I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
Why do you think not being part of a huge trading bloc will get us better terms than being part of a huge trading bloc?
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
On topic, wow at the revelations in this thread. Really awful reading for Remain. What on earth is the point in anyone voting Remain if politicians keep us in regardless of the outcome?
'It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit. '
It is grim and depressing when voters raise concerns about immigration that virtue signalling lefties always play the race card.
Though a very good post I'm afraid the credit belongs to 'RealBritain' not me
If Parliament did seek to ignore a Brexit vote, I'm pretty sure that UKIP would sweep Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire (less Sheffield), South East London, the West Midlands (outside Birmingham), Cornwall, the South Coast at the subsequent general election.
The single-market Tories are trying to assert at least some control. This is turning into a real caper.
If leave wins clearly, you'll be able to get the 'single-market tories' into a Reliant Robin.
I think whatever is agreed, it will likely be put to another referendum.
Noooooooooooooooooooo! Please no more.
I seriously doubt that the British public has an appetite for another referendum. Just pointing out that a Leave vote would mean another referendum would likely add 2-3 pts to Remain.
On topic, wow at the revelations in this thread. Really awful reading for Remain. What on earth is the point in anyone voting Remain if politicians keep us in regardless of the outcome?
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
Why do you think not being part of a huge trading bloc will get us better terms than being part of a huge trading bloc?
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
Because they only have to be concerned about their own interests not those of 27 other countries as well.
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
Although the European Investment Bank bills themselves as "The EU Bank", I think they are owned by European governments and not the EU themselves. I also think the shareholder list (although I could be wrong) includes non-EU countries.
'Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.'
No it can't.
Bite the Ballot, a group working to engage young people in politics, says that between 23-27 May there were more than 3,800 clicks via its website to a government sign-up page.
Of that number the group believes just 10 people successfully registered.
Indeed. But if you think that the British parliament would do anything other than respect the will of the nation as expressed in a referendum then in that event, I expect you to be uncomfortably surprised.
That is not what is being proposed.
Also important to note the distinction between Government and Parliament
Parliament will respect the will of the British people (out of the EU) but there may be a majority in Parliament for EFTA/EEA
Since that is not on the ballot paper, parliament would not be subverting the will of the British people by implementing that
And it may be true that the Government would be voted out of office, but I am still not sure it would result in a UKIP majority
And for those who claim that all of this would be avoided if the Tories had a Brexiteer instead of Cameron, they had IDS. If they had him again, Ed would be PM (or Gordo for that matter)
There will no doubt be polls at the time to guide MPs and the govt.
However, given the prominence of immigration as an issue in the EURef campaign, and of the threats of Turks down the road - both of which are clearly related to freedom of movement, which itself is directly related to membership of the Single market - I can't see how a Leave can meaningfully be implemented without breaking with that membership.
Have you decided how you're going to vote yet? You're about the only person on here who hasn't made their preference known. As a Conservative with possible ambitions it's probably a wise decision.
(If you have and i've missed it apologies)
I will be voting Remain. (I thought I'd been fairly clear about that, though only in the comments rather than my lead articles).
I don't have any ambitions within the Party. I certainly have no desire to return to local government and gave up on my aspiration to be an MP some years ago when I saw the demands of the job. I'm already an Association chairman (which isn't really an office I sought), and wouldn't want to go higher within the voluntary structure.
But if we were to vote Leave, then to defy the voters by saying "We asked you, the little people, to choose, at great expense, but you got it wrong. Therefore we, the great and the good who know better, will decide for you. So suck it up." A recipe for a Kipper-fest at the next GE, which would be soon.
If Leave publicise this well enough, it will be worth enough votes to possibly swing the referendum too.
Remain have all the advantages, but they seem to want to shoot their own foot off.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the sbasis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
Why do you think not being part of a huge trading bloc will get us better terms than being part of a huge trading bloc?
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
Because they only have to be concerned about their own interests not those of 27 other countries as well.
Nothing to do with them being a single-product economy? K.
On topic, wow at the revelations in this thread. Really awful reading for Remain. What on earth is the point in anyone voting Remain if politicians keep us in regardless of the outcome?
Nobody is suggesting keeping us in if Leave wins. The discussion is about what the subsequent relationship with the EU might look like.
But if we were to vote Leave, then to defy the voters by saying "We asked you, the little people, to choose, at great expense, but you got it wrong. Therefore we, the great and the good who know better, will decide for you. So suck it up."
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
Do the EU actually get a say in whether we join the EEA or not ?
No. We are already members and independent signatories to the EEA agreement. The only thing that would stop us being members would be if we left the EU but did not join EFTA as we would then be in breach of the treaty terms.
''If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result. ''
Indeed Mr Morris and that's why I don't see the above scenario unfolding. Could remain seriously expect the Mark Pritchard tendency to stick with them after a leave victory (especially a clear leave victory)? When the prize of seeing off UKIP for good is before them?
Even the tory payroll vote would be wondering if the paymaster was about to change. These are politicians, not zealots.
Many labour politicians are also looking at UKIP second placers.
There's free movement and there's free movement.
If there were no in-work benefits available, I think there would be a much smaller flow of immigrants to the UK. If you needed to buy NHS health insurance, then it would be dramatically smaller.
And schooling, in-work benefits et al. I still don't agree with free movement. I believe in looking after our own first, not parking them whilst EUers frequently beat them in interviews for low-skilled jobs or promotions.
It's worse than secondary moderns for the bottom rungs.
What if the turnout is well under 50%, and the majority for Leave is tiny? My instinct is still to say; that was the result, live with it but as a convinced Remainer I’d be seriously p****d off.
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
100% right. I would back that at once.
Me too. But he didn't even try, and we have been forced into a "nuclear option" referendum process.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
Yes I feel I am being forced to hit the "nuclear button" because I am just being given no real option (see my post down thread on politicians saying they'll do "X" and then just not even attempting or even reversing totally). Yes, there's always going to be compromise and areas of grey, it's real life, but I personally believe now (didn't pre negotiation - silly me) that Dave never remotely considered recommending "Leave", and his counter parties in the negotiation could smell it. He had a gun with no bullets, so they gave him bugger all.
To add insult to injury he didn't even say "sorry folks, not great but best I could do" , but instead decided to treat us like utter fools and pretend it was great ("I sure would"). You can't fool all the people all the time.
It's a sad state of affairs, I really only wanted a bit more compromise but we are now in a world of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse being threatened together with the slaughter of the first born if we dare to even think about stepping out of line. Well I won't be bought, or cowed. It will almost certainly cost me personally money short term, but there comes a point where being treated with contempt by those we elect is too much.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit". But same end result.
For once I agree with TSE on the summery of this thread. Any MP from any party, but especially the Tory party, would be lambasted and hounded out of office if they tried this method of thwarting the will of the voters.
What if the turnout is well under 50%, and the majority for Leave is tiny? My instinct is still to say; that was the result, live with it but as a convinced Remainer I’d be seriously p****d off.
Unlikely to happen, with the way the polls are now, if the turnout is under 50%, Leave wins by a landslide.
The single-market Tories are trying to assert at least some control. This is turning into a real caper.
If leave wins clearly, you'll be able to get the 'single-market tories' into a Reliant Robin.
I think whatever is agreed, it will likely be put to another referendum.
REMAIN MPs could vote to insist on a UK referendum on any new trade arrangements to try to force remaining in the single market with freedom of movement with the EU.
And the government of the day should decide what deal we pursue instead.
If people don't like the deal negotiated... They can elect a new government who can try to change it.
This is exactly what is being suggested.
And it has the "Sovereignty and Democracy" Brexiteers with their panties in an ever tightening wad this morning
Yes- writing more in response to comments rather than article. I would concede that an early general election could be a good idea... to allow the parties to come up with some plans for what they would prioritize in the negotiations. Not sure how that time line works given a potential Tory leadership election also...
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the sbasis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
Why do you think not being part of a huge trading bloc will get us better terms than being part of a huge trading bloc?
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
Because they only have to be concerned about their own interests not those of 27 other countries as well.
Nothing to do with them being a single-product economy? K.
I suppose that also applies to Singapore, Switzerland, India, Chile, Israel, Japan and South Korea, each of whom have got total trade deals worth more than the EU has.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Absolutely right. I am not sure that I would be entirely comfortable as I accept that the vote does seem to be predominantly about immigration and as such a lot of people would feel betrayed (I was planning on doing a thread header on both sides losing by winning).
But once a Leave vote had been made and Cameron invoked Article 50 then it would be entirely in the hands of the Government and Parliament how that was interpreted.
On topic, wow at the revelations in this thread. Really awful reading for Remain. What on earth is the point in anyone voting Remain if politicians keep us in regardless of the outcome?
Nobody is suggesting keeping us in if Leave wins. The discussion is about what the subsequent relationship with the EU might look like.
I think Leave are panicking. As the day of reckoning looms, they're suddenly realising that they need to provide a sensible alternative to EU membership, and they've no idea how. Very soon they're going to be held personally responsible for the state of the nation. It's not a scenario they're familiar with, preferring ordinarily to blame everything else from the sidelines. With luck it should do them some good - taking responsibility for their actions and all that.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
The more that Cameron appears on the same soapbox, hand in hand with Corbynites and the hard left of Labour, flogging REMAIN, the more he is being held in contempt by both Labour and Tory supporters.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
I think Leave are panicking. As the day of reckoning looms, they're suddenly realising that they need to provide a sensible alternative to EU membership, and they've no idea how.
It's quite entertaining
"It's not up to us to decide what happens next, it will be up to our sovereign Parliament"
ICM ..... Wow, this appears to be one way traffic at the moment. Could it be a sign of "shy" LEAVERS coming out of the proverbial woodwork as their preference is seen to be gaining the upper hand?
On topic, wow at the revelations in this thread. Really awful reading for Remain. What on earth is the point in anyone voting Remain if politicians keep us in regardless of the outcome?
Nobody is suggesting keeping us in if Leave wins. The discussion is about what the subsequent relationship with the EU might look like.
I think Leave are panicking. As the day of reckoning looms, they're suddenly realising that they need to provide a sensible alternative to EU membership, and they've no idea how. Very soon they're going to be held personally responsible for the state of the nation. It's not a scenario they're familiar with, preferring ordinarily to blame everything else from the sidelines. With luck it should do them some good - taking responsibility for their actions and all that.
I don't think Leave are panicking. Immigration is a rich seam which they are being wise to exploit.
The fact that their main proponents don't know what they want post-Leave from one day to the next, nor as we saw with M Gove, when they want to do it, doesn't detract from the main thrust of their argument: Vote Leave, Keep Foreigners Out.
But at the same time, I think you'll find a pretty high correlation between Labour Leavers and not supporting the Argentine conflict.
Personally, and I speak as an Outer, I think it's pretty disgusting to try and claim that all Remainers would just want to hand over the Fawkland Islands to the Argentinians.
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
Although the European Investment Bank bills themselves as "The EU Bank", I think they are owned by European governments and not the EU themselves. I also think the shareholder list (although I could be wrong) includes non-EU countries.
The letter specifically says 'Supported by the EU". And it is interesting timing coming just before the referendum when we have heard not a peep for the last decade. I wonder how many other small businesses are getting the same letter?
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
The fact that their main proponents don't know what they want post-Leave from one day to the next, nor as we saw with M Gove, when they want to do it, doesn't detract from the main thrust of their argument: Vote Leave, Keep Foreigners Out.
Mr. Rabbit, polls can change rapidly in a febrile atmosphere. In 2007, a couple of weeks was enough for a 10 point Labour lead to become a 10 point Conservative lead.
Mr. Urquhart, if it doesn't improve over the series, Evans will surely be tossed overboard. Twitter seemed to like Jenson Button's presenting prowess.
I think Leave are panicking. As the day of reckoning looms, they're suddenly realising that they need to provide a sensible alternative to EU membership, and they've no idea how.
It's quite entertaining
"It's not up to us to decide what happens next, it will be up to our sovereign Parliament"
"OK, EFTA/EEA is the will of Parliament..."
BETRAYAL, CALUMNY, Off with their heads !!!!!!!!!
I suspect that, by the Autumn, Boris will be Leave's new public enemy number one.
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
100% right. I would back that at once.
Me too. But he didn't even try, and we have been forced into a "nuclear option" referendum process.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
Yes I feel I am being forced to hit the "nuclear button" because I am just being given no real option (see my post down thread on politicians saying they'll do "X" and then just not even attempting or even reversing totally). Yes, there's always going to be compromise and areas of grey, it's real life, but I personally believe now (didn't pre negotiation - silly me) that Dave never remotely considered recommending "Leave", and his counter parties in the negotiation could smell it. He had a gun with no bullets, so they gave him bugger all.
To add insult to injury he didn't even say "sorry folks, not great but best I could do" , but instead decided to treat us like utter fools and pretend it was great ("I sure would"). You can't fool all the people all the time.
It's a sad state of affairs, I really only wanted a bit more compromise but we are now in a world of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse being threatened together with the slaughter of the first born if we dare to even think about stepping out of line. Well I won't be bought, or cowed. It will almost certainly cost me personally money short term, but there comes a point where being treated with contempt by those we elect is too much.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit". But same end result.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
100% right. I would back that at once.
Me too. But he didn't even try, and we have been forced into a "nuclear option" referendum process.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
Come on mate, face up. Voting Leave is the only way you're going to get that.
History and experience shows that serious concessions are only ever made when the hand of the EU is forced.
But at the same time, I think you'll find a pretty high correlation between Labour Leavers and not supporting the Argentine conflict.
Personally, and I speak as an Outer, I think it's pretty disgusting to try and claim that all Remainers would just want to hand over the Fawkland Islands to the Argentinians.
'Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.'
No it can't.
Many 18-24 year old are immigrants.
Does YouGov check to exclude these from their surveys?
"Pro-Remain MPs are considering using their Commons majority to keep Britain inside the EU single market if there is a vote for Brexit, the BBC has learned .... The single market guarantees the free movement of goods, people, services and capital."
If it walks like an 'up yours voters," and swims like an "up yours voters," that's what it will be seen as.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
Just superb.
The government ran a campaign to identify 'A Motto for Britain' - and the nation of Boaty McBoatface rose magnificently to the challenge:
'Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.'
No it can't.
Many 18-24 year old are immigrants.
Does YouGov check to exclude these from their surveys?
When you sign up to join the YouGov panel (or any of the internet panels) you have to answer a questionnaire which includes that.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the sbasis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
Why do you think not being part of a huge trading bloc will get us better terms than being part of a huge trading bloc?
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
Because they only have to be concerned about their own interests not those of 27 other countries as well.
Nothing to do with them being a single-product economy? K.
It isn't. Oil and Gas does account for 51% of their exports but that is hardly a single-product economy.
It looks like Remain have chucked in the towel as most comments are about trying to manage the aftermath of defeat.
The idea that tweaks and manoeuvring will suffice is very reminiscent of Scottish Labour in winter 2014.
Cameron tries to shore himself up by being surrounded by lefties. Desperate stuff. 16 campaigning days after today.
Appealing to Guardian readers didn't work before either.
Putting your PR hat on, who should they have had to lead the REMAIN campaign from the start? For me it should have been Alan Johnson (or similar) fronting the govt pr machine for 19 weeks. That way they would have got through to the key Labour voters with a friendly face. Today Cameron is on stage with some lefties who (IMHO) do not connect well with Labour's working class voters.
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
Although the European Investment Bank bills themselves as "The EU Bank", I think they are owned by European governments and not the EU themselves. I also think the shareholder list (although I could be wrong) includes non-EU countries.
The letter specifically says 'Supported by the EU". And it is interesting timing coming just before the referendum when we have heard not a peep for the last decade. I wonder how many other small businesses are getting the same letter?
I don't think any of my businesses have received such a letter, but I'm happy to check. I do know that the EIB lends across the whole EEA, so even if we do go for Brexit, you might be able to get a low interest loan.
Ukrainian independence: Plucky eastern Europeans wanting to get out from under the yoke of Russia.
UK Independence: A plot by a country stuffed with literally millions of Xenophobes and racists who have only accepted a few million people from overseas in recent years, the racist scum.
Top Gear pulled in just 2.8 million viewers last night - down from 4.3million viewers last Sunday.
But remember folks FACT, it's a hit.
Catastrophic
They have to save the show if they can. Somehow. It's worth too much. I reckon Evans will go at the end of the season
What I find so grimly amusing is that the BBC big wigs built the entire show around Evans - despite almost everyone saying NOOOOOOO!!! from the off.
We've had dozens of leaks, rumours and line-up changes = none of them complimentary about him. And now the show is live, the audience still has the same opinion and leaving in droves. He was the wrong choice and remains the wrong choice.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
Just superb.
New Hampshire
Oh well only 1500miles out!
The local joke always being that while New Hampshire's motto is Live Free or Die, neighbouring Maine is known as "Vacationland".
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
Just superb.
The government ran a campaign to identify 'A Motto for Britain' - and the nation of Boaty McBoatface rose magnificently to the challenge:
Ukrainian independence: Plucky eastern Europeans wanting to get out from under the yoke of Russia.
UK Independence: A plot by a country stuffed with literally millions of Xenophobes and racists who have only accepted a few million people from overseas in recent years, the racist scum.
To be fair, I don't think the EU is likely to send troops in and encourage London and the South East to secede.
I was surprised to see that machinery and transport equipment account for 23% of their exports. Norway never struck me before as a heavy industry manufacturer. Daft really. It should be given it has free electricity and access to good reserves of iron ore and mineral wealth.
Miss Plato, it's because the BBC didn't understand why Top Gear worked. It was three ageing blokes cocking about and having a laugh. The chemistry was the key.
Mr. Glenn, it could. The BBC had a good presenting trio for F1, and Jenson Button appears to have gone down well (and *may* not have a drive next year).
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
Although the European Investment Bank bills themselves as "The EU Bank", I think they are owned by European governments and not the EU themselves. I also think the shareholder list (although I could be wrong) includes non-EU countries.
The letter specifically says 'Supported by the EU". And it is interesting timing coming just before the referendum when we have heard not a peep for the last decade. I wonder how many other small businesses are getting the same letter?
I don't think any of my businesses have received such a letter, but I'm happy to check. I do know that the EIB lends across the whole EEA, so even if we do go for Brexit, you might be able to get a low interest loan.
Indeed. Though to be honest mine is not the sort of business that needs to take on debt as our overheads are very low.
I was surprised to see that machinery and transport equipment account for 23% of their exports. Norway never struck me before as a heavy industry manufacturer. Daft really. It should be given it has free electricity and access to good reserves of iron ore and mineral wealth.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit".
It looks like Remain have chucked in the towel as most comments are about trying to manage the aftermath of defeat.
The idea that tweaks and manoeuvring will suffice is very reminiscent of Scottish Labour in winter 2014.
Cameron tries to shore himself up by being surrounded by lefties. Desperate stuff. 16 campaigning days after today.
Appealing to Guardian readers didn't work before either.
Putting your PR hat on, who should they have had to lead the REMAIN campaign from the start? For me it should have been Alan Johnson (or similar) fronting the govt pr machine for 19 weeks. That way they would have got through to the key Labour voters with a friendly face. Today Cameron is on stage with some lefties who (IMHO) do not connect well with Labour's working class voters.
I'd have gone for someone like Johnson - reassuring, nice on the telly as fodder. But he's no intellectual heft. I'd have picked Hillary Benn, even though his dad disagreed - he could have pivoted that as knowing the other argument well.
But he was a non-starter given his leadership rival credentials.
Top Gear pulled in just 2.8 million viewers last night - down from 4.3million viewers last Sunday.
But remember folks FACT, it's a hit.
Catastrophic
They have to save the show if they can. Somehow. It's worth too much. I reckon Evans will go at the end of the season
What I find so grimly amusing is that the BBC big wigs built the entire show around Evans - despite almost everyone saying NOOOOOOO!!! from the off.
We've had dozens of leaks, rumours and line-up changes = none of them complimentary about him. And now the show is live, the audience still has the same opinion and leaving in droves. He was the wrong choice and remains the wrong choice.
BBC bigwigs are overly driven by 'talent', which doesn't necessarily mean 'talent'. You cannot simply drop a star into a format and expect it to work. But then the Beeb top brass probably never really understood Top Gear's appeal anyway. Like all great art, it was about several things, and about balance. They've lost the balance between the presenters, between humour and factual, and between audience and presenters. And they expected it to remain a hit?
@mrianleslie: These polls forcing me to consider that Leave might win, against all instinct. Now I'm wondering whether Miliband will have to resign as PM.
I was surprised to see that machinery and transport equipment account for 23% of their exports. Norway never struck me before as a heavy industry manufacturer. Daft really. It should be given it has free electricity and access to good reserves of iron ore and mineral wealth.
There's quite a big oil & gas shipbuilding industry isn't there?
Not really. All the rigs and platforms along with the tankers seem to be built in the Middle East or Far East these days. Very little is done in either the UK or Norway apart from maintenance.
Remain now deeply reliant on a swing in the polling station to see them through...
No. Two and a half weeks of campaigning by which time those making a knee jerk reaction to the immgration figures might have reconsidered
I don't see how the last two and a half weeks are going to be sufficient to create a Remain lead any more than 2 or 3 points.
That's how negative campaigning works. The scare story last week was immigration. It moved the polls about 4/6 points. Next week it's likely to be cast into the deep blue sea without a lifejacket....
Top Gear pulled in just 2.8 million viewers last night - down from 4.3million viewers last Sunday.
But remember folks FACT, it's a hit.
Catastrophic
They have to save the show if they can. Somehow. It's worth too much. I reckon Evans will go at the end of the season
They'll probably end up with the same solution to Have I Got News For You after they sacked Angus Deayton in a similar cock up.
The show will never recover anyway and BBC has just handed the opening battle for control of the Anglosphere media world to Amazon.
I never understood why they havent found a permanent host for HIGNFY. The guest host rarely have the level rapport and can be really hit and miss, some very good, some not so. Because of that, it isn't required viewing like it used to be in the Urquhart household.
These reports of high potential turnout and massive registration numbers chime with my sense. People are engaging with this, in a way they normally don't, even at a GE
I reckon we could see turnout over 70%. Maybe well over.
We presume that favours REMAIN but does it? How many are usually-apathetic WWCs voting LEAVE to kick the Tories AND stop immigration?
For a left wing WWC voter, a LEAVE vote is a no brainer
They said there were 6m voters not registered this morning on the radio.
Have they missed it? Even if not, I wouldn't expect too many to make the deadline if it's tomorrow..
Comments
Why do you suppose it is relatively easy for Norway to conclude trade deals?
And it has the "Sovereignty and Democracy" Brexiteers with their panties in an ever tightening wad this morning
My Sean, that is a Bold statement!
Remain: 43% (-1)
Leave: 48% (+1)
(via ICM, online / 03 - 05 Jun)
'Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows:
+205 in the 65+
+138 for the 50-64s
- 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead)
- 162 for the 18-24s
(with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.'
No it can't.
Bite the Ballot, a group working to engage young people in politics, says that between 23-27 May there were more than 3,800 clicks via its website to a government sign-up page.
Of that number the group believes just 10 people successfully registered.
I don't have any ambitions within the Party. I certainly have no desire to return to local government and gave up on my aspiration to be an MP some years ago when I saw the demands of the job. I'm already an Association chairman (which isn't really an office I sought), and wouldn't want to go higher within the voluntary structure.
I believe that Remain will won.
But if we were to vote Leave, then to defy the voters by saying "We asked you, the little people, to choose, at great expense, but you got it wrong. Therefore we, the great and the good who know better, will decide for you. So suck it up." A recipe for a Kipper-fest at the next GE, which would be soon.
If Leave publicise this well enough, it will be worth enough votes to possibly swing the referendum too.
Remain have all the advantages, but they seem to want to shoot their own foot off.
"Outside Number 10, junior ministers Tim Raison and Ken Clarke as well as Stephen Dorrell and Chris Patten were also expressing alarm; Dorrell for one saying he would only support the Task Force as a negotiating measure - and advocating a withdrawal if the military Junta in Argentina refused to negotiate."
- See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/thatcher-archive-reveals-deep-divisions-on-the-road-to-falklands-war#sthash.SyqbvL41.dpuf
First Brexiteer to correctly understand the "Reverse Maastricht" idea and comment upon it, instead of their wilful misinterpretation?
I have just posted off my postal vote. That's another one for LEAVE.
It's worse than secondary moderns for the bottom rungs.
@PCollinsTimes: If the Leave people get what they want they are then going to find out that it wasn't what they wanted. But they won't ever admit it.
But I am happy to be corrected.
To add insult to injury he didn't even say "sorry folks, not great but best I could do" , but instead decided to treat us like utter fools and pretend it was great ("I sure would"). You can't fool all the people all the time.
It's a sad state of affairs, I really only wanted a bit more compromise but we are now in a world of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse being threatened together with the slaughter of the first born if we dare to even think about stepping out of line. Well I won't be bought, or cowed. It will almost certainly cost me personally money short term, but there comes a point where being treated with contempt by those we elect is too much.
I note Texas' motto is "live free or die". Bit extreme, I'd probably be a bit more British and be "live free and feel a bit under the weather economically for a bit". But same end result.
REMAIN MPs could vote to insist on a UK referendum on any new trade arrangements to try to force remaining in the single market with freedom of movement with the EU.
I would concede that an early general election could be a good idea... to allow the parties to come up with some plans for what they would prioritize in the negotiations. Not sure how that time line works given a potential Tory leadership election also...
But once a Leave vote had been made and Cameron invoked Article 50 then it would be entirely in the hands of the Government and Parliament how that was interpreted.
@bbclaurak: Gove now claiming EU schengen (which we re not in) 'actively abets terrorism'
Will they see it through Rose tinted glasses?
Just superb.
The more that Cameron appears on the same soapbox, hand in hand with Corbynites and the hard left of Labour, flogging REMAIN, the more he is being held in contempt by both Labour and Tory supporters.
But remember folks FACT, it's a hit.
"It's not up to us to decide what happens next, it will be up to our sovereign Parliament"
"OK, EFTA/EEA is the will of Parliament..."
BETRAYAL, CALUMNY, Off with their heads !!!!!!!!!
The fact that their main proponents don't know what they want post-Leave from one day to the next, nor as we saw with M Gove, when they want to do it, doesn't detract from the main thrust of their argument: Vote Leave, Keep Foreigners Out.
Personally, and I speak as an Outer, I think it's pretty disgusting to try and claim that all Remainers would just want to hand over the Fawkland Islands to the Argentinians.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6zwW7iWinrk
Perfect.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkQlN_yWYAAoWio.jpg:large
Where are the T-shirts?
Awful figures.
Mr. Urquhart, if it doesn't improve over the series, Evans will surely be tossed overboard. Twitter seemed to like Jenson Button's presenting prowess.
History and experience shows that serious concessions are only ever made when the hand of the EU is forced.
Many 18-24 year old are immigrants.
Does YouGov check to exclude these from their surveys?
"Pro-Remain MPs are considering using their Commons majority to keep Britain inside the EU single market if there is a vote for Brexit, the BBC has learned .... The single market guarantees the free movement of goods, people, services and capital."
If it walks like an 'up yours voters," and swims like an "up yours voters," that's what it will be seen as.
'No Mottoes, Please, we're British'
And my favourite:
Dipso
Fatso
Asbo
Tesco
The show will never recover anyway and BBC has just handed the opening battle for control of the Anglosphere media world to Amazon.
Remainers world view:
Ukrainian independence: Plucky eastern Europeans wanting to get out from under the yoke of Russia.
UK Independence: A plot by a country stuffed with literally millions of Xenophobes and racists who have only accepted a few million people from overseas in recent years, the racist scum.
We've had dozens of leaks, rumours and line-up changes = none of them complimentary about him. And now the show is live, the audience still has the same opinion and leaving in droves. He was the wrong choice and remains the wrong choice.
The local joke always being that while New Hampshire's motto is Live Free or Die, neighbouring Maine is known as "Vacationland".
Top Gear spending far too much time with Star in a Reasonably Priced Car which is DULL, DULL, DULL.
Edit to add the link
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/exports
Mr. Glenn, it could. The BBC had a good presenting trio for F1, and Jenson Button appears to have gone down well (and *may* not have a drive next year).
It is simply the timing I find amusing.
Texas is "Friendship"
But he was a non-starter given his leadership rival credentials.
Have they missed it? Even if not, I wouldn't expect too many to make the deadline if it's tomorrow..
Never has the phrase "twa cheeks of the same erse" been more appropriate.
Especially when BoJo keeps quoting Eck's "best" lines at him...