We have a golden opportunity for reform when they try to negotiate a new Eurozone Treaty. It is imperative they do this in the next few years, so when that happens we should demand changes in our favour. If they try to sign a separate treaty without doing this, we should refuse to let them use EU institutions and buildings. That was Cameron's mistake last time.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
We have a golden opportunity for reform when they try to negotiate a new Eurozone Treaty. It is imperative they do this in the next few years, so when that happens we should demand changes in our favour. If they try to sign a separate treaty without doing this, we should refuse to let them use EU institutions and buildings. That was Cameron's mistake last time.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
No need, nobody tried to stop them using EU institutions for it.
Existing EU residents in the UK, and those UK nationals living in the EU already, would be unaffected.
It's the rights of (mutual) free settlement in the future that would be negotiated.
EU residents in Britain will be affected. I reckon at the very least they will be required to register.
Or if you don't buy that, picture a Polish resident going back to Poland for a week. When they come back to Britain, flashing their EU passport won't be enough to get them let back in.
Are you sure that "looking for work", or even "working", will give EU citizens resident in Britain indefinite leave to remain here?
Some say that the existing right of EU citizens to reside in Britain can't be removed. But that isn't so, because it depends on British membership. The Torygraph are talking rubbish when they say that the Treaty of Vienna (apparently supported by a librarian at the House of Commons) says otherwise. The rights referred to in the relevant section of that Treaty are the rights of states, not individuals. They're just trying to lull British expats into not being apprehensive about a Leave win.
Currently if you're British and you live in Spain, you're an EU citizen living in the EU. Of course your position is going to change when you're living in the EU and you're not a citizen of the EU.
The UK can control non-EU immigration now. Given than it is consistently higher than EU immigration and it hasn't diminished much over time, it's not clear that overall immigration will drop significantly on Brexit
Don't look at me! I became a full UK Citizen in 1988!
Great to have you! To be fair to the Leave campaign, who have been inept in many ways, they haven't pushed the anti-immigration rhetoric as much as they could have done.
We have a golden opportunity for reform when they try to negotiate a new Eurozone Treaty. It is imperative they do this in the next few years, so when that happens we should demand changes in our favour. If they try to sign a separate treaty without doing this, we should refuse to let them use EU institutions and buildings. That was Cameron's mistake last time.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
We can't and there won't be one. This is the extent of what we will get, Dave played our hand very, very poorly.
Honest question (for both LEAVERs and REMAINERs) - which of these works better? I think the upper image, as we're actually voting on membership of the EU, as opposed to "Europe".
Yes, it was the anti-EU lot that forced Major to sign up to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was to be the forerunner to the Euro.
Lawson, Lamont...
Yes, and they have learned from that lesson. Major and Cameron haven't.
I just think it's funny that the Leavers are so keen on the (often completely fictitious) argument that those warning of the economic risks of Brexit 'were wrong then and are wrong now', but are remarkaby silent about applying exactly the same argument to Lawson and Lamont (or for that matter to Hague: 'right then and right now'?).
But then, the whole Brexit shenanigans has been a goldmine of political irony.
We have a golden opportunity for reform when they try to negotiate a new Eurozone Treaty. It is imperative they do this in the next few years, so when that happens we should demand changes in our favour. If they try to sign a separate treaty without doing this, we should refuse to let them use EU institutions and buildings. That was Cameron's mistake last time.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
It's not going to happen like that, "renegotiations" are nearly always pre-election scams to avoid saying you're for or against something. During the 2008 primaries Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
The UK can control non-EU immigration now. Given than it is consistently higher than EU immigration and it hasn't diminished much over time, it's not clear that overall immigration will drop significantly on Brexit
Isn't that because we put the big limits on non-EU immigration decades ago? The non-EU population of the world is about 6.5 billion, compared to 500 million in the EU, so you would expect a lot more to be coming here if it was equally easy.
IIRC from news reports this week, non-EU immigrants must earn £35k+ if they're to remain long term. If they don't - they're deported.
Honest question (for both LEAVERs and REMAINERs) - which of these works better? I think the upper image, as we're actually voting on membership of the EU, as opposed to "Europe".
Yes, it was the anti-EU lot that forced Major to sign up to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was to be the forerunner to the Euro.
Lawson, Lamont...
Yes, and they have learned from that lesson. Major and Cameron haven't.
I just think it's funny that the Leavers are so keen on the (often completely fictitious) argument that those warning of the economic risks of Brexit 'were wrong then and are wrong now', but are remarkaby silent about applying exactly the same argument to Lawson and Lamont (or for that matter to Hague: 'right then and right now'?).
But then, the whole Brexit shenanigans has been a goldmine of political irony.
Wrong then, learned their lesson, right now. Simple.
Honest question (for both LEAVERs and REMAINERs) - which of these works better? I think the upper image, as we're actually voting on membership of the EU, as opposed to "Europe".
Maybe but it's effective - I have a non-political friend who inherited a flat in Spain from his parents. He is very concerned that if the UK left the EU the flat would be harder to sell and there would be uncertainty about free access to medical care for Brits in Spain which would deter holiday renters and potential retirees. Therefore he is voting Remain.
There's a
I must say I thought that removing these automatic reciprocal rights was precisely the intention of the Leavers, so it's a bit odd that they seem to be saying it's scaremongering.
I think leavers want to remove the rights of EU citizens to live in the UK but keep the rights of UK citizens to live in other EU countries.
Nope. Existing EU residents in the UK, and those UK nationals living in the EU already, would be unaffected.
It's the rights of (mutual) free settlement in the future that would be negotiated.
Wrong again. that too is uncertain as you cannot predict what a British govt would be able to negotiate with France, Spain, Italy, etc. Especially with Leave saying they want to end free movement.
No, it's not wrong - that would be the essential basis of a deal and well you know it.
Neither I nor you are the UK/French/Spanish govts as such we simply cannot predict what might happen . I know you don't like it but that is the reality.
Oh, we can predict what would happen alright. That doesn't mean we can say with all certainty what would happen, but that goes for Remain as well.
We can make sensible common sense predictions with a balance of probability. For example, settled UK residents in Spain would be automatically given indefinite leave to remain, probably those with at least 4 years standing, and the same would apply in the UK. Those with fewer years would be looked upon favourably as well, depending on circumstances.
The new EU-UK treaty would clearly involve sensible decisions on this. If you want to disagree and put everything down to 'uncertainty' then that is your prerogative, but I don't agree with it.
Tell that to the nervous pensioners out here on limited income with property difficult to sell.
I can understand why some might be nervous, but I don't think British property owners in Spain would be booted out of Spain if the UK left.
I don't know quite enough about internal Conservative politics (although I am a party member) but I think the good thing about this referendum campaign is that it demonstrates that EU-sceptics are not all what the media/political opposition regard as the 'right-wing headbangers'. On the one hand this risks confusing the Brexit message (just what is the post-EU vision?) in the short term but on the other hand in the medium/long term it starts a new internal debate and may lead to exciting post-EU visions being developed.
I would also note that for political expediency or not, even those Conservatives campaigning for Remain are not doing so with a love of the EU as their core message. Beyond a few EU-Federalists, the party is EU-sceptic but clearly differs over how reform can take place and how much EU they are willing to accept. I think it would be a sad day for the party if we were not a place where EU-Federalists could sit (a) because I want to see mature debate in politics and (b) because someone's views on the EU doesn't mean we wouldn't share views on the vast majority of the rest of public policy.
Many thanks for the kind words below on my approach to the referendum. My involvement in the Leave campaign is limited to offering to volunteer so far; albeit without any specific response from the campaign telling me how I can help!! My campaign approach for VoteLeave would be to try to ensure the voters see this is not a status quo vs. Leave choice (remaining has legitimate risks), I would also seriously have considered offering a phased approach to Leaving i.e. post-Brexit vote the UK government will liaise with the EU and look for a specific-UK deal. If this is unlikely to be on offer, we would seek EEA membership as a transition (enacting Article 50 to give us 2 years to plan this move) and then highlight we will negotiate from the EEA towards a UK specific deal, particularly in terms of free movement. I know this is not risk-free and would not appeal to all Brexit supporters (it may also not be campaign-savvy, but I'm no Lynton Crosby) but it would de-risk the process of leaving somewhat for many voters. But the EEA option needs a lot of working up and communication because it is too easy for Remain supporters to argue it is the worse of all worlds when it really isn't. That hard work is unlikely to be possible in 4 weeks.
Maybe but it's effective - I have a non-political friend who inherited a flat in Spain from his parents. He is very concerned that if the UK left the EU the flat would be harder to sell and there would be uncertainty about free access to medical care for Brits in Spain which would deter holiday renters and potential retirees. Therefore he is voting Remain.
There's a big difference between short visits for holidays, which obviously won't be affected at all, and the right of residence + healthcare. It is factually correct that the latter would be uncertain in the case of a Leave result; it would depend on what deal was agreed.
I must say I thought that removing these automatic reciprocal rights was precisely the intention of the Leavers, so it's a bit odd that they seem to be saying it's scaremongering.
If only more of the WWC had second homes in Spain and had to struggle with such awful first world problems like healthcare when visiting one's place near Seville they might be more in favour of more lovely EU integration ?
The UK can control non-EU immigration now. Given than it is consistently higher than EU immigration and it hasn't diminished much over time, it's not clear that overall immigration will drop significantly on Brexit
Your graph shows EU immigration as only slightly smaller than non-EU immigration.
Many many people outside the EU would like to come here but either they know they wouldn't be allowed to reside here (or in many cases, even come here), so they don't apply, or they apply and get turned down.
If intending immigrants from the EU were to be treated the same as intending immigrants from outside the EU, immigration would fall dramatically.
We have a golden opportunity for reform when they try to negotiate a new Eurozone Treaty. It is imperative they do this in the next few years, so when that happens we should demand changes in our favour. If they try to sign a separate treaty without doing this, we should refuse to let them use EU institutions and buildings. That was Cameron's mistake last time.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
It's not going to happen like that, "renegotiations" are nearly always pre-election scams to avoid saying you're for or against something. During the 2008 primaries Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
Obama did effectively renegotiate NAFTA. Both Mexico and Canada signed on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has higher labour and environmental standards than NAFTA. Those were the things Obama was arguing were needed.
How do you think we will be able to bring back powers to the UK if we remain in? I still want a reformed EU and I was hoping that would be possible through using leverage for the next Eurozone treaty.
Wrong then, learned their lesson, right now. Simple.
Unlike you, wrong then, wrong now.
Why do you think I was wrong then?
Your slavishly pro-EU and pro-leadership positions are quite telling.
Don't be daft. In normal circumstances, only a half-wit could possibly think I'm slavishly pro-EU, since as I've explained my main reason is for coming down on the Remain side is economic (and even you accept there is some economic risk). Since you are far from being a half-wit, clearly you are being blinded to this obvious point by missionary zeal.
Wrong then, learned their lesson, right now. Simple.
Unlike you, wrong then, wrong now.
Why do you think I was wrong then?
Your slavishly pro-EU and pro-leadership positions are quite telling.
Don't be daft. In normal circumstances, only a half-wit could possibly think I'm slavishly pro-EU, since as I've explained my main reason is for coming down on the Remain side is economic (and even you accept there is some economic risk). Since you are far from being a half-wit, clearly you are being blinded to this obvious point by missionary zeal.
If only more of the WWC had second homes in Spain and had to struggle with such awful first world problems like healthcare when visiting one's place near Seville they might be more in favour of more lovely EU integration ?
Let them eat Kuchen.
Quite so, it's a peripheral issue for most voters.
However, we were talking specifically about ex-pats residing in Spain and in other EU countries, for whom it's a central issue.
Honest question (for both LEAVERs and REMAINERs) - which of these works better? I think the upper image, as we're actually voting on membership of the EU, as opposed to "Europe".
"Europe isn't working" is a far better slogan. Never mind logic.
Wrong then, learned their lesson, right now. Simple.
Unlike you, wrong then, wrong now.
Why do you think I was wrong then?
Your slavishly pro-EU and pro-leadership positions are quite telling.
Don't be daft. In normal circumstances, only a half-wit could possibly think I'm slavishly pro-EU, since as I've explained my main reason is for coming down on the Remain side is economic (and even you accept there is some economic risk). Since you are far from being a half-wit, clearly you are being blinded to this obvious point by missionary zeal.
You are hitching the UK to a political union which intends to become a single state in order for short term economic stability. If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost. These are the two options on the table. Given that you aren't a half-wit, I can't understand being in favour of either position which leads me to believe that you are a closet federalist using the fear of economic uncertainty to slowly push the UK into a position where it must become part of the single EU nation.
Additionally, you're a fan of Osborne, which means we can never be friends!
You are hitching the UK to a political union which intends to become a single state in order for short term economic stability. If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost. These are the two options on the table. Given that you aren't a half-wit, I can't understand being in favour of either position which leads me to believe that you are a closet federalist using the fear of economic uncertainty to slowly push the UK into a position where it must become part of the single EU nation.
That is quite spectacularly stupid, because it is based on a completely false premise. Just because you think we are headed for a superstate doesn't mean I do. If I did, I'd be voting to leave.
This isn't hard to understand, surely? The tendency of Leavers to ascribe dark motives to anyone who on balance disagrees with them is, well, bonkers.
The UK can control non-EU immigration now. Given than it is consistently higher than EU immigration and it hasn't diminished much over time, it's not clear that overall immigration will drop significantly on Brexit
Your graph shows EU immigration as only slightly smaller than non-EU immigration.
Many many people outside the EU would like to come here but either they know they wouldn't be allowed to reside here (or in many cases, even come here), so they don't apply, or they apply and get turned down.
If intending immigrants from the EU were to be treated the same as intending immigrants from outside the EU, immigration would fall dramatically.
It could fall. If the EU component was cut in half, overall immigration would see a fall of 25%. Not nothing, but not a massive change either. In practice, I think it will be less than that because restricting immigration would damage vested interests - businesses, expats in Spain and France, universities, healthcare services etc.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
Depends on what you mean by "the EU treaties".
If you mean "the Treaties of Rome" (others will give you their full names) then no, they cannot be changed without UK consent.
If you mean "a treaty involving several EU members between themselves but not including the UK" then yes, they can be created, changed and destrotyed without UK consent.
The latter course is easier and (following Lisbon) is seen as the way forward by many states because it has a greater probability of success. So it depends on the size of the change. * A fundamental change would require changing "the Treaties of Rome", and an example would be an Accession Treaty, so if Turkey wanted to join then that would require our consent. * A lesser change might be better organised via the Enhanced Cooperation method, and an example would be the European Fiscal Compact treaty...although "lesser" is obviously relative.
If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost.
Why would leaving at a later date have a higher economic cost? If the Leave argument that increasing globalisation renders regional blocks an anachronism, then with every passing year it makes less and less difference economically whether we're in or out.
There are many fools in this world (fortunately for my political betting accounts!).
The economic case is akin to owning shares in a dis-functional and unsuccessful company such as BHS and refusing to sell them as other shares in a start up may go down faster.
The triumph of timidity over entrepreneurial spirit.
Tell that to the nervous pensioners out here on limited income with property difficult to sell.
I can understand why some might be nervous, but I don't think British property owners in Spain would be booted out of Spain if the UK left.
It would make absolutely no sense.
What about a "vindictive" response from the EU in the event of Brexit? If the EU want to discourage other countries, they may need to do their utmost to penalise the UK and make independence from the EU look unattractive to others - including by stopping residency of existing expats
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
It's not going to happen like that, "renegotiations" are nearly always pre-election scams to avoid saying you're for or against something. During the 2008 primaries Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
Obama did effectively renegotiate NAFTA. Both Mexico and Canada signed on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has higher labour and environmental standards than NAFTA. Those were the things Obama was arguing were needed.
How do you think we will be able to bring back powers to the UK if we remain in? I still want a reformed EU and I was hoping that would be possible through using leverage for the next Eurozone treaty.
You haven't told us what reform you want so I can't tell you whether it'll be in a treaty. But the current government tried very hard to find a bone to throw to sceptics that wasn't doomed for being one of: * Administrative-gridlock-inducing, like giving individual member states more vetos over things that are hard enough to get done already * Politically unacceptable to at least one veto-wielding member state, like shafting Polish migrant workers on either benefits or the right to work * Domestically unpopular, like rolling back rights for workers
...and they weren't really able to think of anything substantial.
There are many fools in this world (fortunately for my political betting accounts!).
The economic case is akin to owning shares in a dis-functional and unsuccessful company such as BHS and refusing to sell them as other shares in a start up may go down faster.
The triumph of timidity over entrepreneurial spirit.
No, it's akin to having a large existing contract with a big customer, and not wanting to jeopardise it on the off-chance that there might be speculative other opportunities somewhere else.
What's more, those other opportunities can be exploited anyway. No-one on the Leave side has ever given any coherent reason why we need to leave the EU to export more to other countries. Indeed we are exporting more to other non-EU countries.
You are hitching the UK to a political union which intends to become a single state in order for short term economic stability. If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost. These are the two options on the table. Given that you aren't a half-wit, I can't understand being in favour of either position which leads me to believe that you are a closet federalist using the fear of economic uncertainty to slowly push the UK into a position where it must become part of the single EU nation.
That is quite spectacularly stupid, because it is based on a completely false premise. Just because you think we are headed for a superstate doesn't mean I do. If I did, I'd be voting to leave.
This isn't hard to understand, surely? The tendency of Leavers to ascribe dark motives to anyone who on balance disagrees with them is, well, bonkers.
Come off it Richard, the EU has a stated aim of becoming a single nation. They have made moves to enable this over and over. They are very up front about it as well, credit to them. It is our politicians who are either naive or arrogant enough to think they can keep Britain out of the political union while keeping the economic benefits of the EU. The basis of the EU is to foster a single political union across the 28 members, all roads lead to the superstate. It is naive to think that only 1 out of 28 roads will be given a free pass to keep all of the economic benefits of the EU without committing to the continued political integration that the EU demands.
Don't get me wrong, I also don't think we are heading towards the superstate, I'd just like to get out before the question is asked and all of the same stupid arguments are used to try and browbeat the public into voting in favour.
If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost.
Why would leaving at a later date have a higher economic cost? If the Leave argument that increasing globalisation renders regional blocks an anachronism, then with every passing year it makes less and less difference economically whether we're in or out.
Because we'll be even more integrated politically and economically with the EU.
As for the reality of a post-remain UK and Con party. I will accept the result. However, I won't leave the party, in fact I hope to get some people I have made contact with through VL to join the party and we can continue to take it over from within. John Major faced down 20-30 "bastards" Cameron is facing down 160 of us and at least 60% of the membership. We are the majority and we will continue to be the majority after the vote and eventually we will have the majority of MPs and the leadership on our side. It's a process that has been on going.
I don't think that the EU is ever going to be reformed in our favour. The idea that we can opt-out of the political union with no economic consequences is also a complete nonsense, that's if the new opt-out is proven to be legally binding (I have my doubts). I've said it time and again, we are either all-in or all-out. Our halfway house is politically and economically damaging, we currently have the worst of both worlds. Imposition of EU trade tariffs and no real influence within the EU to change that.
Honest question - I've heard lots about Leavers 'taking over' the Conservative party but this seems to be a skeptics dream. The Tories have been split on Europe as long as I can remember, and even if a Leaver was elected leader, that wouldn't change. Even if Cameron had shocked everyone and supported Leave, there would still have been over 100 MPs and horrified activists on the ground - it's just that it would have been different parts of the party as aghast as the Leavers are at the moment. So how do Leavers "take-over" the Conservative party when so many key figures past and present just aren't going to go there?
I am not a member having abandoned the Tories long ago but I really can't see why the Eurosceptics would even want to take over the party if they lose the referendum. The amount of shit that is heading our way after a Remain vote should rightly hit the Europhile's fan. Why let them get out of taking responsibility for the mess they cause.
The ideal for me is to see four years of complete shit for the current Tory administration followed by humiliation at the next election. It is no more than they deserve. After that the Euroscpetic Tories can try and rebuild the party if they want to.
Ironically, the best interest of right wing eurosceptics would be to rejoin the Conservative and Unionist Party. If they did, the next Conservative leader would certainly be a eurosceptic. However, the problem with UKIP types is that you have three people in a room and you get five falling outs.
But like I said, why would they want to. The Europhiles will have made the mess. Let them suffer the consequences.
Come off it Richard, the EU has a stated aim of becoming a single nation. They have made moves to enable this over and over. They are very up front about it as well, credit to them. It is our politicians who are either naive or arrogant enough to think they can keep Britain out of the political union while keeping the economic benefits of the EU. The basis of the EU is to foster a single political union across the 28 members, all roads lead to the superstate. It is naive to think that only 1 out of 28 roads will be given a free pass to keep all of the economic benefits of the EU without committing to the continued political integration that the EU demands.
Don't get me wrong, I also don't think we are heading towards the superstate, I'd just like to get out before the question is asked and all of the same stupid arguments are used to try and browbeat the public into voting in favour.
That might mean that I'm wrong and you're right in our assessments about the likely future. It doesn't make me slavishly pro-EU or a Euro-federalist.
As for the reality of a post-remain UK and Con party. I will accept the result. However, I won't leave the party, in fact I hope to get some people I have made contact with through VL to join the party and we can continue to take it over from within. John Major faced down 20-30 "bastards" Cameron is facing down 160 of us and at least 60% of the membership. We are the majority and we will continue to be the majority after the vote and eventually we will have the majority of MPs and the leadership on our side. It's a process that has been on going.
I don't think that the EU is ever going to be reformed in our favour. The idea that we can opt-out of the political union with no economic consequences is also a complete nonsense, that's if the new opt-out is proven to be legally binding (I have my doubts). I've said it time and again, we are either all-in or all-out. Our halfway house is politically and economically damaging, we currently have the worst of both worlds. Imposition of EU trade tariffs and no real influence within the EU to change that.
Honest question - I've heard lots about Leavers 'taking over' the Conservative party but this seems to be a skeptics dream. The Tories have been split on Europe as long as I can remember, and even if a Leaver was elected leader, that wouldn't change. Even if Cameron had shocked everyone and supported Leave, there would still have been over 100 MPs and horrified activists on the ground - it's just that it would have been different parts of the party as aghast as the Leavers are at the moment. So how do Leavers "take-over" the Conservative party when so many key figures past and present just aren't going to go there?
The ideal for me is to see four years of complete shit for the current Tory administration followed by humiliation at the next election. It is no more than they deserve. After that the Euroscpetic Tories can try and rebuild the party if they want to.
Ironically, the best interest of right wing eurosceptics would be to rejoin the Conservative and Unionist Party. If they did, the next Conservative leader would certainly be a eurosceptic. However, the problem with UKIP types is that you have three people in a room and you get five falling outs.
But like I said, why would they want to. The Europhiles will have made the mess. Let them suffer the consequences.
Because if you actually believe euroscepticism is beneficial to Britain, the UK's national interest is more important than schadenfreude over europhiles facing difficulty. It is this sort of spiteful, disagreeable mentality from eurosceptics that have seen them fighting themselves to death rather than winning the referendum.
If only more of the WWC had second homes in Spain and had to struggle with such awful first world problems like healthcare when visiting one's place near Seville they might be more in favour of more lovely EU integration ?
Let them eat Kuchen.
Quite so, it's a peripheral issue for most voters.
However, we were talking specifically about ex-pats residing in Spain and in other EU countries, for whom it's a central issue.
Oh the poor dear's.
So the people living in happy retirement in Spain are worried - just pathetic.
When you see mass immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans into your area of living,quality of life suffer then you people might have a complaint.
The UK can control non-EU immigration now. Given than it is consistently higher than EU immigration and it hasn't diminished much over time, it's not clear that overall immigration will drop significantly on Brexit
Isn't the non-EU number heavily influenced by fee paying students going to university or private/independent schools?
So the people living in happy retirement in Spain are worried - just pathetic.
When you see mass immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans into your area of living,quality of life suffer then you people might have a complaint.
Err, I don't think you've quite understood the discussion.
Come off it Richard, the EU has a stated aim of becoming a single nation. They have made moves to enable this over and over. They are very up front about it as well, credit to them. It is our politicians who are either naive or arrogant enough to think they can keep Britain out of the political union while keeping the economic benefits of the EU. The basis of the EU is to foster a single political union across the 28 members, all roads lead to the superstate.
This is a gross misconception of the European project. Yes the end-state is a continental federation, but no-one conceives of this as being a single nation with a precise analogy with the USA, but rather an entirely new type of entity.
I remember a couple of months back, people on here saying that the huge crowds flocking to Trump rallies were just examples of Milifandom, along with the huge increases in turnouts at republican primaries.
Mostly, the same people backing an easy remain victory.
There's something happening. But what? The last national poll was five days ago...
People have started to see how vulnerable 'crooked' Hillary is to a Trump style negative campaign. It's clear now that Bill's reputation is about to be utterly trashed in a way that ought to have been predicted. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary files for divorce before November is a desperate bid to detach herself from the mess.
He needs to hold off on the Clintons for a while to remove any risk of the Democrats doing a switcheroo.
2. A real spanner in the works, though, could be the emergence of stories about mob links. You can't do big builds in New York without having to deal with the mafia, apparently. 3. If he does win he is going to have trouble bringing in A list Republicans to serve in his administration. He's just too unpredictable. 4. He may not actually be a Republican! 5. The Senate looks like it may flip to the Democrats in November, before flipping back to the GOP in 2018.
Make of this what you will. No huge surprises, but 2 and 4 may explain a lot about why Trump is so worrisome for the GOP establishment.
Any rumours of a Veep?
If Trump picks a young, likeable, successful woman it's over for Clinton.
Second-guessing VP picks is always a needle in a haystack job. The obvious candidates are nearly always too short in the betting (Gingrich - evens?!) and there are so many wildcard options that picking the nominee involves a huge element of luck. As with all such nominations, you have to work out what the preferences are of both the candidate and his/her potential running mates (would the accept even if asked?).
FWIW, I think Susana Martinez would be an excellent pick for Trump but that assumes that she'd want to serve with him and him with her.
No president ever has won because of their VP, with possible exception of LBJ winning Texas for JFK though he would have won without it. Personally I think Trump might pick Scott Brown, Hillary Castro or Warren
Yebbut, never before has someone run without legislative, military or foreign policy experience.
Trump needs a good Veep, or he may as well forget it...
There are many fools in this world (fortunately for my political betting accounts!).
The economic case is akin to owning shares in a dis-functional and unsuccessful company such as BHS and refusing to sell them as other shares in a start up may go down faster.
The triumph of timidity over entrepreneurial spirit.
No, it's akin to having a large existing contract with a big customer, and not wanting to jeopardise it on the off-chance that there might be speculative other opportunities somewhere else.
What's more, those other opportunities can be exploited anyway. No-one on the Leave side has ever given any coherent reason why we need to leave the EU to export more to other countries. Indeed we are exporting more to other non-EU countries.
Spot on, Mr. Nabavi, at least in my view. The trade arguments are a load of dingos' kidneys from both sides. We can trade with who we like in or out. South Korea exports a lot to the EU without having a free trade agreement and without having to pay fees or accept free movement of people and by the same token Germany exports a lot to the rest of the world. The trade arguments really are a red herring.
If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost.
Why would leaving at a later date have a higher economic cost? If the Leave argument that increasing globalisation renders regional blocks an anachronism, then with every passing year it makes less and less difference economically whether we're in or out.
Because we'll be even more integrated politically and economically with the EU.
But we and the EU will be even more integrated economically with the rest of the world too.
Come off it Richard, the EU has a stated aim of becoming a single nation. They have made moves to enable this over and over. They are very up front about it as well, credit to them. It is our politicians who are either naive or arrogant enough to think they can keep Britain out of the political union while keeping the economic benefits of the EU. The basis of the EU is to foster a single political union across the 28 members, all roads lead to the superstate. It is naive to think that only 1 out of 28 roads will be given a free pass to keep all of the economic benefits of the EU without committing to the continued political integration that the EU demands.
Don't get me wrong, I also don't think we are heading towards the superstate, I'd just like to get out before the question is asked and all of the same stupid arguments are used to try and browbeat the public into voting in favour.
That might mean that I'm wrong and you're right in our assessments about the likely future. It doesn't make me slavishly pro-EU or a Euro-federalist.
Well it at least makes you naive since you are sleepwalking towards the superstate and being sold on an economic partnership whereas the reality is a political union. Our leaders are selling us the economic partnership because the political union is completely unpalatable, I'm surprised you're willing to risk our future as a sovereign nation over 1.8-3.5% GDP, or if we leave at a later date, a much larger hit to GDP.
Enhanced Cooperation is in the treaties precisely to prevent individual member states from playing silly buggers like this. (The British signed up to this because they don't want to be dicked around either when they wanted something that some other member states didn't, like a single system for patents.)
But even Enhanced Cooperation didn't exist, it's not really obvious how it helps Britain for the other member states to use different buildings.
How come this wasn't used for the European Fiscal Compact?
It was. However, the other EU countries came around to our position and realised what a poor idea it all was so they have quietly forgotten about it and the enforcement mechanisms. The same has happened for the financial transaction tax.
If we really can't have any leverage for future EU treaties then this may have tipped me over from a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. Is there a Remain supporter who can tell me how we will be able to get a better renegotiation in future?
It's not going to happen like that, "renegotiations" are nearly always pre-election scams to avoid saying you're for or against something. During the 2008 primaries Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
How do you think we will be able to bring back powers to the UK if we remain in? I still want a reformed EU and I was hoping that would be possible through using leverage for the next Eurozone treaty.
You haven't told us what reform you want so I can't tell you whether it'll be in a treaty. But the current government tried very hard to find a bone to throw to sceptics that wasn't doomed for being one of: * Administrative-gridlock-inducing, like giving individual member states more vetos over things that are hard enough to get done already * Politically unacceptable to at least one veto-wielding member state, like shafting Polish migrant workers on either benefits or the right to work * Domestically unpopular, like rolling back rights for workers
...and they weren't really able to think of anything substantial.
I agreed with much of what David Cameron was trying to renegotiate in his Bloomberg speech. I would like a more pro-business, flexible EU, with some sensible restrictions when migration flows get too much. If that is "politically unacceptable" to the EU, even when we have leverage, then, as I say, it tips me from being a reluctant Remain to a reluctant Leave. There is no point being part of a group where we have no influence to achieve the things we want.
Tell that to the nervous pensioners out here on limited income with property difficult to sell.
I can understand why some might be nervous, but I don't think British property owners in Spain would be booted out of Spain if the UK left.
It would make absolutely no sense.
What about a "vindictive" response from the EU in the event of Brexit? If the EU want to discourage other countries, they may need to do their utmost to penalise the UK and make independence from the EU look unattractive to others - including by stopping residency of existing expats
I think there could be an initial shock but both sides would rapidly start acting like grown ups because it would be in their interests to do so.
If the EU want to make continued membership attractive they are going to have to do so by reforming themselves so they are attractive rather than punishing, or threatening to punish, 'deserters'.
You are hitching the UK to a political union which intends to become a single state in order for short term economic stability. If our opt-out is successfully enforced, we sit on the sidelines carping away and hoping that we have some influence in the running of the superstate, if our opt-out is found to be in violation of the Treaty of Rome the we end up leaving at a later date and higher economic cost. These are the two options on the table. Given that you aren't a half-wit, I can't understand being in favour of either position which leads me to believe that you are a closet federalist using the fear of economic uncertainty to slowly push the UK into a position where it must become part of the single EU nation.
That is quite spectacularly stupid, because it is based on a completely false premise. Just because you think we are headed for a superstate doesn't mean I do. If I did, I'd be voting to leave.
This isn't hard to understand, surely? The tendency of Leavers to ascribe dark motives to anyone who on balance disagrees with them is, well, bonkers.
Its not stupid at all. It is just that you are blinded by your own Europhilia.
The EU won't push for political union because the majority of the countries want it. Yes there are many who do want it but just as many who don't. Unfortunately for all of them they will push for it because it HAS to happen. There is no alternative if the Eurozone is going to survive.
This is not some deep dark conspiracy by Federalists. Indeed the Federalists have been completely open about this for decades - something I had to correct another Eurosceptic on last week when they ascribed duplicitous motives to Jean Monnet.
But Federalisation is a necessity. It will happen and all the wishing in the world by people like you won't stop it.
Cameron, like Major before him, has failed to secure meaningful protection from this and we are going to see the EU dominated by the Eurozone including the use of all the existing political institutions to aid political union.
Utter rubbish. Cheap breaks occur inside and outside the EU. Turkey and Tunisia are both very popular destinations for getaways in the sun, and outside the EU. Norway is also popular for a different kind of break, as is Iceland.
And we had visa-free access to Europe pre-1973 and we will have it after.
This is sheer propaganda.
(Although holidays to Norway are anything but cheap.)
Edit to add: the UK -> Spanish package holiday boom began before Spain was even in the EU.
Honest question (for both LEAVERs and REMAINERs) - which of these works better? I think the upper image, as we're actually voting on membership of the EU, as opposed to "Europe".
They're both shit but the first one is better than the second one.
Thank you for that forensic analysis, Mr Tokyo
It is very hard to say "the EU isn't ..." because of alliteration or something, so the second is better. Neither is very good though because most voters haven't a clue about continental economies.
Because if you actually believe euroscepticism is beneficial to Britain, the UK's national interest is more important than schadenfreude over europhiles facing difficulty. It is this sort of spiteful, disagreeable mentality from eurosceptics that have seen them fighting themselves to death rather than winning the referendum.
Nope. There will be no further moves to leave the EU after a Remain vote for many years. As such it is necessary that the Tories who were stupid enough to support Remain are the ones who suffer the consequences after which we can ditch the whole rotten lot of them and start working on the next Leave campaign.
@rowenamason: Cameron says there's "uncertainty" over whether EU citizens in UK + UK citizens in EU have right to stay where they are in event of Brexit
That does raise the interesting question of whether the Remain campaign have made inroads into getting ex-pats to register and vote. Does anyone know?
I was in Portugal in March and the 2 English language papers were promoting registering & vote Remain pretty heavily. No idea how many have registered though.
'EU Poll Page 62 Table 16 Q3 - Thinking about the UK as a whole, do you believe the country is generally heading in the right direction, or seriously heading in the wrong direction?'
'Generally right direction' is not the equivalent of 'Seriously wrong direction'. I know that from basic market research - this is meant to be a polling company? Done properly, this question could have been quite a good proxy to compare to the headline figures.
There are tables riddled with gobbledygook keyboard typing, typos in the questions etc.
And why is the general aim to come back with as few don't knows as possible?
Comments
Or if you don't buy that, picture a Polish resident going back to Poland for a week. When they come back to Britain, flashing their EU passport won't be enough to get them let back in.
Are you sure that "looking for work", or even "working", will give EU citizens resident in Britain indefinite leave to remain here?
Some say that the existing right of EU citizens to reside in Britain can't be removed. But that isn't so, because it depends on British membership. The Torygraph are talking rubbish when they say that the Treaty of Vienna (apparently supported by a librarian at the House of Commons) says otherwise. The rights referred to in the relevant section of that Treaty are the rights of states, not individuals. They're just trying to lull British expats into not being apprehensive about a Leave win.
Currently if you're British and you live in Spain, you're an EU citizen living in the EU. Of course your position is going to change when you're living in the EU and you're not a citizen of the EU.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/734794151875760130
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/734421468033994754
But then, the whole Brexit shenanigans has been a goldmine of political irony.
Unlike you, wrong then, wrong now.
It would make absolutely no sense.
Why do you think I was wrong then?
Let them eat Kuchen.
The first ever Eurovision!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_1956
Many many people outside the EU would like to come here but either they know they wouldn't be allowed to reside here (or in many cases, even come here), so they don't apply, or they apply and get turned down.
If intending immigrants from the EU were to be treated the same as intending immigrants from outside the EU, immigration would fall dramatically.
How do you think we will be able to bring back powers to the UK if we remain in? I still want a reformed EU and I was hoping that would be possible through using leverage for the next Eurozone treaty.
However, we were talking specifically about ex-pats residing in Spain and in other EU countries, for whom it's a central issue.
Additionally, you're a fan of Osborne, which means we can never be friends!
Leave has utterly failed to articulate the economic precipice the EU is on and the threat it poses.
This isn't hard to understand, surely? The tendency of Leavers to ascribe dark motives to anyone who on balance disagrees with them is, well, bonkers.
And talking of bonkers Leavers, see 12.07 here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/may/24/eurozone-greek-bailout-debt-relief-business-live
If you mean "the Treaties of Rome" (others will give you their full names) then no, they cannot be changed without UK consent.
If you mean "a treaty involving several EU members between themselves but not including the UK" then yes, they can be created, changed and destrotyed without UK consent.
The latter course is easier and (following Lisbon) is seen as the way forward by many states because it has a greater probability of success. So it depends on the size of the change.
* A fundamental change would require changing "the Treaties of Rome", and an example would be an Accession Treaty, so if Turkey wanted to join then that would require our consent.
* A lesser change might be better organised via the Enhanced Cooperation method, and an example would be the European Fiscal Compact treaty...although "lesser" is obviously relative.
The triumph of timidity over entrepreneurial spirit.
John McDonnell's seminars are restoring Labour's economic credibility, says @liamyoung: https://t.co/9FrmncIoih https://t.co/NzfOLrZuVS
Trump 46% (tie)
Clinton 46%
#ARG https://t.co/tbX1Ypshso
Carney says interest rates could go up or down post Brexit.
What fking amazing insight.
I reckon they could also go up or down post a remain vote.
Could I have £600k please.
* Administrative-gridlock-inducing, like giving individual member states more vetos over things that are hard enough to get done already
* Politically unacceptable to at least one veto-wielding member state, like shafting Polish migrant workers on either benefits or the right to work
* Domestically unpopular, like rolling back rights for workers
...and they weren't really able to think of anything substantial.
What's more, those other opportunities can be exploited anyway. No-one on the Leave side has ever given any coherent reason why we need to leave the EU to export more to other countries. Indeed we are exporting more to other non-EU countries.
Don't get me wrong, I also don't think we are heading towards the superstate, I'd just like to get out before the question is asked and all of the same stupid arguments are used to try and browbeat the public into voting in favour.
Trump in to 3.1
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/735094280298074112
So the people living in happy retirement in Spain are worried - just pathetic.
When you see mass immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans into your area of living,quality of life suffer then you people might have a complaint.
Never mind.
Trump needs a good Veep, or he may as well forget it...
Remain: 45% (+2)
Leave: 45% (-2)
(via ICM / 20 - 22 May)
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
If the EU want to make continued membership attractive they are going to have to do so by reforming themselves so they are attractive rather than punishing, or threatening to punish, 'deserters'.
The EU won't push for political union because the majority of the countries want it. Yes there are many who do want it but just as many who don't. Unfortunately for all of them they will push for it because it HAS to happen. There is no alternative if the Eurozone is going to survive.
This is not some deep dark conspiracy by Federalists. Indeed the Federalists have been completely open about this for decades - something I had to correct another Eurosceptic on last week when they ascribed duplicitous motives to Jean Monnet.
But Federalisation is a necessity. It will happen and all the wishing in the world by people like you won't stop it.
Cameron, like Major before him, has failed to secure meaningful protection from this and we are going to see the EU dominated by the Eurozone including the use of all the existing political institutions to aid political union.
Edit to add: the UK -> Spanish package holiday boom began before Spain was even in the EU.
This is the extent of their analysis of their own poll?:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/article.php?s=daily-telegraph-poll-18th-22nd-may
And look at this:
'EU Poll
Page 62
Table 16
Q3 - Thinking about the UK as a whole, do you believe the country is generally heading in the right direction, or seriously heading in the wrong direction?'
'Generally right direction' is not the equivalent of 'Seriously wrong direction'. I know that from basic market research - this is meant to be a polling company? Done properly, this question could have been quite a good proxy to compare to the headline figures.
There are tables riddled with gobbledygook keyboard typing, typos in the questions etc.
And why is the general aim to come back with as few don't knows as possible?