Said by someone who has had enough of Cameron (and Osborne). Not said by every Brixeter and not said by myself. Besides win or lose implies that Cameron leaving is not conditional upon the result.
Besides win or lose Cameron WILL go. You know how I know that? Because CAMERON HAS ANNOUNCED HE WILL GO. Are you so myopic you have forgotten that?
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The 21st century USA is far more concerned with the Pacific than the Atlantic. Our relationship with the US is diminished for reasons outwith the UK's control.
The USA has been losing patience with Europe over the collective failure to meet NATO defence spending commitments for years. We've been a useful stick to beat the Euros with, and a decent punch-above-its-weight intelligence partner. That's about it.
Does anybody have a list of what councils/areas are likely to declare first. Always feel these give a good betting opportunity as they tend to panic people. If it's going to be the likes of Basildon, Bassetlaw and Sunderland then feels like a good time to buy leave now and sell once these results are in.
Sunderland - needs leave to be 53-47 for it to be a thai on Chris Hanretty's model.
53%+ means Leave love you long time?
I worked out some figures based on the 2015 election and the forecast (based on opinion as to likelihood to vote) came out as a statistical tie. It depended on Labour voters being heavily for Remain though and from what has been reported, that seems less likely to be as heavy as previously expected.
Remain can win this in a simple statement. "Vote Remain or the price of your cigs and beer will go up a lot." - Panem et circences
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
I've seen comments elsewhere from several men saying WTF? And a load of others who found Rudd 'scary'.
And tons referring to Team Remain as mean girls or Macbeth's three witches. Whatever the strategy - it's not winning many friends.
The views re Leadsom/Gisela seem universal. And that Boris was more measured than most of us would be after the torrent of abuse.
Personalised attacks on Boris Johnson are a sign of Remain losing the plot. Boris is a popular figure.
That's pretty awful revisionism. The term 'Remain' has come to refer to this EU referendum and there is no certainty which way Maggie would have voted given the current set of circumstances in the EU. I, personally, think she would have been strongly for Leave but it's an opinion. Stating that Maggie was for Remain needs to be called out.
She campaigned strongly for In when she was Conservative Party Leader, and forced through the Single Market.
I agree that when she lost power and developed dementia she became more eurosceptic!
You're digging a (fox) hole for yourself here.
First, the EU is unrecognisable now from how it was back then and Second, I'm sorry, but to attribute euroscepticism to dementia is beneath both you and this site. Is this how low you have stooped or is it because Remain are in trouble?
If this post is indicative of the attitude were going to see if Leave win, then the UK is going to be a very unpleasant place indeed.
The unpleasantness on here isn't from Leavers. It's the typical mad, bad, or sad labelling we are used to every day of the week.
You are losing the argument.
Quislings, traitors, haters of the WWC, the establishment elite, liars and so on. The idea that Remainers are not being attacked personally and viciously is far-fetched to say the least. This has been a deeply unpleasant few weeks.
I do agree, though, that Remain has lost the argument. Of course, that does not mean that Remain is wrong. Let's just hope that turns out to be the case. If it isn't a lot of ordinary people are going to pay a very heavy price.
Good post, although I sincerely hope that Remain will come back in the next week or so.
Can't see it myself. I've always thought Leave would win and still do. I hope I am wrong, though. Having away from the country for a week and having spent a lot of that time speaking to Europeans and Yanks, I don't think many people outside the UK seriously believe Brexit will happen. That worries me greatly as that may trigger an even more pronounced adverse reaction when it does. I am just praying that the Leave side have really seen things I genuinely can't. We really need them to be right here; we really do.
Chill. You yourself have said you could live with EEA-EFTA, and could even see yourself wanting it. MPs have made it pretty clear what they'll do in the event of a Leave vote. Hannan has made it clear that the real-politik of a narrow Leave vote would require a slow and steady disengagement through the EEA, as a lot of people will still have voted for the single market.
So relax.
But that means keeping free movement surely so what is the gain apart from not being involved at the table?
Being out of political union and being at more tables where we're currently "represented" by the EU.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
The Tory Remainers seem to have lost the plot. This no longer seems to be about getting the people to vote to Remain, but for Cameron and Osborne is now solely about "STOP BORIS!". Losing their own self-respect doesn't seem to matter.
Whereas Tory Brexiteers whose sole aim is to destroy the most successful leader in decades are models of sanity?
Check your mote...
He hasn't needed any help from us to destroy himself.
Dave had the choice to either stay on the sidelines, or to play with a straight bat with polite debate on the issues against mainly his own side. He decided to make it irrational and personal, which is why he's toast in two weeks' time.
Had Dave taken a regal position and said he was focussing on running the country and would stay above the fray he could have retired in style with his reputation far higher.
He thought it was going to be an easy win - its a terrible miscalculation.
When is "Le Vow" coming out ?
Agreed about Dave. Hugely disappointing.
"Le Vow" would be absolutely hilarious if they tried it. The situation in Scotland was wery different, no-one except perhaps Nick Glegg thinks of themselves as European and everyone knows we are a massive net contributor, it would guarantee a 60:40 vote for Leave. Go on Junker, do it!
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
A Britain outside the EU will hold 100% of the power and influence of the fifth largest economy, seventh largest export market and fourth largest military in the world.
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
One of the significant factors in the Scottish referendum was the appearance of people who would not normally vote. How many of the third of the population who don't usually bother are going to turn out? Do the polling companies, so used to polling for elections, have a good handle on this. I have to say as a remainer I'm very worried 'the great ignored' might swing this against us.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
You seem to be under the delusion that Britain runs the EU. It doesn't. Britain leaving the EU will make UK/US relations stronger, smoother and more specific.
I think there is a tendency to dramatically over-estimate the chances of Sarkozy being the Les Republicains candidate next year. In particular, there is a view that (a) because he created Les Republicains then he's in poll position to be their Presidential candidate, and (b) that he might run as independent if not the nominee.
The Les Republicains are running an open primary on 20 November. If no candidate gets 50% of the vote, there will be a run-off a week later. There are a dozen potential candidates, but the real choice boils down to one of about three: Sarkozy (who has not actually announced he is standing), Juppe (who has announced), Le Marie and Fillon.
There has been very extensive polling, and it looks like Juppe will score around 40% in the first round, about 15% clear of Sarkozy. The polls have been pretty static for around a year (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republicans_(France)_presidential_primary,_2016#First_Round). It's very hard to see - absent a major scandal - any result other than Juppe first, Sarkozy second in the first round.
In the second round, Juppe absolutely thumps Sarkozy. The smallest lead Juppe has racked up this year was 18%, and most polls put his advantage at 25% or more.
Indeed, one of the reasons that Sarkozy has not even declared himself as a candidate is because he doesn't want to get hammered by Juppe. (My friends in France suggest a deal is possible where Sarkozy becomes PM under Juppe.)
What does this mean for the Presidential election?
The answer is that it means President Juppe. The Ipsos poll from May 22 had Juppe leading Le Pen 35% to 28% in the first round; BVA two weeks earlier had him on 38% to her 25%.
The second round polls show him beating her by 2:1 or more. The latest poll had the result as 70:30.
Juppe's odds are significantly longer with the bookmakers (888, Unibet and 32Red) than with Betfair. You can get 6/4. Take it.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
A Britain outside the EU will hold 100% of the power and influence of the fifth largest economy, seventh largest export market and fourth largest military in the world.
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
This is not how international diplomacy works, but Brexit is an emotion-led campaign, so I'm sure there's very little point in trying to convince you.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
"Infinitely smaller interest" sounds great. What a great day it will be if the US shuts down its bases in Britain, if Britain leaves NATO, and if the British government stops spending billions of pounds each year, and sacrificing hundreds of British soldiers' lives, in wars fought on behalf of the US that as well as being unnecessary and slaughtering thousands of civilians, can't be won, such as in Helmand in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The "special relationship" with the US, as the protectorate is termed, costs Britain loads, for eff-all benefits.
I'm increasingly confident turnout will be high. I think turnout percentage is most likely in the 60s but its more likely to be in the 70s than the 50s.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
You seem to be under the delusion that Britain runs the EU. It doesn't. Britain leaving the EU will make UK/US relations stronger, smoother and more specific.
It might make the relationship a little easier but I'm not sure why it would be stronger. The US wants partners who enhance its own interests. They feel outside the EU we'd be less likely to do this. They will inevitably be less concerned about us.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
A Britain outside the EU will hold 100% of the power and influence of the fifth largest economy, seventh largest export market and fourth largest military in the world.
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
This is not how international diplomacy works, but Brexit is an emotion-led campaign, so I'm sure there's very little point in trying to convince you.
Absolutely it is how international diplomacy works. International diplomacy works by adapting to the world as it is, not how you wish it was ... then trying to mould it to be more like how you want it to be and less like how you don't want it to be. It is called realpolitik and America in particular is heavily invested into realpolitik.
On June 24th senior Americans will see what our result is and adapt their thinking accordingly.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
A Britain outside the EU will hold 100% of the power and influence of the fifth largest economy, seventh largest export market and fourth largest military in the world.
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
This is not how international diplomacy works, but Brexit is an emotion-led campaign, so I'm sure there's very little point in trying to convince you.
@TimT2 - a regular poster here was a diplomat for several years - he's a Brit now living in the US. He's for Brexit. Well worth asking him for a view when he's around.
Le Vow, whatever it was, would be a huge laughing stock . The Vow was a desperate piece of flummery that Gordon Brown pulled out of his arse to appease wavering Jocks and which Cameron inexplicably decided to support. But...it was a promise that a UK PM and his government could deliver on. They had the legal powers to do so.
There is precisely zero power that Dave has to promise anything at all with respect the to EU. We knew that before he went off for his sham 'negotiations'. Le Vow would be the emptiest and most nakedly laughable piece of political ordure in political history.
The Vow was a piece of shit. But a solid piece of shit. Le Vow would be nothing more than Dave's brainfart. A stinking miasma of nothingness.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Sir Ian McKellen speaks for the whole gay community
What a silly comment - he 's entitled to his view.
Of course he's entitled to his view, but its hubristic and all but discriminatory to pretend to speak for all gays and insist all gays must think the same thing.
If any non-gay in any other walk of life pretended that "all gays think xyz" then Sir Ian McKellen would be one of the first to call that out as wrong.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Cameron has praised Rudd on her performance last night. I would be very surprised if the 50 letters weren't delivered on the 24th June. Cameron's behaviour has been quite disgraceful.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
Can you link to any evidence for that, it might prove useful later.
The issue over immigration in Labour's heartlands is often one of 'Fairness'. People feel that they are being undercut in the workplace, pushed down the list in public services.
At the same time, post Brexit, Freedom of Movement will not significantly alter, because we won;t leave the Single Market. So we will have to deal with the feeling that fairness has been lost somehow in the system.
So the only way to do this is by re addressing the role of the state, and especially the welfare state, in the life of the nation. An element of this will almost certainly be a realignment around a contributory system - so that welfare becomes a social insurance policy (as I think its founders envisaged).
Labour has a particular advantage here, because it can talk about welfare in a way that the Tories can't, and also has the most to gain in terms of re aligning its own core with the post Brexit settlement, especially Leave voters who have defected to UKIP in recent years.
A system with benefits received more based on NI contributions but still a basic minimum though Corbyn us unlikely to do it
After a Leave vote, I rather expect to see the Parliamentary Labour party shake itself down and reassert itself. Corbyn is unelectable, and 2020 will be all to play for if we Leave.
It's potentially a Clement Atlee moment - there will be an opportunity to create a political consensus around a new system that breaks across the political divide, simply because it unites enough of the middle ground thinkers.
I think you're right - but for me to not vote Tory would be a step too far. I'd abstain unless the Tories were for staying with the EEA level of detatchment and no further.
I'm increasingly confident turnout will be high. I think turnout percentage is most likely in the 60s but its more likely to be in the 70s than the 50s.
Not sure who that helps.
It will only be high if lots of people come out to actively vote *for* the EU.
Based upon the optics, so far, I'm not convinced that's happening, but I could be wrong.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
Competency in English is very high too amongst EU migrants. We also have quite a demand for skilled occupations, hence the high employment rates of EU migrants, but lots of low skilled employment too, that native Brits are reluctant to do.
I cannot see immigration being much different after Leave.
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
Mr. Britain, emotions play a role on both sides but, personally, matters of governance and accountability are the foundation of my probable Leave vote.
Cameron has just said Brexit would put HS2 at serious risk. Bang goes a load of AB Remain voters in the Chilterns.
Ha ha ha - the list of reasons to leave gets longer every day
HS2 is an extraordinarily crap project, costing what it does. Even for free it'd be a bit meh
HS2 has always been hugely unambitious. Of course it should have joined with HS1. And with LHR. We should have paid off all the landowners and have spades in the ground by now from London to Glasgow. This is what every other country in the world does! Same goes for the LHR expansion, but even more so.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Sir Ian McKellen speaks for the whole gay community
What a silly comment - he 's entitled to his view.
Of course he's entitled to his view, but its hubristic and all but discriminatory to pretend to speak for all gays and insist all gays must think the same thing.
If any non-gay in any other walk of life pretended that "all gays think xyz" then Sir Ian McKellen would be one of the first to call that out as wrong.
I imagine that gay people will vote much the same way as heterosexuals in this Referendum.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
Although if he is driving you home, presumably it's because you secretly quite like him...
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
A Britain outside the EU will hold 100% of the power and influence of the fifth largest economy, seventh largest export market and fourth largest military in the world.
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
This is not how international diplomacy works, but Brexit is an emotion-led campaign, so I'm sure there's very little point in trying to convince you.
Absolutely it is how international diplomacy works. International diplomacy works by adapting to the world as it is, not how you wish it was ... then trying to mould it to be more like how you want it to be and less like how you don't want it to be. It is called realpolitik and America in particular is heavily invested into realpolitik.
On June 24th senior Americans will see what our result is and adapt their thinking accordingly.
Gold standard, Bretton-Woods, Brexit..?
Now and again, the established basis of the international order changes. No-one likes it (it means change and hard work) but we all adapt, and carry on.
The difference is that this time the change may (may) be driven by a vote rather than international economic forces. Which will probably be viewed as indulgent and insolent by the great and the good.
As somebody who aligns myself more with the nihilists in the Big Lebowski than with any sophisticated political types, I'm actually looking forward to the next two weeks.
I hope it gets really dirty.
My advice to Brexit would be to pincer remain with the unlimited immigration angle along with a passionate drive to rally the working classes (who've been screwed by suppressed wages this past decade).
I still thing Remain will win but given that I've spoken to hardly a soul who's voting for Remain there's a scintilla of confidence there that we can walk off into the sunlit uplands on June 24th.
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
I'd be in favour of a fast train line up both coasts and west of London.
The issue over immigration in Labour's heartlands is often one of 'Fairness'. People feel that they are being undercut in the workplace, pushed down the list in public services.
At the same time, post Brexit, Freedom of Movement will not significantly alter, because we won;t leave the Single Market. So we will have to deal with the feeling that fairness has been lost somehow in the system.
So the only way to do this is by re addressing the role of the state, and especially the welfare state, in the life of the nation. An element of this will almost certainly be a realignment around a contributory system - so that welfare becomes a social insurance policy (as I think its founders envisaged).
Labour has a particular advantage here, because it can talk about welfare in a way that the Tories can't, and also has the most to gain in terms of re aligning its own core with the post Brexit settlement, especially Leave voters who have defected to UKIP in recent years.
A system with benefits received more based on NI contributions but still a basic minimum though Corbyn us unlikely to do it
After a Leave vote, I rather expect to see the Parliamentary Labour party shake itself down and reassert itself. Corbyn is unelectable, and 2020 will be all to play for if we Leave.
It's potentially a Clement Atlee moment - there will be an opportunity to create a political consensus around a new system that breaks across the political divide, simply because it unites enough of the middle ground thinkers.
I think you're right - but for me to not vote Tory would be a step too far. I'd abstain unless the Tories were for staying with the EEA level of detatchment and no further.
I was once a Tory voter, but now I'm not so sure that they have a purpose. There is a need for a centrist economically liberal party, which is also not authoritarian in nature. I'm not sure the Tories will ever get there. I doubt I will vote Labour unless it changes radically. For two decades, I have felt largely unrepresented and held my nose. No longer I suspect.
"62% of migrants from western Europe have a university degree"
Bulgaria, Poland, the Baltic states and Romania aren't in Western Europe. The "western Europe" in that survey meant the A15 countries, i.e. the 14 members of the EU outside of Britain before 10 countries joined in May 2004:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
"So would Brexit be good for the Jews? Let’s put it this way. It would give Europe and the West a fighting chance against those waging war on the entire Judeo-Christian world. All that remains is for Britain and Europe to see it."
Cameron has praised Rudd on her performance last night. I would be very surprised if the 50 letters weren't delivered on the 24th June. Cameron's behaviour has been quite disgraceful.
Is that 50 letters if Remain win? As he isn't waiting around to receive letters to announce intent to resign if Leave win.
I still think if Remain win an immediate contest might be avoided if, quietly, Cameron makes it know he will stand down in 2017, say a year after a Remain win - Leavers will still be riding high, and some taken into Cabinet will have had chance to prove themselves a bit more, so Leavers might accept that as they think they would win a contest then. Whereas challenging him immediately, well, he might win or he might not, but it would be ugly and devisive in the extreme.
I'm no Tory, but I'd have thought people could stomach another year of Cameron if they felt they would definitely win a contest at that point, and if he tried to stick around longer that's when they'd pull out the knives.
That clip from the Victoria Derbyshire debate is like a Chris Morris parody. Real-life Nathan Barley stuff with the two hipsters from remain. 'A musician and a comedian' - oh god.
I'd like to see how that young man fares after his gap-20s are over and he has decided he wants to start a family but can't get much of a mortgage on a minimum wage job. I suppose when that happens there is always mummy and daddy for help with a deposit for a house and a connection for a cushy management job.
I doubt you'd get a better vignette of old left values of looking after the working poor versus the new left-progressives, I like diversity and hummus, than in that short clip.
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
Simon Jenkins had a good piece in the Guardian. It's easy to forget how we arrived at this junction.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
Can you link to any evidence for that, it might prove useful later.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Sir Ian McKellen speaks for the whole gay community
What a silly comment - he 's entitled to his view.
Not my words, his. He says gays are all internationalists.
Personally, I think it's a bit presumptuous to speak on behalf of everyone who shares your sexual orientation, but there we go.
The bulk of the article was about theatre matters and he pointed out that it was up to the young to decide given his advanced years. Indeed for a luvvie he was quite understated. I sometimes think the Brexit search for demons and conspirators is a trifle ott.
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd.
That's why Japan doesn't have any.
Oh, wait...
Japan has built them as part of the EU?
Though Japanese high speed rail is at speeds of 200mph. In comparison Chinese high speed rail was capable of speeds of 240mph but that has been reduced due to safety fears down to 186 mph.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
Intelligence co-operation will stay as long as the links between the two services remain as close as they are now, and military co-operation will remain as long as the UK maintains a nuclear fleet so completely dependent on US maintenance and targeting. This has virtually no bearing on the fact that diplomatic priority for Britain would plummet after a Brexit. The phrase "Special Relationship" is also, incidentally, unknown to 9 out of 10 Americans.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Sir Ian McKellen speaks for the whole gay community
What a silly comment - he 's entitled to his view.
Of course he's entitled to his view, but its hubristic and all but discriminatory to pretend to speak for all gays and insist all gays must think the same thing.
If any non-gay in any other walk of life pretended that "all gays think xyz" then Sir Ian McKellen would be one of the first to call that out as wrong.
I imagine that gay people will vote much the same way as heterosexuals in this Referendum.
Broadly yes but as a 'member' I would expect a remain majority from this group larger than the norm. Pretty difficult to prove but that would be my expectation.
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
What country pioneered fast trains?
I hope it won't turn out to be a small island nation.
Go on then, make the case for a(nother) train line to Birmingham for £50bn... take your time
The case for bigger, better, faster infrastructure is the same one it's always been. It's the case for the Manchester ship canal, and longer runways at regional airports.
And the case for developing better infrastructure is one I thought the Brexiteers were pitching; selling our stuff to the rest of the World.
I was looking up some stuff on Salter's ducks recently. We didn't end up making ducks, or selling them to the World, but as a result of developing them we are now World leaders in wave tank technology, which we do sell.
So an outward looking, trade focused nation would develop lots of stuff it could sell, especially in secondary markets.
Strange why Brexiteers are now claiming that's a bad thing.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
What country pioneered fast trains?
I hope it won't turn out to be a small island nation.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
Although if he is driving you home, presumably it's because you secretly quite like him...
One of the significant factors in the Scottish referendum was the appearance of people who would not normally vote. How many of the third of the population who don't usually bother are going to turn out? Do the polling companies, so used to polling for elections, have a good handle on this. I have to say as a remainer I'm very worried 'the great ignored' might swing this against us.
I think the polling companies ended up slightly overestimating the Indy turnout.
I'm increasingly confident turnout will be high. I think turnout percentage is most likely in the 60s but its more likely to be in the 70s than the 50s.
Not sure who that helps.
It will only be high if lots of people come out to actively vote *for* the EU.
Based upon the optics, so far, I'm not convinced that's happening, but I could be wrong.
Very few people are going to actively vote *for* the EU as nobody is arguing for the EU.
This hasn't become a referendum for or against the EU. This has become a referendum for or against Brexit.
I know nobody who is actively voting *for* the EU. I know a lot of people who are actively voting *against* Brexit.
Turnout then can be very high with millions voting for Brexit and millions voting against Brexit.
Wolfgang Schaeuble says that more integration is off the agenda, whether we vote for Brexit or not. Even if Remain win it would be a 'warning, a wake up call that we can't go on as before'.
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd.
That's why Japan doesn't have any.
Oh, wait...
Japan has built them as part of the EU?
Though Japanese high speed rail is at speeds of 200mph. In comparison Chinese high speed rail was capable of speeds of 240mph but that has been reduced due to safety fears down to 186 mph.
HS2 is proposed at 250mph.
That was blatantly done to improve the business case. I would be amazed to see trains doing anything near that sort of speed.
I think it's an enormous white elephant and vanity project.
"A Britain Free of Europe will lead the World in Manufacturing, Engineering and Export! Except fast trains of course..."
Britain is a small island. The idea we should lead the world in fast trains is absurd. When you're trying to cross essentially a continent in some lines in China for instance there is no reason our trains need to be or should be that fast.
What country pioneered fast trains?
I hope it won't turn out to be a small island nation.
Depends upon your definition but it also depends upon what came before it. If you're talking train versus horse and cart then the size of the nation didn't matter, the train was itself revolutionary.
But while we in the early days helped pioneer trains, the Americans looking to cross a continent took them much further.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
The US expects us to promote their interests within the EU.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 Those Amber Rudd scripted/distasteful lines on Boris - not a man to drive you home after a party - will have had Cam/Os approval. Incredible
She really said that?
Was she implying that Boris would attack you after a drink/party?
Yes she said that.
She had 1 minute to roundup why we should remain in the EU, this once in a lifetime decision, and she/Osborne/Cameron/PPE Spad thought that would be the best line to take.
Down in the gutter. I hope a large proportion of the Tory party won't forgive or forget that.
There's only two ways to interpret it:
1. Boris would drunken drive and risk your safety 2. Boris would attempt to grope you on the way home if you were drunk
Sir Ian McKellen speaks for the whole gay community
What a silly comment - he 's entitled to his view.
Of course he's entitled to his view, but its hubristic and all but discriminatory to pretend to speak for all gays and insist all gays must think the same thing.
If any non-gay in any other walk of life pretended that "all gays think xyz" then Sir Ian McKellen would be one of the first to call that out as wrong.
I imagine that gay people will vote much the same way as heterosexuals in this Referendum.
He is probably speaking of the basis of those within his social circle, whom I suspect almost universally agree with him.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Yay, first European politician to fall into the trap.
Did he ask VW and Mercedes what they think of the British market before he said that? Will Mercedes be moving their British F1 team with all its championship-winning British expertise?
I read something in Spiegel, I think it was, that said Cameron had managed to convince Merkel, Juncker et al to keep their traps shut regarding the debate as it would only harm the Remain campaign. The one proviso was if there was strong evidence from the polls that LEAVE would win. If so, Merkel et al could enter the fray and have their say.
I wonder whether Schäuble commenting is the first salvo.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
Nope. Britain and France will remain the most important partners for the US in Eruope by dint of the fact we are the only ones who actually spend anything like what is needed on defence and are key members of NATO. Inside or outside the EU is immaterial.
"62% of migrants from western Europe have a university degree"
Bulgaria, Poland, the Baltic states and Romania aren't in Western Europe. The "western Europe" in that survey meant the A15 countries, i.e. the 14 members of the EU outside of Britain before 10 countries joined in May 2004:
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
The special relationship exists because of the extraordinary amount of liaison and joint working across the forces, intelligence services and such. It's made up of tens of thousands of personal relationships between military personnel and civil servants.
Back in the day I spent a lot of time working with, by and for NSA and IAD (the US equivalent of CESG) folks, and built lasting friendships with many of them (the same is true. to a lesser extent, with the other Five Eyes partners).
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
The US expects us to promote their interests within the EU.
Yes, centres of power in the U.S. have historically considered this a trade-off for some of the privileged relationships we've enjoyed.
There will be lots of this - most will have been pre arranged sleepers. It's nothing more than an extension of the decaying Westminster bubble / supplicant media axis that you can smell from Aberdeen. Its only the idiots involved who think that they have any remaining credibility.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Complete garbage. Schäuble has absolutely no part to play in deciding whether or not we choose to stay in the EEA. It depends entirely on whether we move from the EU to EFTA. We would have two years to make that decision and there is not a thing that Germany can do about it as it would be entirely a decision for the existing EFTA members.
Go on then, make the case for a(nother) train line to Birmingham for £50bn... take your time
The case for bigger, better, faster infrastructure is the same one it's always been. It's the case for the Manchester ship canal, and longer runways at regional airports.
And the case for developing better infrastructure is one I thought the Brexiteers were pitching; selling our stuff to the rest of the World.
I was looking up some stuff on Salter's ducks recently. We didn't end up making ducks, or selling them to the World, but as a result of developing them we are now World leaders in wave tank technology, which we do sell.
So an outward looking, trade focused nation would develop lots of stuff it could sell, especially in secondary markets.
Strange why Brexiteers are now claiming that's a bad thing.
"Little England doesn't need fast trains!"
Can I get a poster?
So we spend £50bn on 100 miles of track "so we can sell our stuff to the rest of the world"
OK...
HS2 makes nowhere near enough of a case for itself on a cost/benefit analysis. Your waffly sweeping statements amount to two-thirds of bugger all.
But I can tell you are in a tizzy because your side is losing so i won't go too hard on you. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. We will always have that, even if we do leave...
Wolfgang Schaeuble says that more integration is off the agenda, whether we vote for Brexit or not. Even if Remain win it would be a 'warning, a wake up call that we can't go on as before'.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
Can you link to any evidence for that, it might prove useful later.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
He doesn't actually slam the door. He just points out the negatives of the EEA for the UK. Also, note how the mood music is changing from threats to pragmatism:
"The Christian Democrat, seen as the key actor behind Germany’s hardline stance towards Greece at the height of the eurozone debt crisis, said he and his counterparts in the eurozone would “do everything possible to contain these consequences”.
“We are preparing for all possible scenarios to limit the risks,” he added."
"While warning that it would be a“miracle” if there were no economic drawbacks for Britain following a withdrawal, Schäuble also said the EU needed to show that it could learn from the British referendum."
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
The special relationship exists because of the extraordinary amount of liaison and joint working across the forces, intelligence services and such. It's made up of tens of thousands of personal relationships between military personnel and civil servants.
Back in the day I spent a lot of time working with, by and for NSA and IAD (the US equivalent of CESG) folks, and built lasting friendships with many of them (the same is true. to a lesser extent, with the other Five Eyes partners).
An intelligence and military relationship isn't the same as diplomatic value to a nation's interests worldwide. That's the key to understanding it.
I read something in Spiegel, I think it was, that said Cameron had managed to convince Merkel, Juncker et al to keep their traps shut regarding the debate as it would only harm the Remain campaign. The one proviso was if there was strong evidence from the polls that LEAVE would win. If so, Merkel et al could enter the fray and have their say.
I wonder whether Schäuble commenting is the first salvo.
Possibly. Mind you Schaeuble is the nearest thing in Germany to Prince Philip as an old man going seriously off message and being treasured for it.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Yay, first European politician to fall into the trap.
Did he ask VW and Mercedes what they think of the British market before he said that? Will Mercedes be moving their British F1 team with all its championship-winning British expertise?
I like Schauble, and I think his comments are perfectly fair. He's another politician who's mastered the art of saying what he actually thinks, rather than what you want to hear.
'Wolfgang Schaeuble says that more integration is off the agenda, whether we vote for Brexit or not. Even if Remain win it would be a 'warning, a wake up call that we can't go on as before'.
I'm increasingly confident turnout will be high. I think turnout percentage is most likely in the 60s but its more likely to be in the 70s than the 50s.
Not sure who that helps.
It will only be high if lots of people come out to actively vote *for* the EU.
Based upon the optics, so far, I'm not convinced that's happening, but I could be wrong.
Very few people are going to actively vote *for* the EU as nobody is arguing for the EU.
This hasn't become a referendum for or against the EU. This has become a referendum for or against Brexit.
I know nobody who is actively voting *for* the EU. I know a lot of people who are actively voting *against* Brexit.
Turnout then can be very high with millions voting for Brexit and millions voting against Brexit.
Many will. Others who have been project feared but are concerned about control/immigration might still not be able to bring themselves to come out and vote to Remain, but stay at home instead.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
That has no bearing on the consequences on the results of a Leave vote on a US-Britain relationship. A Britain outside the EU is of infinitely smaller interest to the United States diplomatic, military and financial establishment, and that would be reflected in official ties. In that respect Trump would actually be aiding the downgrading of a country he claims to feel a strong relationship with - all very odd.
The Special Relationship amounts to intelligence and military co-operation between the USA and UK security services, with officers from each country serving with the others' forces. That remains the case inside or outside the EU.
So why is the US so keen for us not to leave? I can't believe it's just because they think the whole thing will collapse without us. Everyone knowledgeable about world affairs seems to believe that being in the EU magnifies UK (usually pro-US) influence around the world. 'Special Relationship' is a dodgy term but it's blindingly obvious we'll have less clout in Washington if we leave.
The special relationship exists because of the extraordinary amount of liaison and joint working across the forces, intelligence services and such. It's made up of tens of thousands of personal relationships between military personnel and civil servants.
Back in the day I spent a lot of time working with, by and for NSA and IAD (the US equivalent of CESG) folks, and built lasting friendships with many of them (the same is true. to a lesser extent, with the other Five Eyes partners).
An intelligence and military relationship isn't the same as diplomatic value to a nation's interests worldwide. That's the key to understanding it.
I'm increasingly confident turnout will be high. I think turnout percentage is most likely in the 60s but its more likely to be in the 70s than the 50s.
Not sure who that helps.
It will only be high if lots of people come out to actively vote *for* the EU.
Based upon the optics, so far, I'm not convinced that's happening, but I could be wrong.
Very few people are going to actively vote *for* the EU as nobody is arguing for the EU.
This hasn't become a referendum for or against the EU. This has become a referendum for or against Brexit.
I know nobody who is actively voting *for* the EU. I know a lot of people who are actively voting *against* Brexit.
Turnout then can be very high with millions voting for Brexit and millions voting against Brexit.
Many will. Others who have been project feared but are concerned about control/immigration might still not be able to bring themselves to come out and vote to Remain, but stay at home instead.
Of course turnout won't be 100%. But that doesn't mean it has to be low.
Interesting Labour pitch on immigration the Leave camp have called for an Australian-style points-based system for migrants, and yet Australia has twice as many migrants per person than we do.
What’s more, the whole purpose of the Aussie system is to give businesses more control over who they bring into the country – which tends to be the cheapest workers – forcing down wages and doing absolutely nothing to address concerns about insecure employment.
So why does Australia give points for
- competence in the English language - post-secondary education - having a skilled occupation
?
Few of the Bulgarians working in British hotels, the Poles and Lithuanians doing labouring on British building sites, the Russians (those from Baltic states lucky enough to have EU passports) and Poles working in British agriculture, etc., would get many points under the Australian system. Most are without post-secondary education and don't have a skilled occupation. Probably the majority of Bulgarians here can't speak more than a handful of words of English. They'd be unlikely to get into Australia.
Labour are talking crap.
If they were concerned about wages being forced down by immigration, they would encourage the trade unions to recruit among immigrants and try to overturn the separation between native and immigrant workers which is what employers use to drive down wages. Failing that, control immigration.
62% of EU migrants have degrees.
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
Can you link to any evidence for that, it might prove useful later.
How many times over the past 10 years have we heard 'warning we can't go on as before'? And then we do.
Translation = more integration is off the agenda until 24 June.
You have to give Schaeuble his due. At the height of a real crisis with Greece he was absolutely steadfast in resisting 'solutions' that involved further integration.
Ros Altmann @rosaltmann Majority of MPs in all 3parties want to stay in EU. They're your democratically elected leaders. Voting Brexit overrules your own MPs
Comments
Besides win or lose Cameron WILL go. You know how I know that? Because CAMERON HAS ANNOUNCED HE WILL GO. Are you so myopic you have forgotten that?
The USA has been losing patience with Europe over the collective failure to meet NATO defence spending commitments for years. We've been a useful stick to beat the Euros with, and a decent punch-above-its-weight intelligence partner. That's about it.
HS2 is an extraordinarily crap project, costing what it does. Even for free it'd be a bit meh
Probably none, however, are Wykehamists so that would presumably count against them.
"Le Vow" would be absolutely hilarious if they tried it. The situation in Scotland was wery different, no-one except perhaps Nick Glegg thinks of themselves as European and everyone knows we are a massive net contributor, it would guarantee a 60:40 vote for Leave. Go on Junker, do it!
A Britain inside the EU will hold marginal power and influence over the a large but diverse market and no EU military currently worth its name.
Of course we will be important to the USA either way.
I think there is a tendency to dramatically over-estimate the chances of Sarkozy being the Les Republicains candidate next year. In particular, there is a view that (a) because he created Les Republicains then he's in poll position to be their Presidential candidate, and (b) that he might run as independent if not the nominee.
The Les Republicains are running an open primary on 20 November. If no candidate gets 50% of the vote, there will be a run-off a week later. There are a dozen potential candidates, but the real choice boils down to one of about three: Sarkozy (who has not actually announced he is standing), Juppe (who has announced), Le Marie and Fillon.
There has been very extensive polling, and it looks like Juppe will score around 40% in the first round, about 15% clear of Sarkozy. The polls have been pretty static for around a year (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republicans_(France)_presidential_primary,_2016#First_Round). It's very hard to see - absent a major scandal - any result other than Juppe first, Sarkozy second in the first round.
In the second round, Juppe absolutely thumps Sarkozy. The smallest lead Juppe has racked up this year was 18%, and most polls put his advantage at 25% or more.
Indeed, one of the reasons that Sarkozy has not even declared himself as a candidate is because he doesn't want to get hammered by Juppe. (My friends in France suggest a deal is possible where Sarkozy becomes PM under Juppe.)
What does this mean for the Presidential election?
The answer is that it means President Juppe. The Ipsos poll from May 22 had Juppe leading Le Pen 35% to 28% in the first round; BVA two weeks earlier had him on 38% to her 25%.
The second round polls show him beating her by 2:1 or more. The latest poll had the result as 70:30.
Juppe's odds are significantly longer with the bookmakers (888, Unibet and 32Red) than with Betfair. You can get 6/4. Take it.
Not sure who that helps.
On June 24th senior Americans will see what our result is and adapt their thinking accordingly.
There is precisely zero power that Dave has to promise anything at all with respect the to EU. We knew that before he went off for his sham 'negotiations'. Le Vow would be the emptiest and most nakedly laughable piece of political ordure in political history.
The Vow was a piece of shit. But a solid piece of shit. Le Vow would be nothing more than Dave's brainfart. A stinking miasma of nothingness.
If any non-gay in any other walk of life pretended that "all gays think xyz" then Sir Ian McKellen would be one of the first to call that out as wrong.
Personally, I think it's a bit presumptuous to speak on behalf of everyone who shares your sexual orientation, but there we go.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/741204558429425664
Based upon the optics, so far, I'm not convinced that's happening, but I could be wrong.
Why do Brexiteers get so upset when this is mentioned?
I cannot see immigration being much different after Leave.
Last night the remain team should have looked outside Cawdor for talent...
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair;
Hover through the fog and filthy air."
Oh, wait...
Now and again, the established basis of the international order changes. No-one likes it (it means change and hard work) but we all adapt, and carry on.
The difference is that this time the change may (may) be driven by a vote rather than international economic forces. Which will probably be viewed as indulgent and insolent by the great and the good.
I hope it gets really dirty.
My advice to Brexit would be to pincer remain with the unlimited immigration angle along with a passionate drive to rally the working classes (who've been screwed by suppressed wages this past decade).
I still thing Remain will win but given that I've spoken to hardly a soul who's voting for Remain there's a scintilla of confidence there that we can walk off into the sunlit uplands on June 24th.
Zero to do with remain/leave though. Zero.
Read it again:
"62% of migrants from western Europe have a university degree"
Bulgaria, Poland, the Baltic states and Romania aren't in Western Europe. The "western Europe" in that survey meant the A15 countries, i.e. the 14 members of the EU outside of Britain before 10 countries joined in May 2004:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
In other news, John Mann, ha ha! Here is Melanie Philips, writing in the Jerusalem Post:
"So would Brexit be good for the Jews? Let’s put it this way. It would give Europe and the West a fighting chance against those waging war on the entire Judeo-Christian world. All that remains is for Britain and Europe to see it."
I still think if Remain win an immediate contest might be avoided if, quietly, Cameron makes it know he will stand down in 2017, say a year after a Remain win - Leavers will still be riding high, and some taken into Cabinet will have had chance to prove themselves a bit more, so Leavers might accept that as they think they would win a contest then. Whereas challenging him immediately, well, he might win or he might not, but it would be ugly and devisive in the extreme.
I'm no Tory, but I'd have thought people could stomach another year of Cameron if they felt they would definitely win a contest at that point, and if he tried to stick around longer that's when they'd pull out the knives.
I'd like to see how that young man fares after his gap-20s are over and he has decided he wants to start a family but can't get much of a mortgage on a minimum wage job. I suppose when that happens there is always mummy and daddy for help with a deposit for a house and a connection for a cushy management job.
I doubt you'd get a better vignette of old left values of looking after the working poor versus the new left-progressives, I like diversity and hummus, than in that short clip.
Marvelous thanks for posting.
http://tinyurl.com/zpzx3x3
What's happened to you?
Though Japanese high speed rail is at speeds of 200mph. In comparison Chinese high speed rail was capable of speeds of 240mph but that has been reduced due to safety fears down to 186 mph.
HS2 is proposed at 250mph.
I hope it won't turn out to be a small island nation.
And the case for developing better infrastructure is one I thought the Brexiteers were pitching; selling our stuff to the rest of the World.
I was looking up some stuff on Salter's ducks recently. We didn't end up making ducks, or selling them to the World, but as a result of developing them we are now World leaders in wave tank technology, which we do sell.
So an outward looking, trade focused nation would develop lots of stuff it could sell, especially in secondary markets.
Strange why Brexiteers are now claiming that's a bad thing.
"Little England doesn't need fast trains!"
Can I get a poster?
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.
“If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
http://gu.com/p/4kq4t?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This hasn't become a referendum for or against the EU. This has become a referendum for or against Brexit.
I know nobody who is actively voting *for* the EU. I know a lot of people who are actively voting *against* Brexit.
Turnout then can be very high with millions voting for Brexit and millions voting against Brexit.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/wolfgang-schaeuble-warnt-vor-weitreichenden-brexit-folgen-a-1096854.html
But while we in the early days helped pioneer trains, the Americans looking to cross a continent took them much further.
Did he ask VW and Mercedes what they think of the British market before he said that? Will Mercedes be moving their British F1 team with all its championship-winning British expertise?
I wonder whether Schäuble commenting is the first salvo.
Or this one? I see from eurostat that it doesn't seem to be as high as 60% but the point stands, most of our EU migrants are well educated.
Whatever the anti-immigration point is that you were making.
Back in the day I spent a lot of time working with, by and for NSA and IAD (the US equivalent of CESG) folks, and built lasting friendships with many of them (the same is true. to a lesser extent, with the other Five Eyes partners).
OK...
HS2 makes nowhere near enough of a case for itself on a cost/benefit analysis. Your waffly sweeping statements amount to two-thirds of bugger all.
But I can tell you are in a tizzy because your side is losing so i won't go too hard on you. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. We will always have that, even if we do leave...
He should have supported this position years ago but ploughed on regardless.
Now the question is should anyone believe him ?
"The Christian Democrat, seen as the key actor behind Germany’s hardline stance towards Greece at the height of the eurozone debt crisis, said he and his counterparts in the eurozone would “do everything possible to contain these consequences”.
“We are preparing for all possible scenarios to limit the risks,” he added."
"While warning that it would be a“miracle” if there were no economic drawbacks for Britain following a withdrawal, Schäuble also said the EU needed to show that it could learn from the British referendum."
'Wolfgang Schaeuble says that more integration is off the agenda, whether we vote for Brexit or not. Even if Remain win it would be a 'warning, a wake up call that we can't go on as before'.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/wolfgang-schaeuble-warnt-vor-weitreichenden-brexit-folgen-a-1096854.html</blockquote'
How many times over the past 10 years have we heard 'warning we can't go on as before'?
And then we do.
Translation = more integration is off the agenda until 24 June.
Another great Brexit slogan
"Our Victorian infrastructure is as good as we will ever need..."
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
Ros Altmann @rosaltmann
Majority of MPs in all 3parties want to stay in EU. They're your democratically elected leaders. Voting Brexit overrules your own MPs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/09/multiple-sclerosis-patients-walking-working-and-skiing-after-gro/
I do hope this pans out, MS is one of the cruellest diseases. What a time to be alive!
Lol.