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.
May I ask if you've any expertise in this area?
May I ask if you see any difference between our national interest and the US national interest?
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.
Yes but his track record is not so good when you look at what he said should happen and what actually did. He has been consistently over ruled by Frau Merkel in order that Germany can support an EU agreement.
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
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.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on. Remain wouldn't be spending all this time attacking it if they weren't worried about it.
Or labelling Brexiteers as Little England or racists.
'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'.
Translation: shit, this could be close. If it's a narrow Remain we'll have to think about how to stop another vote in future. A bit of mild scaremongering to stop it turning into a Leave vote but, if it is, we will be practical about the UK and perhaps reform to stop others leaving.
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
Which is why we need a fresh election after a Leave vote.
A Parliament 75% for Remain implementing Leave is not a recipe for a smooth and acrimony free transition. All parties need a fresh mandate for their approach.
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.
I still think if Remain win an immediate contest might be avoided if, quietly, Cameron makes it know he will stand down in 2017........
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 remember when Blair tried to "make it known he will stand down.....".
It happened in the run up to an election rather than in this case a referendum. Before the 2005 election the country was tired of Blair but still willing to stomach voting Labour with Blair as leader on the understanding that Brown was going to take over immediately afterwards. So you could have been mistaken for thinking that Brown was already PM, such was the Labour campaign which promoted all that. Blair went along it.
Afterwards, Blair suddenly discovered he had cold feet and had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the door by Brown. He would have hung on if he could and still managed to hang on until 2007.
If you trust Cameron to stick to his word, fine. But most don't nowadays and quite rightly so. think it quite possible that he will try and carry on until shortly before 2019 in the event of a Remain vote, and indeed the terms of his commitment to go are so shallow that he could yet try and back out of 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.
Yes but his track record is not so good when you look at what he said should happen and what actually did. He has been consistently over ruled by Frau Merkel in order that Germany can support an EU agreement.
Not relating to this specifically, but my German politician friends (and I know people very high up the CDU) are of the view that Schauble / Merkel like to play bad cop / good cop, and are usually of one mind.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
It is thought to be ridiculous that a country the size of the UK should be in the EEA.
Not really. A better analogy would be a 35p tin of beans, on offer at 25p in Tesco. You don't say they cost you 35p.
We could extend it further and say that you're getting 13 Clubcard points back too - so the beans are a right bargain. Assuming you like beans, of course.
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
Which is why we need a fresh election after a Leave vote.
A Parliament 75% for Remain implementing Leave is not a recipe for a smooth and acrimony free transition. All parties need a fresh mandate for their approach.
It looks like referenda and parliamentary democracy aren't really compatible.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
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.
It may have improved the business case. It also blooming well destroyed it by increasing the costs....
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
We have signed a contract to be loyal to Tescos and not to get any special offers from Lidl. But this is a referendum about whether we wish to continue to be tied in to Tescos or whether we feel comfortable shopping around.
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.
Yes but his track record is not so good when you look at what he said should happen and what actually did. He has been consistently over ruled by Frau Merkel in order that Germany can support an EU agreement.
Not relating to this specifically, but my German politician friends (and I know people very high up the CDU) are of the view that Schauble / Merkel like to play bad cop / good cop, and are usually of one mind.
Schaeuble, albeit reactionary, is loyal to his Party and Merkel rates his opinions very highly. He went very close to the edge in the Greek negotiations so I don't think his interventions are agreed with Merkel beforehand, but they don't get him into trouble either.
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
MP's aren't our leaders they are our representitives, we are the master they are the servant, and we are having a democratically voted for referendum, in which, we the people will have our say and they had bloody well better listen to us! or we will sack them
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
So would Lichtenstein or Iceland be able to veto us joining?
If someone offers you a job, they always offer it as a gross figure. That is what they are paying you. you just don't receive it all.
Again, no disagreement, but the specific claim was that paypacket is a great analogy, whitch is isn't
If you ask someone who gets a paypacket how much they earned this week, they will give you the nett figure, what is actually in the envelope, not their gross
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Mr. Britain, emotions play a role on both sides but, personally, matters of governance and accountability are the foundation of my probable Leave vote.
Mr Dancer, if you do start getting wobbly on your intention to vote Leave, just holler. We may need to stage an intervention.
In the meantime, deep breaths. Just think of Remain as voting for Ed Balls....
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
We have signed a contract to be loyal to Tescos and not to get any special offers from Lidl. But this is a referendum about whether we wish to continue to be tied in to Tescos or whether we feel comfortable shopping around.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
By keeping the discussion focused on what the real figure is, there has been almost no debate about how much the return on investment is. Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the return in the debate and that's the first time I've heard that put forward. A big win for Leave.
On US/British relations, cast your mind back to 2001.
IDS is the man who deliberately tried to create a diplomatic incident with Washington over the European Rapid Reaction Force, acting way outside his competence as leader of the opposition. He then allowed himself to be used as a total pawn of the Bush administration to put pressure on Blair to support war in Iraq.
You can only conclude that he wants Brexit because being in the EU means we are insufficiently subservient to the US.
But Blair seems not at all so enthusiastic about the prospect of bringing the war to Iraq, and many of his Labor Party MPs, plus the Foreign Office, are clearly against any attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein. Duncan Smith, in contrast, makes it no secret that he would support carrying the war to Iraq.
..
There is no reason to think that the leaders of the Bush administration see Tony Blair as in any way a hostile or insincere supporter of the war on terrorism. They appreciate his efforts and expect that he will continue to provide strong support. But they obviously concluded it wouldn't hurt to give a warm welcome to Iain Duncan Smith, and that if that should make it a little easier for Blair to support a war in Iraq, well and good.
Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. We will always have that, even if we do leave...
So you want Hitachi to move their train manufacturing HQ to another country that actually might want to build some trains?
Another great Brexit slogan
"Our Victorian infrastructure is as good as we will ever need..."
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
Oh sorry i didn;t know they had said they would do that.
I am obviously worried because I know Toyota moved their factory after we didn't join the Euro
"Oh wait..."
The Big Boss at Hitachi is on record from earlier this year saying that In or Out of the EU they will continue to invest in the UK, but would prefer it if we stayed in. The same bloke saying a few days ago that in the event of a Leave vote he would review his company's investment plans I'd file under the same category as Honda and Toyota saying they would pull out if we didn't join the Euro.
More significant, I think, is that the chairman of JCB, a very successful British company that operates all over the world, has said that in his view Leaving the EU would be a good thing and not affect his company's thriving business.
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
So would Lichtenstein or Iceland be able to veto us joining?
I don't know. Also I assume the UK would have to sign a bit of paper when it joins the EEA. Could the EU and/or member countries throw a spanner into the works at that point?
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.
Yes but his track record is not so good when you look at what he said should happen and what actually did. He has been consistently over ruled by Frau Merkel in order that Germany can support an EU agreement.
Not relating to this specifically, but my German politician friends (and I know people very high up the CDU) are of the view that Schauble / Merkel like to play bad cop / good cop, and are usually of one mind.
Schaeuble, albeit reactionary, is loyal to his Party and Merkel rates his opinions very highly. He went very close to the edge in the Greek negotiations so I don't think his interventions are agreed with Merkel beforehand, but they don't get him into trouble either.
I'm having lunch with Axel Voss the day before the Brexit referendum, so I'll ask him
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing extra and new money in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
In the meantime, deep breaths. Just think of Remain as voting for Ed Balls....
...and Leave as voting for Nigel Farage.
Who is this "Nigel Farage" of whom you speak? Is he a member of parliament or something? No? Does he have his hands on the levers of power? No? Maybe he mans a passport booth at Dover?
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
Evidence that Priti Patel knows Leave is going to lose?
Top Brexiteer Priti Patel today broke ranks by saying it is unnecessary for David Cameron to go head-to-head in a live EU debate with rivals Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Despite fellow Leave campaigners trying to push the Prime Minister into facing them, employment minister Ms Patel said there were already enough TV debates. Her words come days after Mr Johnson and Mr Gove demanded a “face-to-face” TV clash with Mr Cameron, arguing it was what “the public deserve”.
In a further conciliatory move towards Downing Street, Ms Patel made clear she was not targeting Mr Cameron or George Osborne when claiming leading Remainers are too rich to care about the EU’s impact on the poor.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing again in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
Yep. It has been a great success for the Leave campaign.
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
In order for this lame analogy to correctly apply to the EU, you would have to pay £10 for £8 worth of beans, and have Tescos decide what type of beans you get to eat. The £10 would be handed over some time before the £8 worth of beans arrives
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.
Bullshit Alert!
The EU has never once acted as a bloc on a single military intervention. NATO not so much either. There is only one significant military power in Europe that is a reliable military ally to the US. That will not change with Brexit one iota.
If someone offers you a job, they always offer it as a gross figure. That is what they are paying you. you just don't receive it all.
Again, no disagreement, but the specific claim was that paypacket is a great analogy, whitch is isn't
If you ask someone who gets a paypacket how much they earned this week, they will give you the nett figure, what is actually in the envelope, not their gross
I certainly wouldn't, but then I'm an accountant. If I get a bonus I know i'm actually getting just over half of what I earned...
Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. We will always have that, even if we do leave...
So you want Hitachi to move their train manufacturing HQ to another country that actually might want to build some trains?
Another great Brexit slogan
"Our Victorian infrastructure is as good as we will ever need..."
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
Oh sorry i didn;t know they had said they would do that.
I am obviously worried because I know Toyota moved their factory after we didn't join the Euro
"Oh wait..."
The Big Boss at Hitachi is on record from earlier this year saying that In or Out of the EU they will continue to invest in the UK, but would prefer it if we stayed in. The same bloke saying a few days ago that in the event of a Leave vote he would review his company's investment plans I'd file under the same category as Honda and Toyota saying they would pull out if we didn't join the Euro.
More significant, I think, is that the chairman of JCB, a very successful British company that operates all over the world, has said that in his view Leaving the EU would be a good thing and not affect his company's thriving business.
I can't recall if it was Gisela or Leadsom, but when Rudd made some facile remark about needing an expert to built a bridge, they shot back - and you also need a JCB.
Who is this "Nigel Farage" of whom you speak? Is he a member of parliament or something? No? Does he have his hands on the levers of power? No? Maybe he mans a passport booth at Dover?
Who is this Ed Balls of whom you speak? Is he a member of parliament or something? No? Does he have his hands on the levers of power? No?
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
The new Remain ad is aiming itself squarely at voters who like the idea of Leave but who don't have confidence in the calibre of politicians backing it.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
It's shite.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
In order for this lame analogy to correctly apply to the EU, you would have to pay £10 for £8 worth of beans, and have Tescos decide what type of beans you get to eat. The £10 would be handed over some time before the £8 worth of beans arrives
And if you considered shopping at a different supermarket, suddenly you would never be allowed to work again.
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.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
I agree. As long as the post-Brexit UK government doesn't do something stupid like flag up an intention to invoke "Safeguard Measures" to get out of free movement, I don't see any reason why the UK wouldn't join the EEA. I disagree with you on an emphasis, though. I don't think it will be "something that looked very like EFTA/EEA". I think the options are continued EU membership, the EEA as is, or something very minimal
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing again in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
Yep. It has been a great success for the Leave campaign.
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
A bit like the EU has been for working class wages and aspirations this past decade. An unmitigated clusterfuck.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing extra and new money in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
That Brexit had a YouGov 21pt lead on the NHS isn't a coincidence.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
In order for this lame analogy to correctly apply to the EU, you would have to pay £10 for £8 worth of beans, and have Tescos decide what type of beans you get to eat. The £10 would be handed over some time before the £8 worth of beans arrives
To continue the rather lame analogy: Tesco then uses the extra £2 to provide subsidised beans to poorer shoppers, as well as supporting the farmers who grow beans and tomatoes and ensuring that they are grown in an environmentally friendly manner. The bean transaction is part of a wider social contract.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
Indeed that is the suggestion and why we are having the vote. Is that news to you?
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.
Bullshit Alert!
The EU has never once acted as a bloc on a single military intervention. NATO not so much either. There is only one significant military power in Europe that is a reliable military ally to the US. That will not change with Brexit one iota.
It's one thing to wish to be a reliable ally to Pax Americana, but the US will have a dramatic reevaluation of their national interests overseas if Trump wins. European countries will need to have a strong view of where their own interests lie.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
Unless we vote Leave we are forbidden by law from making any deals with Lidl unless Tescos agrees to it.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing again in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
Yep. It has been a great success for the Leave campaign.
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
A bit like the EU has been for working class wages and aspirations this past decade. An unmitigated clusterfuck.
And I'm sure all those people will vote Leave. Whether they will see an immediate increase in their wages (both net and gross) or be catapulted into a senior management position at a multinational corporation, well I hope so but fear not.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
It's shite.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Anyone who thinks we're getting a higher turnout than the general election is crazy.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing again in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
Yep. It has been a great success for the Leave campaign.
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
A bit like the EU has been for working class wages and aspirations this past decade. An unmitigated clusterfuck.
There will be winners and losers from Brexit, just as there are winners and losers from EU membership.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
In order for this lame analogy to correctly apply to the EU, you would have to pay £10 for £8 worth of beans, and have Tescos decide what type of beans you get to eat. The £10 would be handed over some time before the £8 worth of beans arrives
To continue the rather lame analogy: Tesco then uses the extra £2 to provide subsidised beans to poorer shoppers, as well as supporting the farmers who grow beans and tomatoes and ensuring that they are grown in an environmentally friendly manner. The bean transaction is part of a wider social contract.
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.
Yes but his track record is not so good when you look at what he said should happen and what actually did. He has been consistently over ruled by Frau Merkel in order that Germany can support an EU agreement.
Not relating to this specifically, but my German politician friends (and I know people very high up the CDU) are of the view that Schauble / Merkel like to play bad cop / good cop, and are usually of one mind.
Schaeuble, albeit reactionary, is loyal to his Party and Merkel rates his opinions very highly. He went very close to the edge in the Greek negotiations so I don't think his interventions are agreed with Merkel beforehand, but they don't get him into trouble either.
I'm having lunch with Axel Voss the day before the Brexit referendum, so I'll ask him
That would be fascinating. In a Europe of gray functionaries, Mr Schaeuble is a very interesting character.He was the victim of an assassination attempt and completely paralysed below the waist and confined to wheelchair, but went back to work within three months. He is also a passionate pan-European of a old fashioned type. He has no time for vague rhetoric. He wants a Europe that works.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
We have signed a contract to be loyal to Tescos and not to get any special offers from Lidl. But this is a referendum about whether we wish to continue to be tied in to Tescos or whether we feel comfortable shopping around.
= democratic, sovereign process.
Indeed voting leave and shopping around would be a democratic, sovereign process. That is why we should do it.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
It's shite.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Anyone who thinks we're getting a higher turnout than the general election is crazy.
Alternatively a lot of people know how they're going to vote in this binary choice already in a way not certain in a General Election with 7 choices.
My impression is that people are not watching the 'debates' in the same way they did for GE2010 but the ideas and analysis from them is still being taken seriously and shaping the narrative.
The narrative building is that Remain are panicking and Leave are starting to boss it IMO.
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
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
On this instance they cost you £2 but their cost is £2.60 ... there is no guarantee they will remain on offer and that is why it is an offer and not the regular price.
Are you required by law to shop in Tescos?
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
Unless we vote Leave we are forbidden by law from making any deals with Lidl unless Tescos agrees to it.
And the price of the beans will go back up to £2.60. Fair enough.
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
It's shite.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Anyone who thinks we're getting a higher turnout than the general election is crazy.
Double edged sword for Remainers. They cling on to the fact that the ratings for the debate were a lot lower than the GE, but that does suggest a lower level of interest and possibly a lower turnout (which might be good for Remain, but who knows).
Who is this "Nigel Farage" of whom you speak? Is he a member of parliament or something? No? Does he have his hands on the levers of power? No? Maybe he mans a passport booth at Dover?
Who is this Ed Balls of whom you speak? Is he a member of parliament or something? No? Does he have his hands on the levers of power? No?
Both Ed Balls and Nigel Farage not being in Parliament or having their hands on the levers of power is down to the sovereign will of the British people. Something that doesn't trouble the likes of van Rompuy or Juncker.....
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
Having sovereignty does not mean giving your ability to make decisions away but maintaining the right to walk away (but refusing to do so because you can walk away).
If a man and a woman are in a relationship where the man takes the bulk of the families income and decides how its going to be spent, tells the woman what to do, makes all the decisions etc, while the woman is unhappy with the relationship but afraid to leave ... does the woman have free will simply because she could walk away even if she doesn't?
It is not having the potential to walk away that is enabling, it is actual doing so that is. No matter how scary a prospect that might be.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
First, parliament has never said they want to change a tax rate but the EU said we couldn't. Gordon Brown said he wanted to lower it as much as possible, and all of a sudden Leave have taken it upon themselves to commit to zero rating VAT on home energy supplies.
But no parliament has wanted to lower VAT only to have it disallowed by the EU.
My impression is that people are not watching the 'debates' in the same way they did for GE2010 but the ideas and analysis from them is still being taken seriously and shaping the narrative.
The narrative building is that Remain are panicking and Leave are starting to boss it IMO.
Nobody has even spoken about the Referendum to me (with the exception of @Charles!), so I'm not 100% convinced,
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.
What the £350m figure does demonstrate, like the rise of Trump, is the era of post truth politics is upon us
Populism is all that matters. Governing will be someone else's problem
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
Can you honestly see the thousands of working class folk round where I live being £4300 a year worse off? Most of the poor feckers don't have that much disposable income a year.
Comments
Bombardier were of course stiffed on a UK infrastructure contract by Cameron so the trains coiuld be manufactured by Siemens in Germany.
I am obviously worried because I know Toyota moved their factory after we didn't join the Euro
"Oh wait..."
Many Brexiters are backing HS2
Many Brexiters are saying HS2 specifically is bad and we could make better investments with the money.
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on. Remain wouldn't be spending all this time attacking it if they weren't worried about it.
Or labelling Brexiteers as Little England or racists.
It's a lie, and when they admit it's a lie, some of the people who were duped will be unhappy
EDIT, So tactical success, strategic epic fuckup
A Parliament 75% for Remain implementing Leave is not a recipe for a smooth and acrimony free transition. All parties need a fresh mandate for their approach.
It happened in the run up to an election rather than in this case a referendum. Before the 2005 election the country was tired of Blair but still willing to stomach voting Labour with Blair as leader on the understanding that Brown was going to take over immediately afterwards. So you could have been mistaken for thinking that Brown was already PM, such was the Labour campaign which promoted all that. Blair went along it.
Afterwards, Blair suddenly discovered he had cold feet and had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the door by Brown. He would have hung on if he could and still managed to hang on until 2007.
If you trust Cameron to stick to his word, fine. But most don't nowadays and quite rightly so. think it quite possible that he will try and carry on until shortly before 2019 in the event of a Remain vote, and indeed the terms of his commitment to go are so shallow that he could yet try and back out of it.
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
Oh, wait...
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
You give the assistant a £5 note.
Did the beans cost you £5?
I have received paypackets. They come nett of all taxes and deductions
Can you at any time you want walk out of Tescos and go to Lidl?
ITV Brexit special also featuring Nicola Sturgeon beaten in ratings by Nick Knowles DIY SOS on BBC1 as just 3 million viewers tune in
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/10/boris-johnson-itv-eu-referendum-debate-gets-3m-viewers-nicola-sturgeon
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement
(and the full text is here: http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf)
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
If you ask someone who gets a paypacket how much they earned this week, they will give you the nett figure, what is actually in the envelope, not their gross
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
In the meantime, deep breaths. Just think of Remain as voting for Ed Balls....
IDS is the man who deliberately tried to create a diplomatic incident with Washington over the European Rapid Reaction Force, acting way outside his competence as leader of the opposition. He then allowed himself to be used as a total pawn of the Bush administration to put pressure on Blair to support war in Iraq.
You can only conclude that he wants Brexit because being in the EU means we are insufficiently subservient to the US.
This is how the US saw it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/581852/posts
But Blair seems not at all so enthusiastic about the prospect of bringing the war to Iraq, and many of his Labor Party MPs, plus the Foreign Office, are clearly against any attack on the regime of Saddam Hussein. Duncan Smith, in contrast, makes it no secret that he would support carrying the war to Iraq.
..
There is no reason to think that the leaders of the Bush administration see Tony Blair as in any way a hostile or insincere supporter of the war on terrorism. They appreciate his efforts and expect that he will continue to provide strong support. But they obviously concluded it wouldn't hurt to give a warm welcome to Iain Duncan Smith, and that if that should make it a little easier for Blair to support a war in Iraq, well and good.
More significant, I think, is that the chairman of JCB, a very successful British company that operates all over the world, has said that in his view Leaving the EU would be a good thing and not affect his company's thriving business.
Manic Eddie Izzard following on from the three angry, shouty representatives on the ITV referendum show. Bad night for Remain.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing extra and new money in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
Top Brexiteer Priti Patel today broke ranks by saying it is unnecessary for David Cameron to go head-to-head in a live EU debate with rivals Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Despite fellow Leave campaigners trying to push the Prime Minister into facing them, employment minister Ms Patel said there were already enough TV debates. Her words come days after Mr Johnson and Mr Gove demanded a “face-to-face” TV clash with Mr Cameron, arguing it was what “the public deserve”.
In a further conciliatory move towards Downing Street, Ms Patel made clear she was not targeting Mr Cameron or George Osborne when claiming leading Remainers are too rich to care about the EU’s impact on the poor.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/eu-referendum-priti-patel-says-pm-doesn-t-need-to-face-boris-and-gove-on-tv-a3268446.html
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
What Leave are saying is accurate.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Are you really bad?
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
Populism is all that matters. Governing will be someone else's problem
The narrative building is that Remain are panicking and Leave are starting to boss it IMO.
That'll be the same 15% that vote UKIP.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/interview-with-nathan-hystad.html
A paypacket is different from a payslip. People who receive paypackets will tell you how much is in them to the penny, and it's the nett.
That's why paypacket is a crap analogy.
If a man and a woman are in a relationship where the man takes the bulk of the families income and decides how its going to be spent, tells the woman what to do, makes all the decisions etc, while the woman is unhappy with the relationship but afraid to leave ... does the woman have free will simply because she could walk away even if she doesn't?
It is not having the potential to walk away that is enabling, it is actual doing so that is. No matter how scary a prospect that might be.
The valid comparison would seem to be the five-way. Still a drop, from 4m to 3m, though.
But no parliament has wanted to lower VAT only to have it disallowed by the EU.
He should have done the Death Star canteen.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
Can you honestly see the thousands of working class folk round where I live being £4300 a year worse off? Most of the poor feckers don't have that much disposable income a year.