The problem with going overboard against Leavers for being angry about immigration is that as most people (though not me) are angry about immigration, they simply won't believe the claims, and so will disbelieve other claims against the same person. It's like how Khan may have had some questions to answer re some people he knew in the past, but he is clearly no extremist, and that was the implication by Goldsmith's campaign - the claim just wasn't believable, if for different reasons.
I was quite surprised by how meh Mr Khan was at last night's debate. Who are Labour's star performers?
He's a fairly awful debater, he mumbles and burbles, and he fluffs jokes. A nice guy, but no charisma.
Yet still an order of magnitude better than anyone else Labour have put forward in recent years.
Gisela is the revelation for Labour. Sadly, her own party probably think she's a Tory, and looking at her voting record, I think I agree.
The problem with the European Union is we weren't there at the start. We tried joining in the belief that we could change it. That didn't work. But every instinct suggests we should play an active role in continental politics. So what is the solution?
Destroy the European Union from within and then rebuild some kind of new European Association with the UK at the heart of devising it.
We get the Nordics. France and Germany get the PIIGS.
Nothing different to what we've heard from the Remain campaign for months. Right down to Putin.
We'll get EEA-EFTA if it's a narrow Leave vote and I'd be very happy with that.
That's been the plan along I suspect, the angry anti-immigration voters will prove to have just been the cannon fodder, the useful idiots that got Leave over the line. They will be ignored after tomorrow. Totally deceitful strategy of course but very clever nevertheless.
No, because we *can* use an emergency brake and EU citizens won't have quite the same rights (as Robert pointed out)
I think it will be "sellable" that if it's a narrow Leave mandate, the votes simply aren't there to justify a full clean break (they might be if Leave won 65/35) and we can always reassess the relationship in 10-15 years time.
As I said earlier I am almost 100% certain we cannot use the emergency brake in the way you believe. If we join EFTA and stay in the EEA then we are accepting that - with the exception of the rules on benefits which may well be significant - we cannot do much more about immigration than we can now.
For anyone who has been around a few years Leave is the status quo ie remain a soverign independent state and stop those politicians who have been signing sovereignty abolishing treaties since Maastrict from selling our sovereign independence down the river.
For anyone under 40/50 the EU is the status quo, they do not remember a time we were not in the EEC/EC/EU. Hence under 50s for Remain
Im under 50. Under 40 I would agree.
The older voters are the demographic that turns out and for them, Leave is the status quo
Have the older voters forgotten how crap Britain was in the 1970s? Strikes, 3-day weeks, union power, IMF, losing to Iceland in the "cod war", casual racism on telly, etc. etc.
How come the 70s come out consistently as the UKs most happy decade ? With 1976 the best year ever .
Of course it was. I was born in 76.
personally I found 77 better. Finished O levels. long summer new wave music and had lots of money from my first job - bin man !
On polling days, I usually miss all the political coverage. This time I'm looking forward to it.
And urgh, just looked at The Times for tomorrow - Aaronovitch is comparing Leavers to Enoch Powell.
I'll skip straight to the comments - they'll be fun.
Matt d'Ancona doing the same in the Standard. Must be the new line
Designed to cause older labour voters to waver? I cannot imagine most younger people feel much of a reaction about him, or know him (I had to look up his career details), unless they are politically involved and have people yell 'Rivers of Blood!' from time to time.
Huh. Wikipedia tells me the exact phrase 'rivers of blood' doesn't appear in the speech itself.
The problem with going overboard against Leavers for being angry about immigration is that as most people (though not me) are angry about immigration, they simply won't believe the claims, and so will disbelieve other claims against the same person. It's like how Khan may have had some questions to answer re some people he knew in the past, but he is clearly no extremist, and that was the implication by Goldsmith's campaign - the claim just wasn't believable, if for different reasons.
I was quite surprised by how meh Mr Khan was at last night's debate. Who are Labour's star performers?
Gisela Stuart was on the other side.
But in terms of other known 'good' performers, IDK. Khan seems like a safe choice, he just won a buttload of votes in London, but at his best he's only ok, and his one attempt to get fired up was shot down within seconds by, IIRC, Leadsom, who otherwise I thought had a bland but tolerable night.
I like Ms Stuart, and she seems to win people over, but she doesn't strike me as good speaker.
Ms Leadsom I think is aces. Like her more every time I see her on the telly.
The problem with going overboard against Leavers for being angry about immigration is that as most people (though not me) are angry about immigration, they simply won't believe the claims, and so will disbelieve other claims against the same person. It's like how Khan may have had some questions to answer re some people he knew in the past, but he is clearly no extremist, and that was the implication by Goldsmith's campaign - the claim just wasn't believable, if for different reasons.
I was quite surprised by how meh Mr Khan was at last night's debate. Who are Labour's star performers?
People are talking about a shift to the status quo in the ballot booth. But what is the status quo?
If people think it is the current economy and can live with an erosion of their British identity, then it's inside the EU and will vote remain.
If people think it is the current political system and can live with an erosion of their European identity, then it's outside the EU and will vote leave.
@SeanT That's why I keep my political thoughts for here. That way I have no need to feel abashed or contrite.
Most of my friends and family have no real idea of my parallel existence here. Just as well all round, I'd say.
When I last met up with you and Mike and the others for the last PB pub meet, I told my mum I was meeting a bunch of friends at a Japanese restaurant near Liverpool Street.
So, when I finally left The Shooting Star, I turned left into Bishopsgate and called at Wasabi to pick up a nice Tofu Curry
Nothing different to what we've heard from the Remain campaign for months. Right down to Putin.
We'll get EEA-EFTA if it's a narrow Leave vote and I'd be very happy with that.
That's been the plan along I suspect, the angry anti-immigration voters will prove to have just been the cannon fodder, the useful idiots that got Leave over the line. They will be ignored after tomorrow. Totally deceitful strategy of course but very clever nevertheless.
No, because we *can* use an emergency brake and EU citizens won't have quite the same rights (as Robert pointed out)
I think it will be "sellable" that if it's a narrow Leave mandate, the votes simply aren't there to justify a full clean break (they might be if Leave won 65/35) and we can always reassess the relationship in 10-15 years time.
As I said earlier I am almost 100% certain we cannot use the emergency brake in the way you believe. If we join EFTA and stay in the EEA then we are accepting that - with the exception of the rules on benefits which may well be significant - we cannot do much more about immigration than we can now.
As immigration isn't a big deal for me (while appreciating it's a fecking colossal deal for others), what are the implications for our relationship with the ECHR?
An informal poll of my long-suffering relatives indicated that they perceive that we have difficulty ejecting EU citizens who've committed criminal acts. My initial thought was this was actually perception vs reality....then realized I have no idea. Thoughts?
No implications at all. There was a move up until a year or more ago to make the EU a signatory to the ECHR and to try to standardise rulings. That would have meant that as long as one stayed in the EU one was bound by the ECHR - at least that would have been the eventual aim. The ECJ (I believe) ruled against this so the two institutions (EU and ECHR remain completely separate).
If the UK wanted to Leave the ECHR (and I am not advocating that) then being inside or outside the EU makes no difference. Nor does being inside or outside EFTA/EEA
It was the EHCR itself who ruled against it, saying that as the EU was not a country, it could not be a signatory.
Swedish MEP praying for a domino effect if Britain Leaves...
OK then, we may start EU-II...
British Values, British Law. Who's in?
You're giving me the horn.
The UK genuinely leading Europe? Who'd vote for that?
Maybe no-one, but the point would be having the chance to vote about it.
(Good evening everyone)
Good evening Anne. You are always so polite when you come on here and never fail to say good evening. I thought it was about time I returned the compliment.
I'll be honest my Facebook is getting quite apoplectic about the prospect of Brexit.
Mine too.
To be fair when you have a former education secretary saying "don't listen to experts" I see why people are getting angry.
Yes, but there are a few clever tricks there. Firstly, there are some pretty serious people on the Leave side who are economists, businessmen, lawyers and captains (or ex) of industry.
Second, you don't win economics with a tally. OECD, NIESR and HM treasury (for instance) are all using the same economic model (despite each claiming to be independent) and they are just inputting different baseline data.
Meanwhile, the IMF and NIESR aren't even showing a recession for EEA and the long-term models have small rounding errors for economic performance in/out by 2030.
So much of this is political rather than economic.
Those economists are pretty serious dudes. Disagree with them, use your own inputs, provide, a la Minford, different models. But dismiss them?
Hmm.
Of course you are right, it is all political. That is the whole point of the referendum. Just that I don't think that those institutes have compromised their professional integrity for the sake of politics.
I know an 18 yo who went to an economics open day at Bath uni. At the start the applicants were asked to put up their hands if their predicted maths A Level was A*. The ones who didn't were told they might as well leave.
Which to me is a what is wrong with the field. Look at us. We're scientists. Really. Proper scientists like physicists - see that whiteboard with all the notation on it! Of course, it is a science, just not the one they think it is - it is a sub-set of anthropology.
Comments
That means you must have been drinking.
new thread
Huh. Wikipedia tells me the exact phrase 'rivers of blood' doesn't appear in the speech itself.
Ms Leadsom I think is aces. Like her more every time I see her on the telly.
If people think it is the current economy and can live with an erosion of their British identity, then it's inside the EU and will vote remain.
If people think it is the current political system and can live with an erosion of their European identity, then it's outside the EU and will vote leave.
So which is it?
So, when I finally left The Shooting Star, I turned left into Bishopsgate and called at Wasabi to pick up a nice Tofu Curry