Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
I agree but I don't think it's politically tenable to do nothing more about immigration.
There will need to be demonstrable benefits and controls that can be applied outwith the EU that could not within.
... if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016
Not long enough.
Leave aside the likelihood of such a result for a moment and just think about the mechanics.
The referendum is later this month; parliament will break up for the summer within a few weeks and if it's a Leave, chances are that the summer will see a Tory leadership election after the PM falls on his sword, which will delay the start of meaningful negotiations until September at the earliest. If Cameron tries to stay on then if he tries to negotiation continued membership then it'd just be a deferred leadership election amid even worse blood. Only if he were to lead negotiations based on exiting the Single Market could his position be even remotely tenable.
If the leadership election isn't declared until September - or if there's a delayed one - then there certainly won't be time to conclude even preliminary negotiations, bring a deal back to parliament, have it voted down, go through a Commons VoNC in the govt and then hold an election by mid-December.
On the other hand, if Cameron is trusted to lead negotiations - itself an unlikely double following a Remain - then there might just be time to fit in the parliamentary argy-bargy but it still requires intensive negotiations with the EU over the summer, which I suspect is also highly unlikely given both the usual annual holiday round and, more pressingly, the continuing migrants/Turkey situation that the EU also needs to handle.
Either way, negotiations are unlikely to get underway in any meaningful sense until September - and that's simply too late for the chain of events to lead to a 2016 election. It might be worth taking, say, 33+/1 against the offchance of the Conservatives imploding and losing a VoNC on some related issue but not the 10/1 on offer.
10/1 against 2017, on the other hand, is value.
I think you do a quick leadership election - get someone new in with the MP vote by end of June and member vote by the third week of July. Let them bed in and plan their negotiation strategy over the summer.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
On the Parliament post-Brexit vote question, I think some of the Remain posters here are picking and choosing elements of comments made. I am a Leave supporter who noted earlier my concern with this story. While I acknowledge we live in a representative democracy I would be concerned if Parliament seeks to ignore or delay acting on the decision of the public in a referendum. My worry is less then about Parliament negotiating the details (that is fine) but (a) to ensure that we don't have a scenario, seen in France or Ireland, where the political leadership delay and prevaricate until they facilitate a moment for another referendum to protect the recently rejected status-quo. It may not happen, but we should be cautious.(B) I also made the point that with the issue of immigration being so vocal in this campaign that it would be concerning if MPs do not respect this in negotiations. Of course, if they do ignore it we can vote those MPs out, but I think it is legitimate to raise as a concern. At no point however did I argue that Parliament did not have a role in negotiations or wasn't sovereign.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Mr. Crosby, thanks for that piece of advice, although that seems to have a feel of guilty until proven innocent about it.
Well you are, in the eyes of HMRC. And they have the force of law behind them.
But it's a pretty extreme scenario, really only something like.
Grannie: "Tommy, I've been sticking £50 notes under the mattress for the last 30 years. There's quite a lot of them now, and I'd like to give them to you."
After handing over the dosh, Grannie dies. How can Tommy prove he didn't earn the money doing some undeclared work? He can't, and HMRC (assuming they found out about the money) would be entitled to tax it and also penalize Tommy.
So you'd advise Tommy asking granny to write a note explaining the money before she croaked?
And now back to time away from PB. I thought I'd be more argumentative through lack of arguing online, but not so. Strange.
If that's awkward you can always write them a letter thanking them for the gift...
(I think that there's a threshold of £3,000 from memory below which it is deminimis anyway. It's not something I've ever really focused on though)
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
t would be a situation I would not be unhappy with. However it is not one I can vote for, because it is not being advocated by either side.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
We went over this a couple of days ago. This is the same Thatcher that said she would never have signed Maastricht
I could never have signed this treaty. I hope that that is clear to all who have heard me. The Bill will pass considerable further powers irrevocably from Westminster to Brussels, and, by extending majority voting, will undermine our age-old parliamentary and legal institutions, both far older than those in the Community. We have so much more to lose by this Maastricht Treaty than any other state in the European Community. It will diminish democracy and increase bureaucracy.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
Yes, and those people would be free to vote for UKIP in 2020. I expect if the current government and Labour don't offer anything on EU immigration in 2020 such as benefits restrictions then UKIP would do very, very well even though we would be out of the EU by then.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Top Gear = I couldn;t give a toss, life's too short camp?
Being a petrolhead in my own small way, I used to be moderately interested. However the mechanical Luddism of (specifically) Clarkson put me off. He'd practically masturbate publicly over carbon discs or a Ferrari Sport Mode button, but give him a simple engineering task and he reaches for the hammer.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
While this seems legally plausible and maybe quite sensible, it would unleash a huge amount of anti-British feeling on the continent as it would be seen as us using wrecking tactics to contrive a situation where we could have our cake and eat it. Ultimately I think it's correct that the institutions of EFTA as constituted are not fit for the purpose of managing the relationship between a country as significant as the UK on one side, and the EU on the other.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Two of my cousins have registered to vote and they didn't vote in 2015 or in the mayoral election, one is leave the other undecided.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
1.6m have registered in last 30 days.
Yes which suggests turnout over 70% which would be higher than any UK wide election since 1997
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
I hate to say it but not really my problem.
I have always been absolutely clear on here about my preference. I was hugely disappointed when the Leave campaign decided to abandon the EEA route and thought they had thrown away the whole campaign. Clearly even if they lose now I was wrong on that as they appear to have done far better than I expected on the immigration route.
But that doesn't change my basic view that the best option for the UK after Brexit is the EFTA/EEA route. I agree this may well cause problems for any post Brexit Government if there is a big groundswell against it but they will just have to take the consequences.
I am also minded that we have no idea how freedom of movement may change over the next few years. It is entirely possible it might become a non issue if things continue to deteriorate with the migrant crisis.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Times like this I like to mention it have 10 euro on UKIP most seats at 500/1
However, as EU normally doesn't figure in people's list of things to worry about, isn't it just as likely that whatever the result most public will shrug, go back to their lives and barely follow what happens next? Excepting the hard-core of Remainers and Leavers who will carry on rowing for months.
Give us a break. The number one issue for voters for months has been immigration, are you saying the EU has nothing to do with that ? The second most important was healthcare, are you seriously suggestion that 300k+ people arriving every year isn't putting a little bit of a strain on our healthcare system ? The third is currently the EU.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
The victorious faction of Leave will just dismiss the 'Take Control of our Borders' crowd as racist and crackpot. They'd be easily dispensed with, and Leave can then set about re-pointing immigration policy towards the Middle East, South America or wherever takes their fancy.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
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.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
... if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016
Not long enough.
Leave aside the likelihood of such a result for a moment and just think about the mechanics.
The referendum is later this month; parliament will break up for the summer within a few weeks and if it's a Leave, chances are that the summer will see a Tory leadership election after the PM falls on his sword, which will delay the start of meaningful negotiations until September at the earliest. If Cameron tries to stay on then if he tries to negotiation continued membership then it'd just be a deferred leadership election amid even worse blood. Only if he were to lead negotiations based on exiting the Single Market could his position be even remotely tenable.
If the leadership election isn't declared until September - or if there's a delayed one - then there certainly won't be time to conclude even preliminary negotiations, bring a deal back to parliament, have it voted down, go through a Commons VoNC in the govt and then hold an election by mid-December.
On the other hand, if Cameron is trusted to lead negotiations - itself an unlikely double following a Remain - then there might just be time to fit in the parliamentary argy-bargy but it still requires intensive negotiations with the EU over the summer, which I suspect is also highly unlikely given both the usual annual holiday round and, more pressingly, the continuing migrants/Turkey situation that the EU also needs to handle.
Either way, negotiations are unlikely to get underway in any meaningful sense until September - and that's simply too late for the chain of events to lead to a 2016 election. It might be worth taking, say, 33+/1 against the offchance of the Conservatives imploding and losing a VoNC on some related issue but not the 10/1 on offer.
10/1 against 2017, on the other hand, is value.
I think you do a quick leadership election - get someone new in with the MP vote by end of June and member vote by the third week of July. Let them bed in and plan their negotiation strategy over the summer.
Mr. Charles, do you think that the Conservative Party would be able to move that quickly?
It would seem to me that were the MPs able to get their two candidates sorted within five or six days and the membership vote organised inside three weeks or so, than there must be a lot of behind the scenes planning going on right now. I have not read of any such thing and would be suspicious of any such timetable - smacks too much of a stitch-up and one planned before the Referendum had even taken place. Mind you, it might explain why Cameron appears so desperate and so uncaring of his party.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
While this seems legally plausible and maybe quite sensible, it would unleash a huge amount of anti-British feeling on the continent as it would be seen as us using wrecking tactics to contrive a situation where we could have our cake and eat it. Ultimately I think it's correct that the institutions of EFTA as constituted are not fit for the purpose of managing the relationship between a country as significant as the UK on one side, and the EU on the other.
I disagree. They are perfectly formulated for that because they give no more weight to one country than another irrespective of size. The systems and relationships between EFTA and the EU in the EEA are clearly defined and would work perfectly well with the UK on either side.
Times like this I like to mention it have 10 euro on UKIP most seats at 500/1
I confess to a £5 at 500-1 UKIP, made last year for the next GE. It was my "fun" bet if Cameron did something very very stupid on the re-negotiation and referendum. I am amazed at his stupidity.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Two of my cousins have registered to vote and they didn't vote in 2015 or in the mayoral election, one is leave the other undecided.
Further confirmation, I think she said she was undecided but leans Remain
I think talk of 'manipulating' the result is toxic for remain - a) it appears undemocratic (regardless of whether it actually is or not) - b) it could sway the wavering EFTA preference types towards leave, when they may otherwise stick with remain. Don't see this helping their polling at all!
As to whether it is actually the right thing to do - presumably if we have a narrow leave vote (52 - 48 etc), then it could be viewed as the majority option - if nearly all Remain voters would prefer the EFTA option, and at least 10% of leave voters wanted it (assuming the rest are more immigration motivated), the majority would be satisfied.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
I'm surprised this has not been raised before.Have a look at Andrew Sparrow's blog where the legislative copy of the necessary legislation is available,it clearly states the status of this EUref is merely "advisory",so MPs still have the option NOT to take the given advice-otherwise the status would have been "first and final" to the electorate.I bow to greater knowledge and precedent in such matters.Maybe Dave's old professor at the institute of government can help us out.Is the status "advisory" or not?
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
Heath said loud and clear in the 1975 debate that it was about nation state vs post-nation state. Thatcher was on the side of shared sovereignty and it's revisionist to say otherwise.
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
1.6m have registered in last 30 days.
Yes which suggests turnout over 70% which would be higher than any UK wide election since 1997
How does registration now compare to the 46.4m registered at the GE 2015?
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.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
I suggest that the evidence from the ICM poll on declared 10/10 certainty to vote backs this up:
There is a huge difference between young and old voters: 18-24 47% 65-74 82% 75+ 86%
By contrast the differential within social class is quite limited: AB 77% C170% C2 67% DE 69%
Depends if they just include likely voters or not as other polls have but the increase in registration seems to apply to the young as much as the old even if overall still more older voters vote
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
Two of my cousins have registered to vote and they didn't vote in 2015 or in the mayoral election, one is leave the other undecided.
Further confirmation, I think she said she was undecided but leans Remain
Are you HYUFD and MaxPB one and the same person? .... It certainly appears so, reading your post.
Leave aside the likelihood of such a result for a moment and just think about the mechanics.
The referendum is later this month; parliament will break up for the summer within a few weeks and if it's a Leave, chances are that the summer will see a Tory leadership election after the PM falls on his sword, which will delay the start of meaningful negotiations until September at the earliest. If Cameron tries to stay on then if he tries to negotiation continued membership then it'd just be a deferred leadership election amid even worse blood. Only if he were to lead negotiations based on exiting the Single Market could his position be even remotely tenable.
If the leadership election isn't declared until September - or if there's a delayed one - then there certainly won't be time to conclude even preliminary negotiations, bring a deal back to parliament, have it voted down, go through a Commons VoNC in the govt and then hold an election by mid-December.
On the other hand, if Cameron is trusted to lead negotiations - itself an unlikely double following a Remain - then there might just be time to fit in the parliamentary argy-bargy but it still requires intensive negotiations with the EU over the summer, which I suspect is also highly unlikely given both the usual annual holiday round and, more pressingly, the continuing migrants/Turkey situation that the EU also needs to handle.
Either way, negotiations are unlikely to get underway in any meaningful sense until September - and that's simply too late for the chain of events to lead to a 2016 election. It might be worth taking, say, 33+/1 against the offchance of the Conservatives imploding and losing a VoNC on some related issue but not the 10/1 on offer.
10/1 against 2017, on the other hand, is value.
I think you do a quick leadership election - get someone new in with the MP vote by end of June and member vote by the third week of July. Let them bed in and plan their negotiation strategy over the summer.
It couldn't be done that quickly, logistically or morally.
Theoretically, it might be possible to compress the MPs' vote down to a week - exhaustive rounds at one-a-day, for example - but in practice, it'd be nominations over at least a week and then knockout rounds at no more than two rounds per week. You'd be looking at a process of two to three weeks.
The member vote would take much longer, not least because the ERS (or whoever runs it) would need time to do so; four weeks is probably a minimum and six weeks more likely. In any case, once you're past the end of July, you might as well take the extra month to run it properly as nothing can usually be done in August with national politicians and civil servants on holiday.
Reading the Labour blogs, I reckon Labour voters will not turnout.
Well that has always been the worry for remain by centring the whole argument on economics, it may appeal to the 38% of people who voted for the Tories in 2015 but I'm not sure how it plays for Labour voters who turned out for anti-wealth/business Miliband in 2015.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all thationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave mbership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a ty of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
While this seems legally plausible and maybe quite sensible, it would unleash a huge amount of anti-British feeling on the continent as it would be seen as us using wrecking tactics to contrive a situation where we could have our cake and eat it. Ultimately I think it's correct that the institutions of EFTA as constituted are not fit for the purpose of managing the relationship between a country as significant as the UK on one side, and the EU on the other.
I disagree. They are perfectly formulated for that because they give no more weight to one country than another irrespective of size. The systems and relationships between EFTA and the EU in the EEA are clearly defined and would work perfectly well with the UK on either side.
I think that is a theoretically possible sequence, as mentioned, if not perhaps politically.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
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
Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election
1.6m have registered in last 30 days.
Yes which suggests turnout over 70% which would be higher than any UK wide election since 1997
How does registration now compare to the 46.4m registered at the GE 2015?
It seems to be up, Opinium at the weekend had 72% certain to vote in the referendum 67% at the next general election
I'm surprised this has not been raised before.Have a look at Andrew Sparrow's blog where the legislative copy of the necessary legislation is carries out,clearly states the status of this EUref is merely "advisory" so MPs still have the option NOT to take the given advice otherwise the status would have been "first and final" to the electorate.I bow to greater knowledge and precedent in such matters.Maybe
Yes, but we have an uncodified constitution that is based on precedent. Parliament is sovereign, but will voluntarily bind itself to whatever decision the referendum comes to. To do otherwise will result in some gun powder. It's not British to renege on a commitment like that.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
The Swiss deal is experiencing real strains. The EU will never enter into such a deal again.
I'm surprised this has not been raised before.Have a look at Andrew Sparrow's blog where the legislative copy of the necessary legislation is available,it clearly states the status of this EUref is merely "advisory",so MPs still have the option NOT to take the given advice-otherwise the status would have been "first and final" to the electorate.I bow to greater knowledge and precedent in such matters.Maybe Dave's old professor at the institute of government can help us out.Is the status "advisory" or not?
That always was the case.
The question is about the politics not law. How would the electorate react to politicians that discard their views, even if they were entitled to do so, badly I would suggest.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
The ECJ has existed for a hell of a lot longer than our supreme court.
I'm surprised this has not been raised before.Have a look at Andrew Sparrow's blog where the legislative copy of the necessary legislation is available,it clearly states the status of this EUref is merely "advisory",so MPs still have the option NOT to take the given advice-otherwise the status would have been "first and final" to the electorate.I bow to greater knowledge and precedent in such matters.Maybe Dave's old professor at the institute of government can help us out.Is the status "advisory" or not?
It doesn't matter because it would electoral suicide for the government to reject the outcome of the referendum (the backbenches or opposition MPs, not so much).
I read posts here and am a bit dismayed that some miss the point. It is not about racism, or the economy, or roaming charges.
Europe just hasnt made a case for the EU. Aside from geography, what made Europe "Europe", is the people were historically, ethnically "European", Christian & Democratic. I dont think anyone believes that those 3 are relevant to the EU.
Leave is about Democracy. It is also about the UK.
Should British People control their destiny? Is the UK a significant country, with a great people, culture & history?
Arguing about the economy is irrelevant. You may as well tell grown children they must live at home forever and have decisions made for them, because they are not capable of standing on their own 2 feet.
On Indian independence, I think Gandhi said something like yes, we will have problems, but they will be OUR problems.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
As @DavidL has pointed out, if you are going to have the Single Market, via whatever mechanism, you need the ECJ.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a ty of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
While this seems legally plausible and maybe quite sensible, it would unleash a huge amount of anti-British feeling on the continent as it would be seen as us using wrecking tactics to contrive a situation where we could have our cake and eat it. Ultimately I think it's correct that the institutions of EFTA as constituted are not fit for the purpose of managing the relationship between a country as significant as the UK on one side, and the EU on the other.
I disagree. They are perfectly formulated for that because they give no more weight to one country than another irrespective of size. The systems and relationships between EFTA and the EU in the EEA are clearly defined and would work perfectly well with the UK on either side.
I think that is a theoretically possible sequence, as mentioned, if not perhaps politically.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
The reason I think they would go for a Norway deal in the Commission and the Council is that they need an economic shock like a hole in the head. But they cannot cede on FoM, or that will be the end of the project.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.
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.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
Heath said loud and clear in the 1975 debate that it was about nation state vs post-nation state. Thatcher was on the side of shared sovereignty and it's revisionist to say otherwise.
Quite right. It's one of Leave's darkest myths that Ted intentionally deceived people. Ted made it abundantly clear that an element of sovereignty was at stake. Ted was nothing if not wholly transparent..
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
The ECJ has existed for a hell of a lot longer than our supreme court.
Our Supreme Court is the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary moved to a different building. The Law Lords were first constituted under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, so might just edge out the ECJ by a year or two.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
Heath said loud and clear in the 1975 debate that it was about nation state vs post-nation state. Thatcher was on the side of shared sovereignty and it's revisionist to say otherwise.
And yet she would never have signed Maastricht which was the founding of the political union and shared political sovereignty. The single market shares trade sovereignty and creates a single EU standard for goods. The EU pre and post Maastricht are two very different propositions, I would be massively in favour of returning to a pre-Maastricht arrangement for the whole EU and slowly eliminating CAP subsidies and shifting the burden of agricultural subsidies to national budgets rather than the EU budget.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.
But the ECJ opines on the single market. The EFTA court opines on matters as they affect EFTA states. ECJ says widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick, widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
As @DavidL has pointed out, if you are going to have the Single Market, via whatever mechanism, you need the ECJ.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
A most interesting post - one I as an expat could probably live with. Is it likely?
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
As @DavidL has pointed out, if you are going to have the Single Market, via whatever mechanism, you need the ECJ.
Or the EFTA Court.
As mentioned above, once EU laws have been included in the EEA Agreement, then the EFTA court opines as it affects EEA members. But the EU laws are formulated under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Given that Mrs Thatcher was vigorously campaigning for the UK's membership of the (then) EEC just 4 years before she came to power, you could argue that EU membership is part and parcel of her legacy.
Yes, joining the EEC, a trading area. Without wanting to get into the whole WWMD, we can really only conclude that she wanted a free trading arrangement with the EEC nations, beyond that it isn't easy to say what she would have done. As a Tory, I'm not surprised by this view, on the contrary, I'm in favour of it and would support EFTA/EEA membership if we vote to leave. To say, as some Tories have been, that our economic resurgence during the 80s and 90s was down to our membership of the EEC/EU and not down to domestic factors such as those brought in by Mrs Thatcher is hugely revisionist. I'm surprised that so many Tories are willing to sacrifice that at the altar of the the EU, as I said, it seems nothing is sacred to EUphiles.
She was hugely in favour of the Single European Act, which she as a massive advocate for. It was an economic decision, but the enforcement of uninhibited trade around the single market required a significant transfer of authority from member states to the EU and the ECJ.
Again, that's really just trade though. Since then the ECJ has morphed into a court more powerful than our own Supreme Court.
The ECJ has existed for a hell of a lot longer than our supreme court.
Fine, High Court, Law Lords whatever you want to call them.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No be
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
That is a reasonable potential sequence.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
But that doesn't change my basic view that the best option for the UK after Brexit is the EFTA/EEA route. I agree this may well cause problems for any post Brexit Government if there is a big groundswell against it but they will just have to take the consequences.
I am also minded that we have no idea how freedom of movement may change over the next few years. It is entirely possible it might become a non issue if things continue to deteriorate with the migrant crisis.
I dont think ive ever spoke to someone who doesnt want to be in a free trade relationship with the EU.... Selling our membership of the EEA (or a series of bilateral agreements) wouldnt be too difficult. The difficulty would be the necessary free movement of people that such an agreement would almost certainly require.
It might reduce some of the pull factors to the UK though, but im sure a rise in youth unemployment to the EU average would have a similar impact.
I think that is a theoretically possible sequence, as mentioned, if not perhaps politically.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
The EU would have no choice but to accede. As I said we are already independent signatories to the EEA agreement and the only issue would be whether or not we would be accepted into EFTA. That decision would rest entirely with EFTA not with the EU.
Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.
But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.
.That's an interesting post. I don't think you can talk about 'this country' anymore as a homogeneous entity. Laura Kuenssberg or similar went to a bingo hall in Preston and asked for a show of hands which way they would vote.
It was unanimous for Leave. She then asked individuals why and every reply she got was racist. There's not much anyone can do to modernise these elderly Bingo players in Preston but surely we can hope for better from our politicians than they set out to appeal to these prejudices
Of course your definition of "racist" includes believing there are too many Eastern European immigrants just now.
I (and millions more) contend that one can hold that view without being a racist.
I read posts here and am a bit dismayed that some miss the point. It is not about racism, or the economy, or roaming charges.
Europe just hasnt made a case for the EU. Aside from geography, what made Europe "Europe", is the people were historically, ethnically "European", Christian & Democratic. I dont think anyone believes that those 3 are relevant to the EU.
Leave is about Democracy. It is also about the UK.
Should British People control their destiny? Is the UK a significant country, with a great people, culture & history?
Arguing about the economy is irrelevant. You may as well tell grown children they must live at home forever and have decisions made for them, because they are not capable of standing on their own 2 feet.
On Indian independence, I think Gandhi said something like yes, we will have problems, but they will be OUR problems.
ps. Thanks for the welcome
Boris' speech today is all about the price/value we place on democracy. I thought he was very compelling, but it's my tickling point.
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.
But the ECJ opines on the single market. The EFTA court opines on matters as they affect EFTA. ECJ says widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick, widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick.
When the ECJ opines on the other 93% of EU Law that doesn't affect trade, we won't care, it would be nothing to do with us.
I think that is a theoretically possible sequence, as mentioned, if not perhaps politically.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
The EU would have no choice but to accede.
This is where in the long term you will just create a poisonous relationship which will do us no good.
Just trying to imagine the scenes in Downing Street this morning, and over at BSE HQ.
Incredibly relaxed.
@MrHarryCole: Asked Boris to explain fall in £ after leave poll lead. "The pound will go where it will in the short term". Concession of short term pain
Just trying to imagine the scenes in Downing Street this morning, and over at BSE HQ.
Well the fact that these kinds of ideas are leaking out must mean it is utter panic at the moment. I got a call from CCO about 30 minutes ago, I'm not sure why. I'm already campaigning in Tooting.
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.
I'm sure that's what Leave would like to happen if they could get away with it but I don't think the country is going to swallow it.
So, we persuaded/conned the voters (take your pick) into voting Leave now it's up to you guys to sort it out, nothing to do with us guv. Nice try. O, and in addition we'll blame every negative consequence of Brexit on what you negotiated, again, nothing to do with us guv.
I doubt the Remain politicians are going to fall for it.
I 'm pretty certain Leave are going to accept a FoM deal and throw the angry anti-immigration Kippers overboard after using them as cannon fodder. Nobody on the Remain side is going to be stupid enough to do their dirty work for them.
"If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market."
Comply with standards to sell into the market, I agree. But subject to the ECJ, I do not think so. Are Japan, Korea, China, to name but three whose products I see around me as I type, compelled to be bound by the ECJ or to accept free movement of people etc. in order to sell their products in Europe?
Once again at lunch yesterday I served an excellent and reasonably priced wine from New Zealand. The wine makers from NZ, Australia, Chile, South Africa seem to be able to trade quite happily with the EU countries, but none of those Nations are members of the single market.
All these stories about how we have to remain members of the single market, do not really seem to hold water.
Any MP tempted to be a bit cute and over-ride a Referendum result for Brexit would do well to remember the Winchester by-election result. Mark Oaten was originally declared the winner by two votes, only to have that overturned by an election petition. He went on to win at the ensuing by-election with a majority of 21,556....
Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.
no contradiction at all, no siree.
A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.
The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.
The electorate might be another matter of course.
Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.
The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..
And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.
So we are back where we started.
No because we will be outside of the EU.
Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.
That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.
A most interesting post - one I as an expat could probably live with. Is it likely?
I would suggest it is extremely likely. Assuming the polls are even slightly correct and we are heading for a very tight result, if you add together the Remain numbers with the Leave/EEA supporters I would suggest there is a substantial majority in favour of such a solution both in Parliament and in the country as a whole.
When the ECJ opines on the other 93% of EU Law that doesn't affect trade, we won't care, it would be nothing to do with us.
Indeed, the EFTA court would never be able to force us to give votes to prisoners, for example and neither would it stop is fr deporting non-citizens convicted of terrorist offences.
Any MP tempted to be a bit cute and over-ride a Referendum result for Brexit would do well to remember the Winchester by-election result. Mark Oaten was originally declared the winner by two votes, only to have that overturned by an election petition. He went on to win at the ensuing by-election with a majority of 21,556....
Yeah, he dumped all over those petitioners. (sorry...)
Any MP tempted to be a bit cute and over-ride a Referendum result for Brexit would do well to remember the Winchester by-election result. Mark Oaten was originally declared the winner by two votes, only to have that overturned by an election petition. He went on to win at the ensuing by-election with a majority of 21,556....
I think that is a theoretically possible sequence, as mentioned, if not perhaps politically.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
The EU would have no choice but to accede. As I said we are already independent signatories to the EEA agreement and the only issue would be whether or not we would be accepted into EFTA. That decision would rest entirely with EFTA not with the EU.
Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.
But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.
And back to my earlier point also: suppose they do ignore the will of the electorate, delight you, and join EEA (as mentioned, I have quite a good source that the EU doesn't like this but that is irrelevant to our discussion).
There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.
But the ECJ opines on the single market. The EFTA court opines on matters as they affect EFTA. ECJ says widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick, widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick.
Actually, the ECJ rarely opines on anything to do with trade standards at all. Most product standards are now moving upstream to the global bodies. As more and more of this occurs (under the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement), then it becomes more pronounced. The EU simply rubber stamps a lot of it, from Basel to Codex, and puts it into law. A lot they don't even codify themselves, there is just an ISO reference to be followed, such as in many grocery items such as quality standards for bananas (an old favourite).
Also, the procedure for adopting such rules (where they are written at EU level or adapted) includes an EFTA stage before any EU legislative process begins - so they thrash it out first, therefore reducing the opportunity for conflict at an EEA treaty level, and causing a crisis which requires part of the deal to be suspended.
But the ECJ opines on the single market. The EFTA court opines on matters as they affect EFTA states. ECJ says widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick, widgets must be 1.4 scrims thick.
The ECJ never says anything of the sort. Such decisions are made by both EFTA and EU members in the development of regulations related to the single market. In addition most of these decisions related to trade are no longer even made at the EU/EEA level but are made by organisations that sit above the EU at an international level. Organisations where the EU has our vote but the EFTA members have individual votes.
Just trying to imagine the scenes in Downing Street this morning, and over at BSE HQ.
Incredibly relaxed.
@MrHarryCole: Asked Boris to explain fall in £ after leave poll lead. "The pound will go where it will in the short term". Concession of short term pain
Haven't you notice that for a lot of leave inclined voters it isnt actually about money, pretty much everyone expects its not going to be completely plain sailing, pretty much everyone accept there will be a small to moderate hit on the economy for a year or two. Pretty much nobody believe the talk of armageddon, they just want their country back, so they can elect people to do things, and kick them out when they do it badly, without endless excuses about how they can't do something because it's against EU law.
On item which cuts across the electorate from left to right is the ban on state aid, the electorate just doesn't understand why the British government can't help British companies, and can't invest in new industries and plant without France running off to the Commission and complaining. The public understand that places like Port Talbot steel are dinosaurs and uneconomical, they don't understand why the government can't pump in money to start new industries for the locals.
"If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market."
Comply with standards to sell into the market, I agree. But subject to the ECJ, I do not think so. Are Japan, Korea, China, to name but three whose products I see around me as I type, compelled to be bound by the ECJ or to accept free movement of people etc. in order to sell their products in Europe?
Once again at lunch yesterday I served an excellent and reasonably priced wine from New Zealand. The wine makers from NZ, Australia, Chile, South Africa seem to be able to trade quite happily with the EU countries, but none of those Nations are members of the single market.
All these stories about how we have to remain members of the single market, do not really seem to hold water.
We benefit from being a member of the single market, speaking as someone who is a eurosceptic. It facilitates the free movement of goods and services. Without the jurisdiction of the ECJ you will find all kinds of petty bureaucratic processes put in place that make trade difficult than it is now.
Comments
There will need to be demonstrable benefits and controls that can be applied outwith the EU that could not within.
But you leave the Take Control of our Borders people high and dry...It would certainly be "brave".
On the Parliament post-Brexit vote question, I think some of the Remain posters here are picking and choosing elements of comments made. I am a Leave supporter who noted earlier my concern with this story. While I acknowledge we live in a representative democracy I would be concerned if Parliament seeks to ignore or delay acting on the decision of the public in a referendum. My worry is less then about Parliament negotiating the details (that is fine) but (a) to ensure that we don't have a scenario, seen in France or Ireland, where the political leadership delay and prevaricate until they facilitate a moment for another referendum to protect the recently rejected status-quo. It may not happen, but we should be cautious.(B) I also made the point that with the issue of immigration being so vocal in this campaign that it would be concerning if MPs do not respect this in negotiations. Of course, if they do ignore it we can vote those MPs out, but I think it is legitimate to raise as a concern. At no point however did I argue that Parliament did not have a role in negotiations or wasn't sovereign.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108314 (7 June, 1993)
Plus they never do motorbikes.
I have always been absolutely clear on here about my preference. I was hugely disappointed when the Leave campaign decided to abandon the EEA route and thought they had thrown away the whole campaign. Clearly even if they lose now I was wrong on that as they appear to have done far better than I expected on the immigration route.
But that doesn't change my basic view that the best option for the UK after Brexit is the EFTA/EEA route. I agree this may well cause problems for any post Brexit Government if there is a big groundswell against it but they will just have to take the consequences.
I am also minded that we have no idea how freedom of movement may change over the next few years. It is entirely possible it might become a non issue if things continue to deteriorate with the migrant crisis.
Hilary tonight
Despite Trump's remarks I doubt he really cares either way.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3736/Economist-Ipsos-MORI-May-2016-Issues-Index.aspx
There is a huge difference between young and old voters:
18-24 47%
65-74 82%
75+ 86%
By contrast the differential within social class is quite limited:
AB 77%
C170%
C2 67%
DE 69%
It would seem to me that were the MPs able to get their two candidates sorted within five or six days and the membership vote organised inside three weeks or so, than there must be a lot of behind the scenes planning going on right now. I have not read of any such thing and would be suspicious of any such timetable - smacks too much of a stitch-up and one planned before the Referendum had even taken place. Mind you, it might explain why Cameron appears so desperate and so uncaring of his party.
As to whether it is actually the right thing to do - presumably if we have a narrow leave vote (52 - 48 etc), then it could be viewed as the majority option - if nearly all Remain voters would prefer the EFTA option, and at least 10% of leave voters wanted it (assuming the rest are more immigration motivated), the majority would be satisfied.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36459451
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.
Theoretically, it might be possible to compress the MPs' vote down to a week - exhaustive rounds at one-a-day, for example - but in practice, it'd be nominations over at least a week and then knockout rounds at no more than two rounds per week. You'd be looking at a process of two to three weeks.
The member vote would take much longer, not least because the ERS (or whoever runs it) would need time to do so; four weeks is probably a minimum and six weeks more likely. In any case, once you're past the end of July, you might as well take the extra month to run it properly as nothing can usually be done in August with national politicians and civil servants on holiday.
As you are aware, I am not sure the EU would accede to our assumption of Norway status but I'm sure once we are facing them across the table that would be in play.
I still maintain that apart from our supposed ability to veto EU law if we want, I think we are in a better position inside the EU than outside it, as the fact would remain that we would have little input into the rules that governed nearly half of our exports.
Also, of course, as @TheWhiteRabbit has pointed out, the option you suggest is not available as it stands and VLTC have resolutely refused to make it available, on account, we would all assume, of immigration. And back to square one with immigration and the will of the people, while appreciating it is not your problem..
The question is about the politics not law. How would the electorate react to politicians that discard their views, even if they were entitled to do so, badly I would suggest.
Europe just hasnt made a case for the EU. Aside from geography, what made Europe "Europe", is the people were historically, ethnically "European", Christian & Democratic. I dont think anyone believes that those 3 are relevant to the EU.
Leave is about Democracy. It is also about the UK.
Should British People control their destiny? Is the UK a significant country, with a great people, culture & history?
Arguing about the economy is irrelevant. You may as well tell grown children they must live at home forever and have decisions made for them, because they are not capable of standing on their own 2 feet.
On Indian independence, I think Gandhi said something like yes, we will have problems, but they will be OUR problems.
ps. Thanks for the welcome
And no Ipsos Mori phone poll this week either.
The latter should be out next Tues/Wed
It might reduce some of the pull factors to the UK though, but im sure a rise in youth unemployment to the EU average would have a similar impact.
Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.
But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.
Of course your definition of "racist" includes believing there are too many Eastern European immigrants just now.
I (and millions more) contend that one can hold that view without being a racist.
No phone polls this week to come at all?
@MrHarryCole: Asked Boris to explain fall in £ after leave poll lead. "The pound will go where it will in the short term". Concession of short term pain
There maybe a ComRes phone poll but I've not had it confirmed either way.
So, we persuaded/conned the voters (take your pick) into voting Leave now it's up to you guys to sort it out, nothing to do with us guv. Nice try. O, and in addition we'll blame every negative consequence of Brexit on what you negotiated, again, nothing to do with us guv.
I doubt the Remain politicians are going to fall for it.
I 'm pretty certain Leave are going to accept a FoM deal and throw the angry anti-immigration Kippers overboard after using them as cannon fodder. Nobody on the Remain side is going to be stupid enough to do their dirty work for them.
"If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.
I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market."
Comply with standards to sell into the market, I agree. But subject to the ECJ, I do not think so. Are Japan, Korea, China, to name but three whose products I see around me as I type, compelled to be bound by the ECJ or to accept free movement of people etc. in order to sell their products in Europe?
Once again at lunch yesterday I served an excellent and reasonably priced wine from New Zealand. The wine makers from NZ, Australia, Chile, South Africa seem to be able to trade quite happily with the EU countries, but none of those Nations are members of the single market.
All these stories about how we have to remain members of the single market, do not really seem to hold water.
(sorry...)
There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.
Also, the procedure for adopting such rules (where they are written at EU level or adapted) includes an EFTA stage before any EU legislative process begins - so they thrash it out first, therefore reducing the opportunity for conflict at an EEA treaty level, and causing a crisis which requires part of the deal to be suspended.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/739796532422148096
On item which cuts across the electorate from left to right is the ban on state aid, the electorate just doesn't understand why the British government can't help British companies, and can't invest in new industries and plant without France running off to the Commission and complaining. The public understand that places like Port Talbot steel are dinosaurs and uneconomical, they don't understand why the government can't pump in money to start new industries for the locals.