Speaking of Turkish barbers, I've started going to one who, at the end of every haircut, tries to set fire to my ears. Have other people had this experience?
With the flaming ball on a piece of wire? Its part of the standard treatment and a jolly good idea for those of us richer in years.
That's the one. I can see the, er, point of the exercise. It gave me a hell of a shock the first time though.
Relax and enjoy the experience. I'd go further, grow a moustache (if you haven't already got one) and give the chap something else to fuss over. Not shaving on the day is also a good idea, get him to do it for you (hot towels and all the rest of it is just wonderful). Engliish men are not on the whole good at being pampered.
My personal plan is now to go to the town each Wednesday morning - just for the shave.
I have disagreed and agreed with a lot of people on this site on a lot of different issues over a long period of time. But this referendum is the first time UK politics has started to resemble politics in the US. We mock Trump for the nonsense he spouts, a lot of it made up. But when Boris and Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel and everyone else on the Leave side make stuff up about Turkey and bananas, people who otherwise are generally reasonable come on here and defend them. Or claim that anyone who criticises Brexit is some sort of EU stooge or spy - like it's EU under the bed. While they certainly stretch and spin, Remain don't make things up wholesale.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
I have disagreed and agreed with a lot of people on this site on a lot of different issues over a long period of time. But this referendum is the first time UK politics has started to resemble politics in the US. We mock Trump for the nonsense he spouts, a lot of it made up. But when Boris and Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel and everyone else on the Leave side make stuff up about Turkey and bananas, people who otherwise are generally reasonable come on here and defend them. Or claim that anyone who criticises Brexit is some sort of EU stooge or spy - like it's EU under the bed. While they certainly stretch and spin, Remain don't make things up wholesale.
My best estimate is he will finish on over 1400 won/pledged, with another 100 unbound and 12 superdelegates in the mix.
Trump and Cruz are the only two eligible to be put to the vote at the Convention, and Trump should prevail by about a margin of 3:1...
Trump should rub in his contempt for the GOP establishment and choose a Democrat as his prospective VP.
A 70-something Republican who has lived a controversial and high-intensity life should not choose a Democrat as his VP. Many vice-presidents have suddenly become top dog when the great actuary in the sky has come knocking.
Exactly. He would hand the race to Hillary were he to do anything that stupid!
I have disagreed and agreed with a lot of people on this site on a lot of different issues over a long period of time. But this referendum is the first time UK politics has started to resemble politics in the US. We mock Trump for the nonsense he spouts, a lot of it made up. But when Boris and Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel and everyone else on the Leave side make stuff up about Turkey and bananas, people who otherwise are generally reasonable come on here and defend them. Or claim that anyone who criticises Brexit is some sort of EU stooge or spy - like it's EU under the bed. While they certainly stretch and spin, Remain don't make things up wholesale.
LOL. That does have to be one of the most one-eyed comments we have had on here in a long, long time.
I read it as satire. Distrusted Dave is a category Blair falsifier.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
In general reply to S.O. and Polruan, in the event of a Leave vote, In my opinion, I would expect the result to be accepted by Parliment, Cameron to resign and a short tory leadership contest resulting in Gove as PM with a mandate to negotiate the withdrawl.
The most sensible option for a withdrawl would be advocated and accepted, which is the "Norway Model" - at least as an interim. As you often tell us the tories are nothing if not pragmatic. I believe labour would also support the "Norway Model" which is as close as it gets to status quo. I would very much hope that the new government would appoint some ministers from the opposition as this event will have very long lasting implications and it needs to be done calmly and correctly. The actual negotiations will be primarily technical. At the end of this we will be outside the EU but with access to the single market.
For more wide ranging change, I personally believe that a general election would be necessary. I can also see the merit in a general election before the negotiations start. One of the good things about the last election was the government has a small majority and therefore will need to follow an acceptable policy to Parliment.
The issue is not that it is in theory possible at a later date to leave the EU by repealing the Act or invoking Article 50, the issue is do we want to be within an EU where we are bound by its social, legal, commercial and political decisons when we are not a member of the core eurozone (and we therefore lack any influence) or do we want to be fully sovereign and therefore able to pursue our social, legal, commercial and political decisions. Remain shoud not be considered to be a yellow card to the EU, it will have very long lasting implications.
To Bromptonaut, whilst I do not agree with you, that is in my opinion a logical position.
Great first posts! May I humbly suggest an ever so slightly more memorable user name? ;-)
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
Left wing schmeft wing. People need to find common ground in what they actually want for people. Come at politics with problems to solve, not solutions.
In general reply to S.O. and Polruan, in the event of a Leave vote, In my opinion, I would expect the result to be accepted by Parliment, Cameron to resign and a short tory leadership contest resulting in Gove as PM with a mandate to negotiate the withdrawl.
Welcome aboard.
In the event of a Leave vote of less 55%, I expect Cameron to start talking about national emergencies, threats to your family's economic security etc, and attempt to form a unity coalition with the right wing of Labour to consider the appropriate response to the vote. This will be justified by the need to calm the markets and limit uncertainty, given that his government have been careful to maximise the uncertainty that would arise if they were faced with implementing a Leave decision. This will alienate a reasonable proportion of his party but many will be bullied into submission due to not wanting to be seen as the ones who destabilised the country and this time of economic emergency etc etc - the fact that there isn't really a strong leader-in-waiting means that Cameron will have time to get the well-oiled Project Fear and Smear in motion before anyone can move.
The next statement will be along the lines of "I hear that the British people have spoken and are clearly unhappy with the direction of the EU, but this referendum hasn't given us a clear mandate for action so we need to assess what our hard-working families really deserve."
I can see two possibilities then: an "are-you-really-sure?" GE fought by a stability coalition of the Tory liberals, the Lib Dems and the Labour right, pledging to preserve economic stability while fundamentally renegotiating our relationship with the EU (i.e. not really changing anything) or a further referendum with 3 options: stay, EEA, or all-out leave. Stay will get about 40% of that, and it's business as usual.
I'm still looking for a way to bet on us still being in the EU a year after a Leave vote.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
The Saatchi poster definitely works for me, I am a remainer,despite being the wrong age group, but I have Grandchildren, and think remain will be best for them. For me personally it does not matter too much, I will be OK, but like many Grandparents we want the best for our offspring. The Milliband in pocket poster was also a turning point for me, it certainly hit the spot. I am also old enough to remember the "Labour isn't working" poster, these things work.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
Sadly, if Cornwall dislike the Westminster government we can't kick it out. That bothers me about as much.
I have disagreed and agreed with a lot of people on this site on a lot of different issues over a long period of time. But this referendum is the first time UK politics has started to resemble politics in the US. We mock Trump for the nonsense he spouts, a lot of it made up. But when Boris and Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel and everyone else on the Leave side make stuff up about Turkey and bananas, people who otherwise are generally reasonable come on here and defend them. Or claim that anyone who criticises Brexit is some sort of EU stooge or spy - like it's EU under the bed. While they certainly stretch and spin, Remain don't make things up wholesale.
World War 3?
3 million jobs.
Ah yes the "3 million jobs". We do 18% of sales in the EU and a further 40%+ in the rest of the world and with a month to go it's been raised not once by customers or suppliers or indeed anyone. Maybe technical specs, good QC and delivery and customer service as well as innovative effective products might just outweigh any small tariff barrier ( which won't be there anyway except in Remainers fevered imaginations).
So my job is in the front line on this and I think it's bollocks. And insulting my intelligence bollocks at that.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
The Saatchi poster definitely works for me, I am a remainer,despite being the wrong age group, but I have Grandchildren, and think remain will be best for them. For me personally it does not matter too much, I will be OK, but like many Grandparents we want the best for our offspring. The Milliband in pocket poster was also a turning point for me, it certainly hit the spot. I am also old enough to remember the "Labour isn't working" poster, these things work.
That's an interesting point. Does the message work for you because you are already decided on your vote. Or do you think it would actually change the vote of a Leaver or decide the vote of an undecided?
Clearly we are all influenced by our own preconceptions when viewing stuff like this and tend to look more favourably on messages that reinforce our previously held views.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
The direction of the EU cannot be changed.
Indeed it cannot, Mr. Royale. It was after all written into the Treaty of Rome - "Ever Closer Union". Why successive genertaions of UK politicians have tried to deny this is beyond me. Why, even now, people on this site are unable or unwilling to make a positive case for staying in is equally complexing.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
Brilliant! If the US ignored us in favour of the EU I for one would consider it worth the price of admission alone. Their aims and interests are not ours. Their agenda is not ours. The lesser ally does not benefit - Machiavelli was telling us this 500 years ago.
If we can keep well out of it, have enough armed forces to successfully deter a would-be invader, and be prosperous and peaceful, that will be just dandy for me.
In general reply to S.O. and Polruan, in the event of a Leave vote, In my opinion, I would expect the result to be accepted by Parliment, Cameron to resign and a short tory leadership contest resulting in Gove as PM with a mandate to negotiate the withdrawl.
Welcome aboard.
In the event of a Leave vote of less 55%, I expect Cameron to start talking about national emergencies, threats to your family's economic security etc, and attempt to form a unity coalition with the right wing of Labour to consider the appropriate response to the vote. This will be justified by the need to calm the markets and limit uncertainty, given that his government have been careful to maximise the uncertainty that would arise if they were faced with implementing a Leave decision. This will alienate a reasonable proportion of his party but many will be bullied into submission due to not wanting to be seen as the ones who destabilised the country and this time of economic emergency etc etc - the fact that there isn't really a strong leader-in-waiting means that Cameron will have time to get the well-oiled Project Fear and Smear in motion before anyone can move.
The next statement will be along the lines of "I hear that the British people have spoken and are clearly unhappy with the direction of the EU, but this referendum hasn't given us a clear mandate for action so we need to assess what our hard-working families really deserve."
I can see two possibilities then: an "are-you-really-sure?" GE fought by a stability coalition of the Tory liberals, the Lib Dems and the Labour right, pledging to preserve economic stability while fundamentally renegotiating our relationship with the EU (i.e. not really changing anything) or a further referendum with 3 options: stay, EEA, or all-out leave. Stay will get about 40% of that, and it's business as usual.
I'm still looking for a way to bet on us still being in the EU a year after a Leave vote.
My best estimate is he will finish on over 1400 won/pledged, with another 100 unbound and 12 superdelegates in the mix.
Trump and Cruz are the only two eligible to be put to the vote at the Convention, and Trump should prevail by about a margin of 3:1...
Trump should rub in his contempt for the GOP establishment and choose a Democrat as his prospective VP.
A 70-something Republican who has lived a controversial and high-intensity life should not choose a Democrat as his VP. Many vice-presidents have suddenly become top dog when the great actuary in the sky has come knocking.
Nine, to be precise. So Clinton has health issues, impeachment issues...
The Saatchi poster definitely works for me, I am a remainer,despite being the wrong age group, but I have Grandchildren, and think remain will be best for them. For me personally it does not matter too much, I will be OK, but like many Grandparents we want the best for our offspring. The Milliband in pocket poster was also a turning point for me, it certainly hit the spot. I am also old enough to remember the "Labour isn't working" poster, these things work.
The migrant crisis on the other hand exposes the risks of Remain, especially with reports of ISIS trying to get into Europe by bribing smugglers today, EU leaders need to get a grip urgently
I haven't a television, but it will be interesting to learn whether Mr Salmond attempts to make a case for continued membership of the EU being of benefit to the UK, rather than merely being of benefit to Scotland.
So far he hasn't shown much concern for what may benefit the UK. I don't doubt his commitment to Scotland, but does he have any real idea of what the UK's best interests are?
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
Brilliant! If the US ignored us in favour of the EU I for one would consider it worth the price of admission alone. Their aims and interests are not ours. Their agenda is not ours. The lesser ally does not benefit - Machiavelli was telling us this 500 years ago.
We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.
My best estimate is he will finish on over 1400 won/pledged, with another 100 unbound and 12 superdelegates in the mix.
Trump and Cruz are the only two eligible to be put to the vote at the Convention, and Trump should prevail by about a margin of 3:1...
Trump should rub in his contempt for the GOP establishment and choose a Democrat as his prospective VP.
A 70-something Republican who has lived a controversial and high-intensity life should not choose a Democrat as his VP. Many vice-presidents have suddenly become top dog when the great actuary in the sky has come knocking.
Nine, to be precise. So Clinton has health issues, impeachment issues...
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
Sadly, if Cornwall dislike the Westminster government we can't kick it out. That bothers me about as much.
Not on your own no, but as a nation we can. Nobody can kick out the European powers that be.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
Brilliant! If the US ignored us in favour of the EU I for one would consider it worth the price of admission alone. Their aims and interests are not ours. Their agenda is not ours. The lesser ally does not benefit - Machiavelli was telling us this 500 years ago.
We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.
That would not be the case if Trump wins, he has nothing but contempt for the EU!
@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.
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.
I completely agree. Out of control immigration is something people believe Brexit might solve. If as you say they get the tone right and enough people think it's a deal breaker then they're onto something.
Leave has all the best lines. Its problem is the people delivering them. I still think they have a great chance though.
I don't think they have the best line. The best one is that implied on the poster 'Leaving is a journey into the unknown'. The Leavers keep saying staying is also a journey into the unknown but they haven't persuaded anyone of it yet and I don't think they can.
Their best bet is to convince people that however scary the 'unknown' it can't be as bad as unlimited immigration. They should try to make their messaging sharper and clearer and as you suggest fronted by people less marmite
It's got to be about jobs (sotto voce cos of the immigrants innit), and a general distrust of the European elite.
"Jobs for your children or for his mates?" with a picture of Dave doing his annoying sycophantic laugh with Merkel and Hollande.
Obviously the juxtaposition in the sentence doesn't strictly make sense but as I understand it that's at best a second order consideration in advertising.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree there are clear visions. I just don't find any of them compelling and/or believe that there are leaders with the ability to deliver them. If Labour had backed leave with a distinctively left-wing vision of the benefits of being able to control (not eliminate) immigration I'd be going the other way. If they get their act to do that in the future, I'd vote for them on a manifesto including leaving.
What do you mean by compelling? What needs to be compelling about self-government? This whole argument is ridiculous.
This is what you're paying HMG when you're buying a bottle of Scotch - 75%:
Add to this green levies. The living wage, when people in China working for 6p an hour.
These are the forces that are shaping our economy. It has shit all to do with being part of this mythical 'free trade area' whose loss will at most add 4% on to things.
The EU is a political project. It has nothing to do with economic benefit - certainly not for a net contributor.
I won't have self-government either way. On balance I would struggle to argue whether the sclerotic largest-minority-dictatorship of westminster is better or worse when diluted by the confusing-as-fuck process of putting together the European institutions. It's not a clear cut argument. Both are democratic, neither are as democratic as I would like, You seem to have firmer views on that matter.
The EU is a political project which reinforces an economic paradigm a long way to the right of me but rather to the left of our current government. It's hard for me to experience that as a bad thing in the current circumstances. As I said before, a distinctively left wing vision which would be impeded by EU membership (notably freedom of movement) would be worth leaving for. If I find anyone selling it, I'll be sure to point it out.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
Sadly, if Cornwall dislike the Westminster government we can't kick it out. That bothers me about as much.
Not on your own no, but as a nation we can. Nobody can kick out the European powers that be.
Not on our own, no, but as a group of nations we can. How much that bothers you depends how much weight you put on the abstract concept of nationhood.
I have disagreed and agreed with a lot of people on this site on a lot of different issues over a long period of time. But this referendum is the first time UK politics has started to resemble politics in the US. We mock Trump for the nonsense he spouts, a lot of it made up. But when Boris and Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel and everyone else on the Leave side make stuff up about Turkey and bananas, people who otherwise are generally reasonable come on here and defend them. Or claim that anyone who criticises Brexit is some sort of EU stooge or spy - like it's EU under the bed. While they certainly stretch and spin, Remain don't make things up wholesale.
LOL. That does have to be one of the most one-eyed comments we have had on here in a long, long time.
Dodgy Dave in Japan "too busy" to face the media over the terrible immgration figures... Not a very good look is it?
he's moved from the Big Society to the Bursting at the Seams Society
I'm glad someone's mentioned the Big Society.
When Cameron was in trouble with tax avoidance issues, did he produce evidence of money he gave to foodbanks, charities, churches etc.?
I considered that if I was in the same position, I would show my GAYE donations on my salary slip and request an annual receipt of my gift-aided donations from the church.
In my opinion, Cameron is a democrat and would accept the result. I believe he would have accepted an independence vote from Scotland. The tory party remainers would, in the main, quickly identify a credible candidate and exit plan as they are pragmatic and not ideologically wedded to the EU - if they were they would be campaigning for further intergration. I do not see a scenario whereby Cameron could lose the referendum and remain PM. There are over 150 tory MPs backing leave; but who knows it is politics after all. I can very much see a general election occuring as a result of a leave vote.
The reason that you cannot bet on us still being in the EU a year after a leave vote is that Article 50 (after it is invoked and it will not be invoked immediately) has a time of 2 years.
I feel you are somewhat cynical about the potential of the country. A genuine left policy would be possible to implement outside the EU. The EU funnels us into a certain set of social, commercial, legal and political policies. I am classic liberal so I would not vote for a genuine left but people in the country should be able to do so and not be restricted from doing so by what is a group of foreign states and an unaccountable executive and judiciary.
I really feel let down by the media as this is a very large issue that will have long lasting implications. I'm also very upset with Cameron and the official leave campaign.
Sadly, if Cornwall dislike the Westminster government we can't kick it out. That bothers me about as much.
Not on your own no, but as a nation we can. Nobody can kick out the European powers that be.
The true power rests in the member state governments at the Council. Their governments change every time there's an election. The governments also choose the Commission every five years. So, it's actually quite easy to change Europe. Europe just needs to elect governments that do so. But, of course, the UK doesn't get to change Europe on its own, any more than London gets to run the UK on its own.
The problem is not really an inability to change Europe, which happens all the time: Delors was a departure to the 90s centre-left; Barroso to the pre-recession 00s liberal right. So what is the problem? Because I don't fear immigration, I don't know exactly what I ought to object to. I don't feel LEAVE wants to tell me either, as long as it's not immigration.
VapidBilge - carer's hourly rate £7.20 down 8%, no travelling time that I see on the time sheets - agency hourly rate through the council up 20% last year. Peak rate through the council is £40/hour per carer (need 2). I wish the carers had a bigger share.
There is no way you can call Westminster sclerotic in the context of Europe. Call it many things, but sclerotic is not one of them.
While if we dislike our government we can kick it out, pure and simple. Just ask Prime Minister Brown. When was the direction of the EU last changed by an election kicking out its government?
Sadly, if Cornwall dislike the Westminster government we can't kick it out. That bothers me about as much.
Not on your own no, but as a nation we can. Nobody can kick out the European powers that be.
Not on our own, no, but as a group of nations we can. How much that bothers you depends how much weight you put on the abstract concept of nationhood.
Can we? I can point to solid examples of when we have changed the direction of our nation at the ballot box. Please point to the last solid example of the same happening on an EU level? Where the votes of voters at an election changed the course taken. Feel free to look at group of nations but let me know a solid example of when it was changed at an election?
I think most voters have already made their minds up either way unless some dramatic new development emerges and most people are not going to watch this testimony whether it is available or not they will just catch the news reports
I feel you are somewhat cynical about the potential of the country. A genuine left policy would be possible to implement outside the EU. The EU funnels us into a certain set of social, commercial, legal and political policies. I am classic liberal so I would not vote for a genuine left but people in the country should be able to do so and not be restricted from doing so by what is a group of foreign states and an unaccountable executive and judiciary.
Without pretending to know the contents of their minds, I imagine people on the left will look at the last century of Conservative and centrist Labour governments and say, "we'll chance it with Europe"...
In my opinion, Cameron is a democrat and would accept the result. I believe he would have accepted an independence vote from Scotland. The tory party remainers would, in the main, quickly identify a credible candidate and exit plan as they are pragmatic and not ideologically wedded to the EU - if they were they would be campaigning for further intergration. I do not see a scenario whereby Cameron could lose the referendum and remain PM. There are over 150 tory MPs backing leave; but who knows it is politics after all. I can very much see a general election occuring as a result of a leave vote.
The reason that you cannot bet on us still being in the EU a year after a leave vote is that Article 50 (after it is invoked and it will not be invoked immediately) has a time of 2 years.
I feel you are somewhat cynical about the potential of the country. A genuine left policy would be possible to implement outside the EU. The EU funnels us into a certain set of social, commercial, legal and political policies. I am classic liberal so I would not vote for a genuine left but people in the country should be able to do so and not be restricted from doing so by what is a group of foreign states and an unaccountable executive and judiciary.
I really feel let down by the media as this is a very large issue that will have long lasting implications. I'm also very upset with Cameron and the official leave campaign.
Thank you Casino Royale. I like my name
Perhaps I was being a little careless in my words - yes, the bet I would like is "article 50 not invoked within time limit following a vote for Leave" (void if remain wins).
I'm not sure I'm being cynical about the potential of the U.K. I'm being realistic about the lack of quality of our current political class. We can leave in order to facilitate a worthwhile vision as and when someone attains sufficient influence to sell that vision. I don't see the need to leave in the meantime as I can't immediately see how it would facilitate the emergence of a suitable visionary. In fact I think in some ways the necessary frustration might arise more readily if we stay in the EU and it annoys people for a few more years.
Casino_Royale - printed your blog post and gave it to two women at work I overheard in discussion; one tending towards Remain the other totally unsure and decrying the obviously biased daily diet of scaremongering. Don't know which they are going but the possible Remainer came back to me next day and praised the clarity. So another thank-you to you.
Anecdote - was dealing with a Romanian lady last week. 30s, said she had been her 10-12 years and her kids have British passports. Asked me straight out how I was voting. Told her and frankly felt a bit awkward so stressed that it all about sovereignty for me. I needn't have worried; she explained that she too had the vote and was voting leave. "This is an island, and its different" she said and I grew a foot taller on the spot.
The Saatchi poster definitely works for me, I am a remainer,despite being the wrong age group, but I have Grandchildren, and think remain will be best for them. For me personally it does not matter too much, I will be OK, but like many Grandparents we want the best for our offspring. The Milliband in pocket poster was also a turning point for me, it certainly hit the spot. I am also old enough to remember the "Labour isn't working" poster, these things work.
That's a very perceptive post. Advertising will only ever reassure you in your prejudices or make coherent things you have already been thinking. When the targeting is spot on those who aren't targeted won't see the point or even worse be put off . A good example is the Michael Howard 'Are you thinking what we're thinking'.
If the UK wants to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe through its leadership the only way it can do it is to Leave.
I find it really exciting.
And does the UK want to positively influence the future shape and direction of Europe?
Starting from where we are, the only way in which leaving would help to achieve leadership is if it were the start of the unravelling of the entire EU project. Otherwise we'd just be voting to be an island version of Canada coasting along in the slipsteam of the superpower next door.
I think that is considerably more like what will happen if we stay. We will be shackled to an increasingly integrated Eurozone who will have a permanent qualified majority vote and with our veto surrendered thanks to Dave's renegotiation skills.
Why is it that we tend to interpret influence in terms of what we can stop from happening rather than what we can do in concert?
I've been ridiculed for saying it, but outside the EU our interests in European politics will increasingly align with Russia's whether we like it or not. We'll be the only two major historic nation states outside an EU that we don't fully accept or understand and which, rightly or wrongly, we will regard as working against our interests.
In or out of the EU our interests in international relations have tied more with America than with either Germany or Russia for over a century. So why would be aligned with Russia whether in or out of the EU? It is absurd.
Between the UK and the EU (sans UK) it's clear which will be America's most important partner.
Brilliant! If the US ignored us in favour of the EU I for one would consider it worth the price of admission alone. Their aims and interests are not ours. Their agenda is not ours. The lesser ally does not benefit - Machiavelli was telling us this 500 years ago.
We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.
My best estimate is he will finish on over 1400 won/pledged, with another 100 unbound and 12 superdelegates in the mix.
Trump and Cruz are the only two eligible to be put to the vote at the Convention, and Trump should prevail by about a margin of 3:1...
Trump should rub in his contempt for the GOP establishment and choose a Democrat as his prospective VP.
A 70-something Republican who has lived a controversial and high-intensity life should not choose a Democrat as his VP. Many vice-presidents have suddenly become top dog when the great actuary in the sky has come knocking.
Nine, to be precise. So Clinton has health issues, impeachment issues...
Fear not, my fellow Americans.
President Hickenlooper awaits the call!
Oh my God! I know something that Rod doesn't about American presidents.
8 VPs have become president on the death of the incumbent:
John Tyler Millard Fillmore Andrew Johnson Chester A. Arthur Theodore Roosevelt Calvin Coolidge Harry S. Truman Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford, of course, succeeded Richard Nixon on his resignation.
VapidBilge - carer's hourly rate £7.20 down 8%, no travelling time that I see on the time sheets - agency hourly rate through the council up 20% last year. Peak rate through the council is £40/hour per carer (need 2). I wish the carers had a bigger share.
You can see why the USSR made excess profiteering punishable by death
In all likelihood, the progress of SpaceX, Blue Origin and the like, will have far greater impact on our children and our childrens' children than anything that happens on June 23rd.
@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.
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.
I completely agree. Out of control immigration is something people believe Brexit might solve. If as you say they get the tone right and enough people think it's a deal breaker then they're onto something.
Leave has all the best lines. Its problem is the people delivering them. I still think they have a great chance though.
I don't think they have the best line. The best one is that implied on the poster 'Leaving is a journey into the unknown'. The Leavers keep saying staying is also a journey into the unknown but they haven't persuaded anyone of it yet and I don't think they can.
Their best bet is to convince people that however scary the 'unknown' it can't be as bad as unlimited immigration. They should try to make their messaging sharper and clearer and as you suggest fronted by people less marmite
It's got to be about jobs (sotto voce cos of the immigrants innit), and a general distrust of the European elite.
"Jobs for your children or for his mates?" with a picture of Dave doing his annoying sycophantic laugh with Merkel and Hollande.
Obviously the juxtaposition in the sentence doesn't strictly make sense but as I understand it that's at best a second order consideration in advertising.
It might make people who dislike Dave smile with satisfaction or loathing but I can't see it having any power to influence the undecideds. It doesn't expose any hidden truth that people have been thinking but failed to articulate.
My best estimate is he will finish on over 1400 won/pledged, with another 100 unbound and 12 superdelegates in the mix.
Trump and Cruz are the only two eligible to be put to the vote at the Convention, and Trump should prevail by about a margin of 3:1...
Trump should rub in his contempt for the GOP establishment and choose a Democrat as his prospective VP.
A 70-something Republican who has lived a controversial and high-intensity life should not choose a Democrat as his VP. Many vice-presidents have suddenly become top dog when the great actuary in the sky has come knocking.
Nine, to be precise. So Clinton has health issues, impeachment issues...
Fear not, my fellow Americans.
President Hickenlooper awaits the call!
Oh my God! I know something that Rod doesn't about American presidents.
8 VPs have become president on the death of the incumbent:
John Tyler Millard Fillmore Andrew Johnson Chester A. Arthur Theodore Roosevelt Calvin Coolidge Harry S. Truman Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford, of course, succeeded Richard Nixon on his resignation.
Casino_Royale - printed your blog post and gave it to two women at work I overheard in discussion; one tending towards Remain the other totally unsure and decrying the obviously biased daily diet of scaremongering. Don't know which they are going but the possible Remainer came back to me next day and praised the clarity. So another thank-you to you.
Anecdote - was dealing with a Romanian lady last week. 30s, said she had been her 10-12 years and her kids have British passports. Asked me straight out how I was voting. Told her and frankly felt a bit awkward so stressed that it all about sovereignty for me. I needn't have worried; she explained that she too had the vote and was voting leave. "This is an island, and its different" she said and I grew a foot taller on the spot.
Thanks trawl :-)
Like you, I'm really struggling emotionally with this. My mood can turn on a sixpence depending upon a poll, or a single conversion!
Thankfully, I'm away over the weekend for a much needed break.
"I imagine people on the left will look at the last century of Conservative and centrist Labour governments and say, "we'll chance it with Europe"... "
How happy would you be with a far right government in Germany and France? You say "I don't know exactly what I ought to object to". Would you object to that scenario?
For me this is about self-determination. I find that you are arguing that you can't change the UK government as you are in Cornwall, yet you don't mind that you are even further from the executive in the EU. It doesn't make sense to me unless you want full intergration which is a logical position in my opinion.
Paul_Bedfordshire - I am not sure they are profitable though, they go in and out of business in a flash. What would help is if Alanbrooke went into the business of hospital beds and designed one for single handed nappy changes - some sort of rotation device to put the occupent safely on her side.
Nice one Sunil. I couldnt think of tbe words you did.
Proves it is a crap poster - no decent poster can be cloned and used by the other side by changing about threenwords
Except it doesn't work. You can change any poster by changing three words-or even one. 'Labour IS working' but it fails for the same reason Sunil's fails. It doesn't unearth people's secret thoughts or expose a truth that has been hiding behind people's consciousness. It's just a statement of what the Leave side would like people to believe.
"I imagine people on the left will look at the last century of Conservative and centrist Labour governments and say, "we'll chance it with Europe"... "
How happy would you be with a far right government in Germany and France? You say "I don't know exactly what I ought to object to". Would you object to that scenario?
For me this is about self-determination. I find that you are arguing that you can't change the UK government as you are in Cornwall, yet you don't mind that you are even further from the executive in the EU. It doesn't make sense to me unless you want full intergration which is a logical position in my opinion.
94 (I may call you 94 for short?), two things:
Yes, I'm not opposed in principle to full European integration for the reasons you surmise.
And you should learn to use the quote function to ensure the main focus is on your eloquent reasoning. There are some people here who get strangely emotional about it and they may be less courteous and welcoming than the nice people posting this evening.
"I imagine people on the left will look at the last century of Conservative and centrist Labour governments and say, "we'll chance it with Europe"... "
How happy would you be with a far right government in Germany and France? You say "I don't know exactly what I ought to object to". Would you object to that scenario?
Not happy. I would hope that rule of law procedures would ensure that a democratically-elected far-right government would have limited influence on the EU club. Realistically, in the cases of the large countries, that would be ineffectual. Need I even say that this scenario is both much more likely and impacts the UK almost as badly in the case of Brexit?
'We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.'
So if the British electorate has the audacity to vote to leave the EU the USA will have an interest in undermining us.
Gives a whole new meaning to the so called 'Special Relationship'
'We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.'
So if the British electorate has the audacity to vote to leave the EU the USA will have an interest in undermining us.
Gives a whole new meaning to the so called 'Special Relationship'
It doesn't even make sense. If Britain left it would make us all the more important as a counter-balance to an integrating Europe.
Evidencing the influence of PB.com, OGH's passed-on tip yesterday suggesting John Hickenlooper as Hillary's Veep, has seen his odds tumble from 80/1 to just 16/1 (with Laddies and Betfair Sportsbook) .... hardly any sort of value imho. However what caught my eye was Betfair Exchange's price of 1000 (949/1 net of commission) against the aforementioned Hickenlooper becoming the Democratic POTUS nominee. Should he become her running mate, then he'd only be a heartbeat/resignation/removal/etc. away. When I first looked a few minutes ago, there was £109 worth on offer at these not insubstantial odds (prepare to eat your heart out Morris btw) and after I'd taken the plunge, there should now be just £107 left! DYOR.
Leaves, ace card appears to be regain control of our borders. In words of one syllable, can anyone explain how we will retain access to world markets, yet deny access to immigrants?
'We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.'
So if the British electorate has the audacity to vote to leave the EU the USA will have an interest in undermining us.
Gives a whole new meaning to the so called 'Special Relationship'
It doesn't even make sense. If Britain left it would make us all the more important as a counter-balance to an integrating Europe.
American foreign policy is global in nature and they think of Europe in the context of Eurasia and Africa as a whole. To them the EU is a guarantor of political stability in the North Atlantic.
Leaves, ace card appears to be regain control of our borders. In words of one syllable, can anyone explain how we will retain access to world markets, yet deny access to immigrants?
Leaves, ace card appears to be regain control of our borders. In words of one syllable, can anyone explain how we will retain access to world markets, yet deny access to immigrants?
Leaves, ace card appears to be regain control of our borders. In words of one syllable, can anyone explain how we will retain access to world markets, yet deny access to immigrants?
The same way the rest of the non-EU world does?
How are we going to do it?
Could you explain what you mean? So far as I'm aware, China doesn't have open borders, do they not trade?
Comments
My personal plan is now to go to the town each Wednesday morning - just for the shave.
In the event of a Leave vote of less 55%, I expect Cameron to start talking about national emergencies, threats to your family's economic security etc, and attempt to form a unity coalition with the right wing of Labour to consider the appropriate response to the vote. This will be justified by the need to calm the markets and limit uncertainty, given that his government have been careful to maximise the uncertainty that would arise if they were faced with implementing a Leave decision. This will alienate a reasonable proportion of his party but many will be bullied into submission due to not wanting to be seen as the ones who destabilised the country and this time of economic emergency etc etc - the fact that there isn't really a strong leader-in-waiting means that Cameron will have time to get the well-oiled Project Fear and Smear in motion before anyone can move.
The next statement will be along the lines of "I hear that the British people have spoken and are clearly unhappy with the direction of the EU, but this referendum hasn't given us a clear mandate for action so we need to assess what our hard-working families really deserve."
I can see two possibilities then: an "are-you-really-sure?" GE fought by a stability coalition of the Tory liberals, the Lib Dems and the Labour right, pledging to preserve economic stability while fundamentally renegotiating our relationship with the EU (i.e. not really changing anything) or a further referendum with 3 options: stay, EEA, or all-out leave. Stay will get about 40% of that, and it's business as usual.
I'm still looking for a way to bet on us still being in the EU a year after a Leave vote.
For me personally it does not matter too much, I will be OK, but like many Grandparents we want the best for our offspring.
The Milliband in pocket poster was also a turning point for me, it certainly hit the spot.
I am also old enough to remember the "Labour isn't working" poster, these things work.
So my job is in the front line on this and I think it's bollocks. And insulting my intelligence bollocks at that.
I'd have thought that would be case dependent.
Clearly we are all influenced by our own preconceptions when viewing stuff like this and tend to look more favourably on messages that reinforce our previously held views.
If we can keep well out of it, have enough armed forces to successfully deter a would-be invader, and be prosperous and peaceful, that will be just dandy for me.
Fear not, my fellow Americans.
President Hickenlooper awaits the call!
I haven't a television, but it will be interesting to learn whether Mr Salmond attempts to make a case for continued membership of the EU being of benefit to the UK, rather than merely being of benefit to Scotland.
So far he hasn't shown much concern for what may benefit the UK. I don't doubt his commitment to Scotland, but does he have any real idea of what the UK's best interests are?
"Jobs for your children or for his mates?" with a picture of Dave doing his annoying sycophantic laugh with Merkel and Hollande.
Obviously the juxtaposition in the sentence doesn't strictly make sense but as I understand it that's at best a second order consideration in advertising.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watchdog-files-motion-demanding-release-of-clinton-chiefs-testimony/article/2592383
When Cameron was in trouble with tax avoidance issues, did he produce evidence of money he gave to foodbanks, charities, churches etc.?
I considered that if I was in the same position, I would show my GAYE donations on my salary slip and request an annual receipt of my gift-aided donations from the church.
Welcome aboard.
Thank you.
In my opinion, Cameron is a democrat and would accept the result. I believe he would have accepted an independence vote from Scotland. The tory party remainers would, in the main, quickly identify a credible candidate and exit plan as they are pragmatic and not ideologically wedded to the EU - if they were they would be campaigning for further intergration. I do not see a scenario whereby Cameron could lose the referendum and remain PM. There are over 150 tory MPs backing leave; but who knows it is politics after all. I can very much see a general election occuring as a result of a leave vote.
The reason that you cannot bet on us still being in the EU a year after a leave vote is that Article 50 (after it is invoked and it will not be invoked immediately) has a time of 2 years.
I feel you are somewhat cynical about the potential of the country. A genuine left policy would be possible to implement outside the EU. The EU funnels us into a certain set of social, commercial, legal and political policies. I am classic liberal so I would not vote for a genuine left but people in the country should be able to do so and not be restricted from doing so by what is a group of foreign states and an unaccountable executive and judiciary.
I really feel let down by the media as this is a very large issue that will have long lasting implications. I'm also very upset with Cameron and the official leave campaign.
Thank you Casino Royale. I like my name
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/05/lord-ashcroft-control-versus-risk-my-new-polling-explores-which-message-might-win-out-in-the-referendum-battle.html
The problem is not really an inability to change Europe, which happens all the time: Delors was a departure to the 90s centre-left; Barroso to the pre-recession 00s liberal right. So what is the problem? Because I don't fear immigration, I don't know exactly what I ought to object to. I don't feel LEAVE wants to tell me either, as long as it's not immigration.
I am an established member of.
Former Londoners In To Whimsical Items Concerning Kilts
Thank you.
In my opinion, Cameron is a democrat and would accept the result. I believe he would have accepted an independence vote from Scotland. The tory party remainers would, in the main, quickly identify a credible candidate and exit plan as they are pragmatic and not ideologically wedded to the EU - if they were they would be campaigning for further intergration. I do not see a scenario whereby Cameron could lose the referendum and remain PM. There are over 150 tory MPs backing leave; but who knows it is politics after all. I can very much see a general election occuring as a result of a leave vote.
The reason that you cannot bet on us still being in the EU a year after a leave vote is that Article 50 (after it is invoked and it will not be invoked immediately) has a time of 2 years.
I feel you are somewhat cynical about the potential of the country. A genuine left policy would be possible to implement outside the EU. The EU funnels us into a certain set of social, commercial, legal and political policies. I am classic liberal so I would not vote for a genuine left but people in the country should be able to do so and not be restricted from doing so by what is a group of foreign states and an unaccountable executive and judiciary.
I really feel let down by the media as this is a very large issue that will have long lasting implications. I'm also very upset with Cameron and the official leave campaign.
Thank you Casino Royale. I like my name
Perhaps I was being a little careless in my words - yes, the bet I would like is "article 50 not invoked within time limit following a vote for Leave" (void if remain wins).
I'm not sure I'm being cynical about the potential of the U.K. I'm being realistic about the lack of quality of our current political class. We can leave in order to facilitate a worthwhile vision as and when someone attains sufficient influence to sell that vision. I don't see the need to leave in the meantime as I can't immediately see how it would facilitate the emergence of a suitable visionary. In fact I think in some ways the necessary frustration might arise more readily if we stay in the EU and it annoys people for a few more years.
Anecdote - was dealing with a Romanian lady last week. 30s, said she had been her 10-12 years and her kids have British passports. Asked me straight out how I was voting. Told her and frankly felt a bit awkward so stressed that it all about sovereignty for me. I needn't have worried; she explained that she too had the vote and was voting leave. "This is an island, and its different" she said and I grew a foot taller on the spot.
Proves it is a crap poster - no decent poster can be cloned and used by the other side by changing about threenwords
8 VPs have become president on the death of the incumbent:
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester A. Arthur
Theodore Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
Harry S. Truman
Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford, of course, succeeded Richard Nixon on his resignation.
In all likelihood, the progress of SpaceX, Blue Origin and the like, will have far greater impact on our children and our childrens' children than anything that happens on June 23rd.
Clinton 36 .. Trump 39 .. Johnson 8
https://www.nccivitas.org/2016/trump-leads-hilary-in-new-civitas-poll/
http://gawker.com/is-donald-trump-s-hair-a-60-000-weave-a-gawker-invest-1777581357
Like you, I'm really struggling emotionally with this. My mood can turn on a sixpence depending upon a poll, or a single conversion!
Thankfully, I'm away over the weekend for a much needed break.
"I imagine people on the left will look at the last century of Conservative and centrist Labour governments and say, "we'll chance it with Europe"... "
How happy would you be with a far right government in Germany and France? You say "I don't know exactly what I ought to object to". Would you object to that scenario?
For me this is about self-determination. I find that you are arguing that you can't change the UK government as you are in Cornwall, yet you don't mind that you are even further from the executive in the EU. It doesn't make sense to me unless you want full intergration which is a logical position in my opinion.
Totally and utterly awful. The level of debate you get on pb.com is far superior.
Depressing.
Hilarious. Derbyshire is hopeless, it's turning into a slanging match. No moderation.
Yes, I'm not opposed in principle to full European integration for the reasons you surmise.
And you should learn to use the quote function to ensure the main focus is on your eloquent reasoning. There are some people here who get strangely emotional about it and they may be less courteous and welcoming than the nice people posting this evening.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
'We agree on that. I don't think it's controversial to say that the US actively worked to undermine Britain as a global power over the last century. The difference is that post-Brexit they would also have an interest in undermining us as a European power as well and certainly wouldn't be an ally in any issue where we were in conflict with the EU.'
So if the British electorate has the audacity to vote to leave the EU the USA will have an interest in undermining us.
Gives a whole new meaning to the so called 'Special Relationship'
However what caught my eye was Betfair Exchange's price of 1000 (949/1 net of commission) against the aforementioned Hickenlooper becoming the Democratic POTUS nominee. Should he become her running mate, then he'd only be a heartbeat/resignation/removal/etc. away.
When I first looked a few minutes ago, there was £109 worth on offer at these not insubstantial odds (prepare to eat your heart out Morris btw) and after I'd taken the plunge, there should now be just £107 left!
DYOR.