Mr. Eagles, explain how it's patriotic to have unelected foreign bureaucrats have the power to meddle in our democracy and impose rulings on us, as per the Commission's new (2014) powers, currently being used on Poland.
That power is similar to the sanctions the UN has when countries ignore the normal rules of democracy. Perhaps you can explain why judicial intimidation and nobbling is a good thing.
Plus, it is unpatriotic to make the country and your fellow countrypeople poorer.
I'll use that line in canvassing tonight and see how it goes.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
This case seems a little more dubious than national buses, etc. But it's only circumstantial evidence based on an analysis of tweets so doubt it meets the standard of proof required
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Um. No idea where you got those from but you are wrong. Whether I agree with it or not Vote Leave have been very clear.
No we will not be bound by EU law No we will not have free movement No we will not have free unfettered access but we will have trade agreements No we will not pay into the EU We would leave the EU 2 years after we invoked article 50 or sooner if we reach agreement with them.
All these things were decided as soon as Vote Leave choose not to follow the EEA route.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Mr. Observer, will we have a single European National Insurance scheme? Will corporation tax be standardised across the EU? Will the EU seek to collect that tax, or any other, directly? How will the EU army function? What will the eurozone impose upon us via QMV?
Remain is also a leap in the dark. Just without the democracy.
The trouble with the "A reading of 'Country Report-France 2016' published by the EU Commission, Brussels 26Feb 2016 will explain the logic which has led the El Khomri law" is that it substitutes older peoples unemployment for younger peoples unemployment. It doesn't make new jobs.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It was more the inference from social media postings.
I do agree with the comment about the by-election, if one tory seat gets pulled up, every single Labour seat will be scrutinised - that will not end well.
"It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result."
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious now. Someone page Crick.
From what I read on OrderOrder the Cat Smith case is different to battle bus issue.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Um. No idea where you got those from but you are wrong. Whether I agree with it or not Vote Leave have been very clear.
No we will not be bound by EU law No we will not have free movement No we will not have free unfettered access but we will have trade agreements No we will not pay into the EU We would leave the EU 2 years after we invoked article 50 or sooner if we reach agreement with them.
All these things were decided as soon as Vote Leave choose not to follow the EEA route.
But Vote Leave is not the government and will not be doing the negotiation. Neither does it have a Commons majority.
Mr. Eagles, maybe the EU should sanction itself, given the accounts haven't been signed off once during the course of Verstappen's lifetime.
Does the UN impose taxes upon us? Does it impose laws via QMV upon us? The two are not remotely comparable.
If you would sell the right of governance for profit then you reduce the British people to head of cattle.
Not only that, the idea the EU is economically positive is questionable at best. Italy's economy is the same size it was a decade ago. Greece has undergone a terrible time. The single market's not been completed for services (of course, it has for manufacturing, which helps the Germans). The CAP is lovely for the retirement plans of French farmers, less so for African farmers trying to sell their produce.
Mr. Topping, the Chancellor's been begging foreign eurocrats for the right to have tampons exempted from a sales tax. That's hardly the towering prowess of a self-confident colossus of a nation, is it?
"Please, sir, can we make this VAT exempt?" "We shall consider the matter." "Oh, thank you ever so much, sir."
My personal favourite was Number 10s response to the colossal immigration numbers coming through this month, and the four million heading our way over the next few years.
Mr. Eagles, explain how it's patriotic to have unelected foreign bureaucrats have the power to meddle in our democracy and impose rulings on us, as per the Commission's new (2014) powers, currently being used on Poland.
That power is similar to the sanctions the UN has when countries ignore the normal rules of democracy. Perhaps you can explain why judicial intimidation and nobbling is a good thing.
Plus, it is unpatriotic to make the country and your fellow countrypeople poorer.
I'll use that line in canvassing tonight and see how it goes.
Mr. Observer, will we have a single European National Insurance scheme? Will corporation tax be standardised across the EU? Will the EU seek to collect that tax, or any other, directly? How will the EU army function? What will the eurozone impose upon us via QMV?
Remain is also a leap in the dark. Just without the democracy.
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
So you believe Leavers would be perfectly content to quit the EU but maintain full freedom of movement to the UK for all EU citizens? I'm afraid I disagree.
Mr. Eagles, maybe the EU should sanction itself, given the accounts haven't been signed off once during the course of Verstappen's lifetime.
Does the UN impose taxes upon us? Does it impose laws via QMV upon us? The two are not remotely comparable.
If you would sell the right of governance for profit then you reduce the British people to head of cattle.
Not only that, the idea the EU is economically positive is questionable at best. Italy's economy is the same size it was a decade ago. Greece has undergone a terrible time. The single market's not been completed for services (of course, it has for manufacturing, which helps the Germans). The CAP is lovely for the retirement plans of French farmers, less so for African farmers trying to sell their produce.
More Leave myths
As in previous years, we've woken up to stories about the European Union failing to get a clean bill of health for its accounts.
As ever, the truth is nuanced. The European Court of Auditors (ECA), an EU body set up to examine the accounts of the Union, signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable—something it's done for every set of figures since 2007.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
It is not realistic it is cowardly and lazy. The idea that it is better to have others make decisions for you so you don't have to make them for yourself is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
So anyone who does not share your views is a lesser person? Do you really mean that?
Remain are arguing that war, economic Armageddon and victory of our enemies would result from the UK pursuing its own self-governance. And that we're too weak, too poor, too stupid and too small to a make a great success of it.
I think that's a disgrace. They haven't a single positive thing to say about the EU. And now they have the audacity to argue its "patriotic" to stay?
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
Mr. Eagles, explain how it's patriotic to have unelected foreign bureaucrats have the power to meddle in our democracy and impose rulings on us, as per the Commission's new (2014) powers, currently being used on Poland.
That power is similar to the sanctions the UN has when countries ignore the normal rules of democracy. Perhaps you can explain why judicial intimidation and nobbling is a good thing.
Plus, it is unpatriotic to make the country and your fellow countrypeople poorer.
I'll use that line in canvassing tonight and see how it goes.
We will all be better off in long run Out.
Remainers are using the Labour 2010 approach that we shouldnt have austerity as it was too radical and that long term benefits were irrelevant compared to short term pain.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
So you believe Leavers would be perfectly content to quit the EU but maintain full freedom of movement to the UK for all EU citizens? I'm afraid I disagree.
They may not be content with the outcome of the negotiation. That is their right.
And the appropriate response would be to vote out the party that handled that negotiation at the next general election.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not havnd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
LOL is that some kind of flouncette? I don't think we were discussing but PB is, you know, a discussion board.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
I completely fail to see how imposition of any rules laws and taxes from unelected officials is acceptable to you in any circumstances whatsoever - including having the so called nuclear button if we wish to use it.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
So you believe Leavers would be perfectly content to quit the EU but maintain full freedom of movement to the UK for all EU citizens? I'm afraid I disagree.
They may not be content with the outcome of the negotiation. That is their right.
And the appropriate response would be to vote out the party that handled that negotiation at the next general election.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
Mr. Observer, will we have a single European National Insurance scheme? Will corporation tax be standardised across the EU? Will the EU seek to collect that tax, or any other, directly? How will the EU army function? What will the eurozone impose upon us via QMV?
Remain is also a leap in the dark. Just without the democracy.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
It is not realistic it is cowardly and lazy. The idea that it is better to have others make decisions for you so you don't have to make them for yourself is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
So anyone who does not share your views is a lesser person? Do you really mean that?
The three day general strike in Greece and the oil blockade in France show the folly of the belief that workers' rights are somehow sacrosanct in the rest of the EU.
The Greeks are having their previously afforded rights systematically removed by order of Europe because they integrated too much.
How long has their economic depression and austerity been going on? What is their unemployment rate? How much smaller is their economy?
Remain are arguing that war, economic Armageddon and victory of our enemies would result from the UK pursuing its own self-governance. And that we're too weak, too poor, too stupid and too small to a make a great success of it.
I think that's a disgrace. They haven't a single positive thing to say about the EU. And now they have the audacity to argue its "patriotic" to stay?
It makes me actively angry. Really, it does.
Yesterday, Cameron said it was the moral thing to do. Really. Voting Brexit is immoral apparently.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not havnd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
LOL is that some kind of flouncette? I don't think we were discussing but PB is, you know, a discussion board.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
Nope. No flounce. But there is no point talking to you anymore on the subject, is there?
You've made up your mind and there's nothing I could ever say to change it.
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
And that's the key point. In fact, why the hell are we having this effing referendum anyway? Waste of time and money, completely divisive, and entirely unnecessary in a representative democracy. Referendums are bullshit.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
@benrileysmith: Understand Out camp to hammer away at idea backing EU is vote for status quo. Desperate to end perception Remain is safer option.
Interesting. I keep saying it, it's a lock for Remain. We'll look back on 24 June and wonder why we bothered. There are too few people who are going to risk the entire future of the nation on a fanciful whim.
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
And that's the key point. In fact, why the hell are we having this effing referendum anyway? Waste of time and money, completely divisive, and entirely unnecessary in a representative democracy. Referendums are bullshit.
In order to win the last election, Dave had to include it in the manifesto. Same as if the widget lobby group (or perhaps the pro-hunting lobby group) had had similar success.
Rinkasio says - It's interesting to see how the tone has changed. A Brexit was not possible because we were too weak to stand on our own two feet, then it was bad for our security, then it was bad for jobs and business, then it was bad for workers rights, then, then, then ... and now it's bad for the EU. Got there in the end. Good for us tho'.
Remain are arguing that war, economic Armageddon and victory of our enemies would result from the UK pursuing its own self-governance. And that we're too weak, too poor, too stupid and too small to a make a great success of it.
I think that's a disgrace. They haven't a single positive thing to say about the EU. And now they have the audacity to argue its "patriotic" to stay?
It makes me actively angry. Really, it does.
Yesterday, Cameron said it was the moral thing to do. Really. Voting Brexit is immoral apparently.
Out of curiosity did you object when David Cameron said he was making the moral case for voting Tory/lower taxes during the last general election campaign?
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
And that's the key point. In fact, why the hell are we having this effing referendum anyway? Waste of time and money, completely divisive, and entirely unnecessary in a representative democracy. Referendums are bullshit.
In order to win the last election, Dave had to include it in the manifesto. Same as if the widget lobby group (or perhaps the pro-hunting lobby group) had has similar success.
Representative democracy is intact.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, he would have won it anyway!
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
It is not realistic it is cowardly and lazy. The idea that it is better to have others make decisions for you so you don't have to make them for yourself is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
So anyone who does not share your views is a lesser person? Do you really mean that?
On this specific subject yes. It is not disagreeing with me that makes him a lesser person. It is the views he holds that do that.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not havnd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
LOL is that some kind of flouncette? I don't think we were discussing but PB is, you know, a discussion board.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
Nope. No flounce. But there is no point talking to you anymore on the subject, is there?
You've made up your mind and there's nothing I could ever say to change it.
So let's move on.
ok cool thanks so just to get the rules straight: if, say, you say something that I deem ridiculous, am I allowed to comment?
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
It is not realistic it is cowardly and lazy. The idea that it is better to have others make decisions for you so you don't have to make them for yourself is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
So anyone who does not share your views is a lesser person? Do you really mean that?
On this specific subject yes. It is not disagreeing with me that makes him a lesser person. It is the views he holds that do that.
You're either a lesser person or you're not. I am sure you don't mean it Richard. You are far too sensible for that. It's just that you care about this very much. I want us to Remain and think we'd be foolish to leave. But if we do we do.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
So you believe Leavers would be perfectly content to quit the EU but maintain full freedom of movement to the UK for all EU citizens? I'm afraid I disagree.
They may not be content with the outcome of the negotiation. That is their right.
And the appropriate response would be to vote out the party that handled that negotiation at the next general election.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
So you believe Leavers would be perfectly content to quit the EU but maintain full freedom of movement to the UK for all EU citizens? I'm afraid I disagree.
They may not be content with the outcome of the negotiation. That is their right.
And the appropriate response would be to vote out the party that handled that negotiation at the next general election.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
@benrileysmith: Understand Out camp to hammer away at idea backing EU is vote for status quo. Desperate to end perception Remain is safer option.
Very difficult. If the last four weeks has taught the campaigns anything it's the truth of the advertising maxim that it's impossible to persuade people of things they don't believe.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
No, you accept exactly the same level of uncertainty as when you vote for your MP.
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not havnd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
LOL is that some kind of flouncette? I don't think we were discussing but PB is, you know, a discussion board.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
Nope. No flounce. But there is no point talking to you anymore on the subject, is there?
You've made up your mind and there's nothing I could ever say to change it.
So let's move on.
ok cool thanks so just to get the rules straight: if, say, you say something that I deem ridiculous, am I allowed to comment?
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
@benrileysmith: Understand Out camp to hammer away at idea backing EU is vote for status quo. Desperate to end perception Remain is safer option.
Interesting. I keep saying it, it's a lock for Remain. We'll look back on 24 June and wonder why we bothered. There are too few people who are going to risk the entire future of the nation on a fanciful whim.
I agree. It's such a dead cert that you might as well stay at home and not bother to vote
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not havnd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Thanks. I disagree entirely and think the case to Leave is overwhelming and clear.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
LOL is that some kind of flouncette? I don't think we were discussing but PB is, you know, a discussion board.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
Nope. No flounce. But there is no point talking to you anymore on the subject, is there?
You've made up your mind and there's nothing I could ever say to change it.
So let's move on.
ok cool thanks so just to get the rules straight: if, say, you say something that I deem ridiculous, am I allowed to comment?
Mr. Eagles, maybe the EU should sanction itself, given the accounts haven't been signed off once during the course of Verstappen's lifetime.
Does the UN impose taxes upon us? Does it impose laws via QMV upon us? The two are not remotely comparable.
If you would sell the right of governance for profit then you reduce the British people to head of cattle.
Not only that, the idea the EU is economically positive is questionable at best. Italy's economy is the same size it was a decade ago. Greece has undergone a terrible time. The single market's not been completed for services (of course, it has for manufacturing, which helps the Germans). The CAP is lovely for the retirement plans of French farmers, less so for African farmers trying to sell their produce.
More Leave myths
As in previous years, we've woken up to stories about the European Union failing to get a clean bill of health for its accounts.
As ever, the truth is nuanced. The European Court of Auditors (ECA), an EU body set up to examine the accounts of the Union, signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable—something it's done for every set of figures since 2007.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
I was just pointing out that you had got your response to the article wrong. Billionaire Mark Coombs and Lord Sainsbury are backing BSE.
If Leave wins and if Cameron resigns or is forced out and if a Leaver becomes PM, would Tory Remainers be prepared to bring down the government so that the Remainer PM did not lead the exit negotiations? Remain has a big majority in the commons, and a Remain coalition could agree a 'Brexit-lite' deal instead of an 'Up yours' to Brussels. So who would lead this coalition? It would need to be a Labour moderate who would be acceptable to all parts of the coalition. Benn?
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
I was just pointing out that you had got your response to the article wrong. Billionaire Mark Coombs and Lord Sainsbury are backing BSE.
I think it's fair to say there are billionaires for the EU, and billionaires against... Goldman partners for, and Goldman partners against.
@benrileysmith: Understand Out camp to hammer away at idea backing EU is vote for status quo. Desperate to end perception Remain is safer option.
Very difficult. If the last four weeks has taught the campaigns anything it's the truth of the advertising maxim that it's impossible to persuade people of things they don't believe.
Well yes, but people do already believe immigration is a bad thing, and do worry about more countries getting unlimited freedom of movement in future. The point of an advertising campaign on that would surely be to bring those worries that voters already have to the forefront of their minds, rather than to actually persuade them of something they don't believe.
Personally I think the "75m Turkish people will be able to come to Britain" line is potentially quite a fruitful line for the Leave Campaign. Frankly, even as a certified "bleeding heart liberal", it worries even me a bit - and I'm not very reassured by the claims at the weekend of vetoes (that we would theoretically have the power to veto Turkish entry to the EU does not mean we'd actually do it).
However, the caveat to that is the Leave Campaign would need to be careful about their tone. It strikes a lot of people as eminent common sense that, purely in terms of numbers, there aren't enough jobs and resources to go round and accommodate endless people immigrating the country - but it's when politicians start castigating immigrants as individuals (see Farage's comments about immigrants with HIV, how Romanian next-door neighbours are thuggish threats, etc.) that makes the average voter feel more uneasy.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
No, you accept exactly the same level of uncertainty as when you vote for your MP.
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
No. When I vote for an MP I am presented with a manifesto against which I can judge his or her subsequent performance. The Commission is bound by the decisions of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. We have the ability to pull out of the EU when we wish to.
I find campaign in general very strange. This is a major decision and will affect the country for decades, yet the level of "official" debate has been exceptionally poor.
The official Vote Leave campaign has been pathetic.
However, the Remain campaign (the government) has been extremley disingenuous since it started. It's main thrust is that it would damage the economy to leave the EU and to that effect, it has lined up a series of "prestiege" actors to provide speculative evidence and present it as fact. The assumptions made in the Treasury analysis are exceptionally biased and deliberatly designed to mislead, the Canadian, WTO and Swiss options were chosen as they provide the most negative results in the model. The fact that the Treasury consistently misses its own targets for the next 12 months just further reduces the credibility of 20 year forecasts. The Bank of England fan charts used to be a byword for inaccuracy. I make economic models for a living and you can show a poor project to be good or a good project to be poor if you change certain variables and cherry pick scenarios.
What the Remain campaign neatly dodges it that the status quo in our relationship is not on offer. Cameron's Bloomberg 2013 speech was an insightful analysis of the structural problems in the EU and offered some thoughts on reform. We were told as late as Feb 2016 by Cameron that if he did not recieve substantial reform he may reccomend to Leave. The "renegotiation" that was achieved was so bad that the Remain campaign barely mentions it and it is of questionable legality.
When the Remain campaign asks for a Leave exit plan, they claim that there isn't one and that Leave is a leap in the dark. This is fundementally incorrect on two levels:
1. There are several ligitamate and practicable exit options and plans that have been proposed. I would support Flexcit ("the market solution) or a varient thereof. - Essentially this is taking the "Norway Option" for an interim period to ensure stability whilst working on a series of longer term agreements with the EU and esentially reforming EFTA. This is proposed to take time and be a fluid series of events. This has the advantage of maintaining trade links, and crucially, retaking a seat at the global technical standards bodies so that we can have input on regulations directly rather than using the EU as our proxy. Just because Vote Leave do not have a plan does not mean that there are no plans.
2. From Remain, we here absolutly nothing on the future direction of the EU. The government supports eurozone fiscal union, yet has no say in its development. We do not know how fiscal union will work for non eurozone members. The Lisbon treaty is still being implemented and there are many significant issues relating to sovereignty that will affect us and we do not know how. Most issues are now QMV, where we have c. 12.5% of the vote. We also have the unkown in the national political sphere - both France and Germany are having general elections in 2017 and we do not know how this will affect the EU and its direction of travel. A new treaty has been proposed by the executive bodies of the EU, primarilly to deal with the fiscal union (but who knows what else it will include) - we do not have any information whatsoever on what the United Kingdom's position will be in these negotiations.
As far as I can see, there are two legitimate options. One is to Leave (which I support) and one is to Remain. I do not believe that the government's prospectus for Remain is legitimate - as status quo is not on offer. I can understand people voting to become part (as in an enthusiastic member) of the EU - with all that that entails - but that is not what the government is proposing; we are being offered life inside the EU but outside the critical decision making centre which will be the eurozone. I do not understand how that will give us "influence".
The media and talking head focus upon the "official" campaigns is very, very poor. This is a major decision and there needs to be a proper level of informed debate in the media, society and in Parliment. There is a very large amount of research, analysis and detailed work in the public domain about both the direction of the EU as well as proposed exit solutions. It speaks volumes that this is barely mentioned in either of the "official" campaigns. They are playing it like a general election when the ramifications are much more profound. The media needs to play its role in presenting the facts, analysis and opinion to people in an open way.
The fact is that the politicians have not been able to resolve this issue since at least 1991. They have admitted as much by calling for a referendum to try to settle it. We are then treated to an infantalised campaign by both sides, with the media in general acting very poorly in their role to hold both the government and the opposition to account.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
No, you accept exactly the same level of uncertainty as when you vote for your MP.
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
No. When I vote for an MP I am presented with a manifesto against which I can judge his or her subsequent performance. The Commission is bound by the decisions of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. We have the ability to pull out of the EU when we wish to.
That nuclear option is not the same as having a new election every five years at the max.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
I was just pointing out that you had got your response to the article wrong. Billionaire Mark Coombs and Lord Sainsbury are backing BSE.
I think it's fair to say there are billionaires for the EU, and billionaires against... Goldman partners for, and Goldman partners against.
If Leave wins and if Cameron resigns or is forced out and if a Leaver becomes PM, would Tory Remainers be prepared to bring down the government
No. Tory MPs will rally round the new leader. Most Remainers are half-hearted enthusiasts for the EU anyway, backing Remain only because it's the least worst option; it's not a last ditch belief.
so that the Remainer PM did not lead the exit negotiations? Remain has a big majority in the commons, and a Remain coalition could agree a 'Brexit-lite' deal instead of an 'Up yours' to Brussels. So who would lead this coalition? It would need to be a Labour moderate who would be acceptable to all parts of the coalition. Benn?
And then I woke up.
And the idea of Con MPs joining up with Social Democrats against Brexiters is even more 'out there'. It's one thing for the referendum; it's quite another for politics as normal. The EU is not Britain's defining political cleavage.
"Anyway. The response to the government’s youth-engagin, awareness raisin, vote registerin campaign has not been good. Every political journalist between the ages of 18 and 32 has been angrily bloggin about how patronisin it is, apparently unaware that it’s not directly aimed at people who write about politics for a livin.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
No, you accept exactly the same level of uncertainty as when you vote for your MP.
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
No. When I vote for an MP I am presented with a manifesto against which I can judge his or her subsequent performance. The Commission is bound by the decisions of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. We have the ability to pull out of the EU when we wish to.
Again, Remainers making the point that because we are having a referendum now and could have another in the future that demonstrates we are sovereign so we should vote to Remain now.
Eh?
This isn't an abstract exorcism of our theoretical democratic rights. It's because we don't have sufficient control over our laws and destiny *at the moment*, think it'll get even worse if we stay, and think we'd be much better off (politically and economically) if we took back control.
As I say, it's one hell of a leap in the dark. You seem to be saying that if you vote Leave you have to accept complete uncertainty about what it is you're voting for. You can't even be certain when the UK would actually cease to be an EU member state.
No, you accept exactly the same level of uncertainty as when you vote for your MP.
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
You can't sack Cameron. You can sack your MP, but no one person gets to control the government for everyone else, whether parish council or Europe.
Mr. Observer, *nothing* can be imposed on us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer can't even make tampons VAT-free without Brussels giving him its approval.
If we don't like it we can leave. We don't even need a referendum, just a Commons majority.
I completely fail to see how imposition of any rules laws and taxes from unelected officials is acceptable to you in any circumstances whatsoever - including having the so called nuclear button if we wish to use it.
But as I say, there it is.
But that is par for the course when there are IMF loans. Cash comes with conditions.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
2. From Remain, we here absolutly nothing on the future direction of the EU. The government supports eurozone fiscal union, yet has no say in its development. We do not know how fiscal union will work for non eurozone members. The Lisbon treaty is still being implemented and there are many significant issues relating to sovereignty that will affect us and we do not know how. Most issues are now QMV, where we have c. 12.5% of the vote. We also have the unkown in the national political sphere - both France and Germany are having general elections in 2017 and we do not know how this will affect the EU and its direction of travel. A new treaty has been proposed by the executive bodies of the EU, primarilly to deal with the fiscal union (but who knows what else it will include) - we do not have any information whatsoever on what the United Kingdom's position will be in these negotiations.
As far as I can see, there are two legitimate options. One is to Leave (which I support) and one is to Remain. I do not believe that the government's prospectus for Remain is legitimate - as status quo is not on offer. I can understand people voting to become part (as in an enthusiastic member) of the EU - with all that that entails - but that is not what the government is proposing; we are being offered life inside the EU but outside the critical decision making centre which will be the eurozone. I do not understand how that will give us "influence".
The media and talking head focus upon the "official" campaigns is very, very poor. This is a major decision and there needs to be a proper level of informed debate in the media, society and in Parliment. There is a very large amount of research, analysis and detailed work in the public domain about both the direction of the EU as well as proposed exit solutions. It speaks volumes that this is barely mentioned in either of the "official" campaigns. They are playing it like a general election when the ramifications are much more profound. The media needs to play its role in presenting the facts, analysis and opinion to people in an open way.
The fact is that the politicians have not been able to resolve this issue since at least 1991. They have admitted as much by calling for a referendum to try to settle it. We are then treated to an infantalised campaign by both sides, with the media in general acting very poorly in their role to hold both the government and the opposition to account.
Excellent first post/posts. Great to see another supporter of the "Norway Model".
2. From Remain, we here absolutly nothing on the future direction of the EU. The government supports eurozone fiscal union, yet has no say in its development. We do not know how fiscal union will work for non eurozone members. The Lisbon treaty is still being implemented and there are many significant issues relating to sovereignty that will affect us and we do not know how. Most issues are now QMV, where we have c. 12.5% of the vote. We also have the unkown in the national political sphere - both France and Germany are having general elections in 2017 and we do not know how this will affect the EU and its direction of travel. A new treaty has been proposed by the executive bodies of the EU, primarilly to deal with the fiscal union (but who knows what else it will include) - we do not have any information whatsoever on what the United Kingdom's position will be in these negotiations.
As far as I can see, there are two legitimate options. One is to Leave (which I support) and one is to Remain. I do not believe that the government's prospectus for Remain is legitimate - as status quo is not on offer. I can understand people voting to become part (as in an enthusiastic member) of the EU - with all that that entails - but that is not what the government is proposing; we are being offered life inside the EU but outside the critical decision making centre which will be the eurozone. I do not understand how that will give us "influence".
The media and talking head focus upon the "official" campaigns is very, very poor. This is a major decision and there needs to be a proper level of informed debate in the media, society and in Parliment. There is a very large amount of research, analysis and detailed work in the public domain about both the direction of the EU as well as proposed exit solutions. It speaks volumes that this is barely mentioned in either of the "official" campaigns. They are playing it like a general election when the ramifications are much more profound. The media needs to play its role in presenting the facts, analysis and opinion to people in an open way.
The fact is that the politicians have not been able to resolve this issue since at least 1991. They have admitted as much by calling for a referendum to try to settle it. We are then treated to an infantalised campaign by both sides, with the media in general acting very poorly in their role to hold both the government and the opposition to account.
The point of a campaign is to win 50 per cent of votes plus enough to avoid a legal challenge.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
I was just pointing out that you had got your response to the article wrong. Billionaire Mark Coombs and Lord Sainsbury are backing BSE.
I think it's fair to say there are billionaires for the EU, and billionaires against... Goldman partners for, and Goldman partners against.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
"Official figures BSE have now raised enough money to fully spend their maximum £7million allowance on the referendum campaign. The other official campaign, Vote Leave, also appears close to this mark at the end of the second of four official declarations of donations. It takes the total donated to all referendum campaigns to £20,993,848 since February 1 - with a further £6,093,940 in borrowing.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
Those plucky billionaires and peers of the realm taking on the establishment :-)
The billionaires and peers are backing the Establishment!
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
Some are, some aren't. I guess I must count as some kind of entrepreneur given that I helped establish and build a company. Me and all my colleagues are for Remain. We are not alone. All the polls indicate that SMEs are split on the issue - with maybe a small majority in favour of staying.
I was just pointing out that you had got your response to the article wrong. Billionaire Mark Coombs and Lord Sainsbury are backing BSE.
I think it's fair to say there are billionaires for the EU, and billionaires against... Goldman partners for, and Goldman partners against.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
I really don't think we need to concern ourselves how the 71 year old Corbyn will cope as PM.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
Did you intend to label yourself as 'thick as a plank' there? Quite funny if you didn't
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
Everyone ages in their 40s and 50s, some people just do it more publicly.
Soon America will have a septuagenarian president. They will do just fine.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
I really don't think we need to concern ourselves how the 71 year old Corbyn will cope as PM.
Because - it aint gonna happen.
Saying that Bill (at 69) is rumoured to be in for a job if Hillary gets the gig, and I don't think by that they mean the White House equivalent of a Walmart greeter.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
Everyone ages in their 40s and 50s, some people just do it more publicly.
Soon America will have a septuagenarian president. They will do just fine.
Its interesting that nobody is making much noise about the Donald's age, where as when McCain ran it was prominent line of attack, that could this old duffer stand up to the rigor of the job.
Although to be fair to the Trumpster, his hyper active campaigning has been insane.
Off topic. May I wish Jeremy Corbyn a very happy 67th birthday. Just think Jeremy, four years today you will be settling in Downing Street at the age of 71. You will be hosting a white tie reception for President Trump as he embarks on his European farewell tour. Venezuela will be a Thatcherite success story. And the French....well they will still be preparing for a wave of strikes in the public sector over the Bank Holiday. Many happy returns.
In additional to being as thick as a plank, I have no idea how a 71 year old could run the country. Despite Cameron's "chillaxing", it is still pretty much a 24/7/365 job, where for long periods you will be expected to exist on virtually no sleep. Blair aged terribly in power, Brown melted down in 2 years of getting the top job despite having done the second most senior job for years. Cleggy turned into the OAP version of the michelin man.
Everyone ages in their 40s and 50s, some people just do it more publicly.
Soon America will have a septuagenarian president. They will do just fine.
Blair looked ruined. Brown went seriously downhill within a year of getting the top job.
Comments
Plus, it is unpatriotic to make the country and your fellow countrypeople poorer.
I'll use that line in canvassing tonight and see how it goes.
No we will not be bound by EU law
No we will not have free movement
No we will not have free unfettered access but we will have trade agreements
No we will not pay into the EU
We would leave the EU 2 years after we invoked article 50 or sooner if we reach agreement with them.
All these things were decided as soon as Vote Leave choose not to follow the EEA route.
There's obviously nothing more I could ever say or do to convince you.
Clearly there is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this subject.
The biggest single donation in today's report was £850,000 given to Vote Leave by International Motors Ltd. Financier Jeremy Hosking contributing £500,000 and spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler £250,000. Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin added a further £150,000 to his support. Another £500,000 came in the form of an individual donation from a Gladys Bramall.
Billionaire financier Mark Coombs backed Britain Stronger In Europe to the tune of £250,000, with the same sum coming from Bet365 Group Limited. Lord David Sainsbury - who led the family supermarket business before serving as science minister in Tony Blair's Labour government - provided the Scientists for EU Limited's £200,000.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611015/Team-Brexit-winning-financial-race-EU-referendum-raising-TWICE-campaign-stay.html#ixzz49mHDfb70
If Leave wins in less than a month's time, when will we cease to be an EU member state?
Does the UN impose taxes upon us? Does it impose laws via QMV upon us? The two are not remotely comparable.
If you would sell the right of governance for profit then you reduce the British people to head of cattle.
Not only that, the idea the EU is economically positive is questionable at best. Italy's economy is the same size it was a decade ago. Greece has undergone a terrible time. The single market's not been completed for services (of course, it has for manufacturing, which helps the Germans). The CAP is lovely for the retirement plans of French farmers, less so for African farmers trying to sell their produce.
We'll see if something more can be done'
Fer fux sake
As in previous years, we've woken up to stories about the European Union failing to get a clean bill of health for its accounts.
As ever, the truth is nuanced. The European Court of Auditors (ECA), an EU body set up to examine the accounts of the Union, signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable—something it's done for every set of figures since 2007.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
I think that's a disgrace. They haven't a single positive thing to say about the EU. And now they have the audacity to argue its "patriotic" to stay?
It makes me actively angry. Really, it does.
And the appropriate response would be to vote out the party that handled that negotiation at the next general election.
I will try to bear manfully your non-discussion on this subject with me henceforth.
But as I say, there it is.
It's the small businessmen and entrepreneurs would are taking them on.
We are just not getting it. He despairs.
The Greeks are having their previously afforded rights systematically removed by order of Europe because they integrated too much.
How long has their economic depression and austerity been going on? What is their unemployment rate? How much smaller is their economy?
You've made up your mind and there's nothing I could ever say to change it.
So let's move on.
Interesting. I keep saying it, it's a lock for Remain. We'll look back on 24 June and wonder why we bothered. There are too few people who are going to risk the entire future of the nation on a fanciful whim.
Representative democracy is intact.
Maria Sharapova has been named in Russia's tennis team for August's Rio Olympics, despite currently serving a doping suspension.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36388049
If a majority of MPs decide to do something then we have no say. But at least with Leave we can respond by sacking them.
I can't sack Juncker or Schultz or Tusk. That matters to me.
That does smack a little of a medieval monarch setting aside money for monks to sing his praises to Heaven and pray for his soul.
It's also only one aspect of the argument I made. The EU is hardly a bastion of competitive capitalism.
Incidentally, what other body has its accounts approved by itself?
If Leave wins and if Cameron resigns or is forced out and if a Leaver becomes PM, would Tory Remainers be prepared to bring down the government so that the Remainer PM did not lead the exit negotiations? Remain has a big majority in the commons, and a Remain coalition could agree a 'Brexit-lite' deal instead of an 'Up yours' to Brussels. So who would lead this coalition? It would need to be a Labour moderate who would be acceptable to all parts of the coalition. Benn?
And then I woke up.
Personally I think the "75m Turkish people will be able to come to Britain" line is potentially quite a fruitful line for the Leave Campaign. Frankly, even as a certified "bleeding heart liberal", it worries even me a bit - and I'm not very reassured by the claims at the weekend of vetoes (that we would theoretically have the power to veto Turkish entry to the EU does not mean we'd actually do it).
However, the caveat to that is the Leave Campaign would need to be careful about their tone. It strikes a lot of people as eminent common sense that, purely in terms of numbers, there aren't enough jobs and resources to go round and accommodate endless people immigrating the country - but it's when politicians start castigating immigrants as individuals (see Farage's comments about immigrants with HIV, how Romanian next-door neighbours are thuggish threats, etc.) that makes the average voter feel more uneasy.
The official Vote Leave campaign has been pathetic.
However, the Remain campaign (the government) has been extremley disingenuous since it started. It's main thrust is that it would damage the economy to leave the EU and to that effect, it has lined up a series of "prestiege" actors to provide speculative evidence and present it as fact. The assumptions made in the Treasury analysis are exceptionally biased and deliberatly designed to mislead, the Canadian, WTO and Swiss options were chosen as they provide the most negative results in the model. The fact that the Treasury consistently misses its own targets for the next 12 months just further reduces the credibility of 20 year forecasts. The Bank of England fan charts used to be a byword for inaccuracy. I make economic models for a living and you can show a poor project to be good or a good project to be poor if you change certain variables and cherry pick scenarios.
What the Remain campaign neatly dodges it that the status quo in our relationship is not on offer. Cameron's Bloomberg 2013 speech was an insightful analysis of the structural problems in the EU and offered some thoughts on reform. We were told as late as Feb 2016 by Cameron that if he did not recieve substantial reform he may reccomend to Leave. The "renegotiation" that was achieved was so bad that the Remain campaign barely mentions it and it is of questionable legality.
When the Remain campaign asks for a Leave exit plan, they claim that there isn't one and that Leave is a leap in the dark. This is fundementally incorrect on two levels:
1. There are several ligitamate and practicable exit options and plans that have been proposed. I would support Flexcit ("the market solution) or a varient thereof. - Essentially this is taking the "Norway Option" for an interim period to ensure stability whilst working on a series of longer term agreements with the EU and esentially reforming EFTA. This is proposed to take time and be a fluid series of events. This has the advantage of maintaining trade links, and crucially, retaking a seat at the global technical standards bodies so that we can have input on regulations directly rather than using the EU as our proxy. Just because Vote Leave do not have a plan does not mean that there are no plans.
(I apologise for the length)
As far as I can see, there are two legitimate options. One is to Leave (which I support) and one is to Remain. I do not believe that the government's prospectus for Remain is legitimate - as status quo is not on offer. I can understand people voting to become part (as in an enthusiastic member) of the EU - with all that that entails - but that is not what the government is proposing; we are being offered life inside the EU but outside the critical decision making centre which will be the eurozone. I do not understand how that will give us "influence".
The media and talking head focus upon the "official" campaigns is very, very poor. This is a major decision and there needs to be a proper level of informed debate in the media, society and in Parliment. There is a very large amount of research, analysis and detailed work in the public domain about both the direction of the EU as well as proposed exit solutions. It speaks volumes that this is barely mentioned in either of the "official" campaigns. They are playing it like a general election when the ramifications are much more profound. The media needs to play its role in presenting the facts, analysis and opinion to people in an open way.
The fact is that the politicians have not been able to resolve this issue since at least 1991. They have admitted as much by calling for a referendum to try to settle it. We are then treated to an infantalised campaign by both sides, with the media in general acting very poorly in their role to hold both the government and the opposition to account.
And the idea of Con MPs joining up with Social Democrats against Brexiters is even more 'out there'. It's one thing for the referendum; it's quite another for politics as normal. The EU is not Britain's defining political cleavage.
Mr. 94432a1, welcome to pb.com. I agree that both campaigns have been dire.
"Anyway. The response to the government’s youth-engagin, awareness raisin, vote registerin campaign has not been good. Every political journalist between the ages of 18 and 32 has been angrily bloggin about how patronisin it is, apparently unaware that it’s not directly aimed at people who write about politics for a livin.
..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sketch-thinkin-about-leavin-the-eu-sadiq-khans-doin-the-explainin-for-remainin-a7050541.html
Eh?
This isn't an abstract exorcism of our theoretical democratic rights. It's because we don't have sufficient control over our laws and destiny *at the moment*, think it'll get even worse if we stay, and think we'd be much better off (politically and economically) if we took back control.
ok cool thanks so just to get the rules straight: if, say, you say something that I deem ridiculous, am I allowed to comment?
Didn't stop you the other night calling someone Thick.
Because - it aint gonna happen.
Soon America will have a septuagenarian president. They will do just fine.
Although to be fair to the Trumpster, his hyper active campaigning has been insane.