for the country.
People at work today were laughing at Cameron's war threats.
This is the crux of the sovereignty debate. We have absolute sovereignty because we can leave the EU at any time. We just have to vote for the party which wants to leave.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead?
Funny that!
In an interview with The Sun newspaper, The Who frontman claimed the European project was “set up by a bunch of crooks” adding:
“But that’s how they did this, we all thought we were voting for a common trade area. We voted for an apple and they gave us a bunch of bloody grapes!”
Mr. Daltrey said the EU is a “wonderful idea” but the only way to get a Europe people want is to “get rid of this bunch of fucking useless wankers that are running it.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/09/who-are-you-roger-daltrey-calls-eu-leaders-bunch-of-fing-useless-wers/
Colourful language these rockers use, seems to indicate we need some substitutes for other guys ...
In some browsers you can grab the lower right corner of the edit box, and stretch the edit window larger.
I'm always amazed at the factual, procedural knowledge available here... PB is an extraordinary encyclopedic hub.
I'm just a bigmouth full of opinions and short on facts. Thank goodness some of you are actually the real deal.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
How come we can put men on the moon but we can't stop my shoes from smelling funny?
Or was men landing on the moon a hoax?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
The longer this campaign has gone on, the more the lead has narrowed, and the undecideds are not breaking clearly for Remain.
He went to negotiate a deal, he negotiated one, and now the deal is just a PROMISE (of all thinreements the ENTIRE EU LEADERSHIP has just negotiated and there that will show us.
Do you think that if we vote Remain and they actually do all those dastardly things that the UK by EU edict will never be allowed another referendum on the matter?
No secret mission to deceive. Just the endless, grinding, process of More Europe.
Yes I agree. That is what the EU is there to do. A cursory glance at its literature will tell you that.
And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal. Just as with the Fiscal Compact, we can say no if we deem it to be part of the ever closer union. We did it then and we can do it in future. Is my belief.
Now of course if, for example, you are a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger and fear that a future Labour government might not be so robust, then yes I see the point, although of course that future Labour government will have been democratically elected, god help us.
"And that is why I am comfortable with the no ECU clause in the deal"
--------------------
I don't intend any rudeness but I am summiseing you are quite young. Having seen this over the last 40 years any deal with the EU is meaningless. The words from Lewis Carroll summed up what the EUs approach to any treaty means......
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Except if you are French of course and then you just ignore it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dranqFntNgo
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Actually, crap I'm closer to 40.
Last manned mission to the moon was 1972 (I think)
If the phone polls start showing Leave leads, I'll still maintain my position about their accuracy.
But, the onlines were pretty accurate for the London Mayor and Scottish Parliament.
From what I hear all has not gone well so far. Apparently a producer has quit over Chris Evans' attitude, Evans and LeBlanc have a problematic relationship, and Evans is prone to car sickness. Combine that with a lineup of something like 8 hosts, and what are the expectations for the show?