politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Mayor, the pro-IN Mayor’s Dad and the LAB approach to E

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

Indigo said:

DavidL said:

There was a genuine view that in respect of equality and women's rights in particular that pressure from the EU had resulted in changes to UK law that we might have struggled to make on our own. Personally, I think there is something in that. The evangelical approach of the Nordic countries in particular probably made the EU legislation go further than many countries including ours would have done on their own.

So yes, a contempt for democracy then. The British people can't be trusted (or are too oafish) to elect a government that will pass the right laws, as approved of by the progressive middle classes, so it has to be foisted on them by an external organisation run by people they didn't elect. Its the same mindset as the missionaries in Africa and South America a century ago, contempt for local views and social mores that need to be made to see the light.

I've always been of the view that employment law should exclusively belong to national governments, rather than being determined at pan-European level.

I'm sure we can all find individual bits of legislation that we like, which would not have been implemented outside the EU, but I'd still prefer to see legislation made by people who are accountable for it to national electorates.

I'll have time for all these "restoring democracy to the British people" arguments when we no longer have a voting system that ignores c.40% of the population.

Any voting system does so that's moot.

AlastairMeeks said:

Roger said:

Scott_P said:

blackburn63 said:

The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.

But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.

Are they wrong?

A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.

Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.

Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave

Miss Plato, urgh! Imagine voting with the unfashionable people.

Robert


'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.'

----------------------

The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.

Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.

Roger said:

A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.

How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."

Or indeed

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, silence, poor person! Get back up that chimney!

Mr. 1000, did you see my post below regarding MikeK?

Hmmm... he's not banned...

In fact he's set up as a "Verified User. Bypasses Spam Filter".

This may need some investigation.

Right: I've forced a password reset, and hopefully it'll work for him after that.

Not sure how else I raise this so apologies but overtime I enter the site and want to comment I have to reset my password. It has been like that for 3 years. Not very tech so may be me.

Roger said:

TOPPING said:

Roger said:

..

Dear god man spit it out...what are you trying to say you've had three goes at it....

I think it's wind

Better LEAVE than REMAIN ...

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.

How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."

Or indeed

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

Even better but I didnt think it a good idea to get the Scots involved

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.

(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events.
(2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all.
(3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided.
(4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?

We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.

One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

A very enjoyable article for Borisphobes. Whether Boris has destroyed the chances of Leave or the Leave campaign has destroyed the ambitions of Boris we have yet to find out. It could well be both.

How appropriate that on this 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death we should be reminded of one of his most intriguing and duplicitous characters, Iago "In following him I follow but myself......."

Or indeed

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

Even better but I didnt think it a good idea to get the Scots involved

Fair point. That never ends well.....

Indigo said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Roger said:

Scott_P said:

blackburn63 said:

The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.

But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.

Are they wrong?

A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.

Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.

Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave

Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!

Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.

Hardly Rosemary and Thyme

Indigo said:

OllyT said:

Indigo said:

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?

The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.

And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.

UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.

This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.

Everyone has the democratic choice to not vote.

I understand that but it's still a bit of an indictment of the "Cry Freedom" campaign that their best hope is that they can sneak through on the back of the OAPs on low turnout.

Crikey after weeks of swivel-eyed Meekism we get a Brind article appears that seems sane and balanced!

More seriously I do wonder if junior doctors strike is being played to london underground rules - in that when they've been on strike long enough that the pay saved can now be given as a concession to end the dispute?

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/724879748694986753

Lynton's 2p http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/pic-and-pub-with-one-in-five-still-not-sure-how-theyll-vote-its/

Expectations stay overwhelmingly in favour of an In vote come June. Almost three fifths (57 per cent) of voters still believe the Remain camp will win the day, with only 21 per cent believing the same for Leave and just under a quarter (22 per cent) of people unsure of the outcome. These expectations will have been reinforced by those in the Remain campaign who are claiming that the contest is almost over.

This vast gap in expectation means that the Remain campaign is still largely at risk of voter complacency. Many of their supporters will expect to win the referendum and thus fail to recognise the significance of their own vote.

Who could have predicted this ? Oh wait I did.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/724865653589561345

OllyT said:

Indigo said:

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?

The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.

And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.

UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.

This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.

It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.

Hmm Whittingdale apparently got a 2:2 and wanted to be an astronaut, also enjoys belting out Meatloaf and Deep purple on the karaoke.

Perhaps he should stay afterall

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.

(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events.
(2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all.
(3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided.
(4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?

We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.

One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.

That's an extremely interesting observation.

@TSE - both sides will do what maximises their votes

Remain will claim economic apocalypse and us becoming a pariah state if we go
Leave will claim the destruction of the NHS and inundation with terrorists if we stay

Both are absurd, and poor arguments far removed from the real issues of EU membership, but that's politics.

rcs1000 said:

runnymede said:

Robert


'We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.'

----------------------

The degree of protectionism has declined over the years but it is I think more significant than you allow Robert, and extends beyond agriculture - note the links I sent you yesterday. The upshot of that is that leaving the system has more benefits to the UK consumer and the economy than just lower food prices.

Nevertheless I agree with your broad argument, i.e. this is really about Britain's political future.

Errrr, you're quoting someone else not me...

Sorry - I messed that up: the bit I was trying to respond to was this

'I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.'

Roger said:

Indigo said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Roger said:

Scott_P said:

blackburn63 said:

The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.

But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.

Are they wrong?

A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.

Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.

Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave

Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!

Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.

Graham Brady for back bench loyalty.

If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?

david_herdson said:

OllyT said:

Indigo said:

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?

The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.

And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.

UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.

This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.

It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.

Voters could have swept an avowedly anti-EU party into power. They chose not to. Instead, in every election since 1979 they have given the majority of their votes to pro-EU parties. And now we have this referendum on whether to stay in. If that is not democracy, I don't know what is.

Scott_P said:

@KateAndrs: And we're off: As junior doctors strike, BMA tells them it's not their fault if people die https://t.co/bEVFkNDBs4

Quite right too . The buck stops at the top . Any deaths are the responsibility of Hunt who should be prosecuted for manslaughter should there be any .

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.

(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events.
(2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all.
(3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided.
(4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?

We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.

One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.

That's an extremely interesting observation.

Yet supposedly all the financial companies are going to move from the UK, which will get a deal with the USA, to the EU, which won't.

Layne said:

The Remain campaign are now literally using the words "For the children" in their Tweets. When you are parroting lines from Simpsons stereotypes, you really have lost the argument.

Unhappy marriage, partner with major problems, let us stay together for the children.....

Battered partner wants to leave for a refuge told that worse beatings will follow if they go...

Just plain wrong.

Stark_Dawning said:

If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?

Boris gave up trying to look credible or consistent weeks ago. He's campaigning for the Tory leadership and that's all.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Roger said:

Indigo said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Roger said:

Scott_P said:

blackburn63 said:

The thing is it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that it's still not true. No Leavers, most especially the more vociferous ones on here, are going to be in charge of anything.

But the PB brain trust keep telling us Dave will resign immediately and a Leaver will take over.

Are they wrong?

A future with Boris as PM is a likely by-product of a Leave victory. When voters are weighing the pros and cons I suspect this'll weigh heavily.

Or Michael Gove. I've test run this idea in a few conversations and the usual reaction is as if I'd offered Dracula a garlic clove.

Why I think polls this far out ignore some very salient considerations which will be major questions just before the vote none of which are helpful to Leave

Not sure the sort of people you guys will mingle with are the target demographic of someone like Gove Metropolitan liberal elite wouldn't vote for principled conviction conservative politician shocker!

Gove comes 84 out of 84 on the trustworthyness index. He is so unpopular Cameron had to move him to a low profile department before the last election. But you make the point. It would be a Leaver which can only mean Gove or Boris.

Graham Brady for back bench loyalty.

I doubt it. Though apparently quite nice he's not too bright. Apparently he's known as 'thicko' in Hale and there are so many footballers wives living there they'd know one one when they saw one

perdix said:

Is Leave copying Labour's economic ideas of proposing to spend any Brexit savings ten times over?

Offering alternatives for spending the saving was a technique in the No 2 AV campaign.

Indigo said:

NickPalmer said:

They essentially see Leaving as a philosophically UKIP project involving getting into bed with Farage and Gove and Boris and don't even give it the time of day - it's out there with banning trade unions and bringing back hanging.

If one looks at a policy in terms of how it burnishes or tarnishes one's image by association with its supporters, rather than on its own merits, it should be considered that one might have left the path of wisdom

Politics of the snob?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Labour's anti-semitism problem just got worse.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/labour-mp-israelis-should-face-transportation-out-of-middle-east/

Oh it is ok now that she said sorry and it was a long time ago... what 2 years....oops.

Well thats one suggest for a 2 state solution....

MarkSenior said:

Scott_P said:

@KateAndrs: And we're off: As junior doctors strike, BMA tells them it's not their fault if people die https://t.co/bEVFkNDBs4

Quite right too . The buck stops at the top . Any deaths are the responsibility of Hunt who should be prosecuted for manslaughter should there be any .

Come on, you don't seriously think that.

runnymede said:

chestnut said:

perdix said:

Is Leave copying Labour's economic ideas of proposing to spend any Brexit savings ten times over?

I suspect that the public feel Leave's claim to have how ever many billion available from the EU Fee is credible.

Well one advantage there is with this is that the budgetary cost of EU membership is a verifiable number.

By contrast, the REMAIN campaign's claims about the cost of exit are not. They are just figures created by a model simulation, which the public might (and certainly should) be highly sceptical of.

The other aspect to this is even if Remain nitpicks the £350m - it's still a Big Number. We had this sort of debate ages ago over some manifesto pledge or other, once a number becomes hundreds of millions or tots up to billions - it doesn't matter as the impression is made.

Meanwhile, for advocates of PR, 60 days and still counting:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/crisis-for-kenny-as-fianna-fil-rejects-offer-on-water-charges-34659498.html

Indigo said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Leave decide to major on immigration from now on where does that leave Boris? Boris is a self-confessed immigration fan and has even advocated an illegals' amnesty. If he goes all Kippery on the issue then he might look disingenuous; if he's consistent with his past views then Leave may appear fractured and void of coherence. How will this help Boris's career, is all I'm saying?

Because they are not the same thing.

President Obama has tightened visa requirements for H and L class visa significantly over the last couple of years ("reduces immigration") but at the same time made the several executive orders to defer action (defacto amnesty) against illegal immigrants.

Its one thing to say you need to limit the number of people coming into the country each year, its another to say that people already in the country that there is no realistic chance of removing from the country should be brought into society and become taxpayers and contributors.

Possibly true. But as we're always being told around here, 'Try explaining that on the doorstep'. I'm worried for Boris. If Leave are going to go supernova on immigration, there's no end of juicy Boris comments on the subject that journalists can dredge up and flap at Boris. One-to-one interviews aren't his strength - he often appears hesitant and unprepared - so this might become a bit of an ordeal for him and, by proxy, the Leave campaign itself.

'We had the discussion because Obama looked absolutely desperate yesterday to drum up German support for the deal.'


-----------------------------------------

I think it's pretty clear that US corporate interests have been pressuring the President over TTIP (and indeed, why shouldn't they).

Meanwhile in Germany and elsewhere there are a lot of concerns about it, including (interestingly) concerns that it will reduce the share of intra-EU trade and thereby 'damage' European integration. Which is very revealing about attitudes to trade generally.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.

(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events.
(2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all.
(3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided.
(4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?

We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.

One wonders whether Obama's desperation to keep us in because he knows without our involvement the TTIP is dead in the water.

I suspect TTIP is dead in the water anyway. A big majority of Germans are against it and there is growing resistance throughout Europe. Obama is in favour but Clinton may not be, nor Congress.

If you want a form of TTIP for the UK, vote LEAVE. The Tories are very keen on it and a UK/US form of TTIP would eventually lead to the US model of providing public services including health and education..

Mr. Barnesian, trade isn't the only aspect to consider. Legislation and the right to hold to account those who would impose new laws upon us are not small things.

richardDodd said:

Mark Senior..You seem a little confused..first you say no one will suffer and then you say those that do will be the sole responsibility of Hunt..Is Hunt the one who is refusing to be in the Hospital alleviating pain..right gotcha..

Senior moment

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

OllyT said:

Indigo said:

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Mr Brind, what about the Labour voters concerned about immigration? Is the party just going to drive them away?

The voters most concerned about immigration are in the socio-economic groups which are least likely to vote.

And yet the kipper inclined voters won the last Euro elections, which suggests some issues get them off the sofa to vote.

UKIP won the Euros with 26% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So about 8% of the electorate voted for them. Hence the collapse to 1 seat in a GE with a 60%+ turnout.

This of course is why despite all the fine words about "democracy" Leave are desperately hoping for a really low turnout in June.

It was also to do with people voting differently at different elections. UKIP won 4.38m votes in the 2014 Euros but only 3.88m votes at the 2015 GE despite the higher turnout.

Voters could have swept an avowedly anti-EU party into power. They chose not to. Instead, in every election since 1979 they have given the majority of their votes to pro-EU parties. And now we have this referendum on whether to stay in. If that is not democracy, I don't know what is.

Exactly, which harks back to May's speech yesterday.

If the people of Britain really want to leave the EU now, or every five years from 2020, they can do so.

On topic: Boris is finished, surely? Lots of people in the party like Boris, he's been a great Mayor, he's a fantastic speech-maker, and he has that 'star' quality, but there has always been doubt about how serious a figure he is. That doubt has now been decisively resolved, and not in his favour. I expect he'll stand down at the next election and resume his journalistic and speaking career.

Barnesian said:

rcs1000 said:

weejonnie said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

I don't understand the 'it's better to stay in so we can alter things' meme.

(1) We've been in 40 odd years and had a say in minor points only. The direction of travel has not been altered, merely delayed by events.
(2) Cameron went to the EU with the threat of British withdrawal hanging over him. Result ... the square root of f*ck all.
(3) No current party we are likely to elect is remotely interested in altering things anyway. The Establishment has decided.
(4) Having voted Remain in a referendum, why would the Eurocrats be interested in our proposed changes?

We have changed the EU. The single market was a UK initiative. The common market in services has been driven by the UK. CAP has formed a consistently declining part of the EU budget for nearly 20 years now largely because of UK pressure. The budget was frozen at a time when many in the EU were demanding and needing capital investment from structural funds at Cameron's insistence. We have persuaded the EU to reduce tariffs. It is less protectionist as a result of our involvement.

Your approach, with respect, is somewhat simplistic. The real question is do we agree with where the EU is going and needs to go if the Euro is to work for more than Germany? I don't and don't want to spend another 20 years with my country arguing negatively on the side lines. I wish them fair passage but not with us on board.

I would argue that when we joined the EU, it was 'a protectionist racket'. Now, with the exception of agriculture, the EU has some of the lowest external tariffs in the world (certainly on par with the US), and has removed most of its major NTBs.

That change is largely our doing.

Well if the EU have some of the lowest tariffs in the world there won't be any adverse economic effect from trading with them outside the EU.

AND we get cheaper food - as everyone, including REMAINers now admit.

There will be minimal differences - assuming we sign a sensible FTA with the EU - in our trading relationships from Brexit.

Agreed. There will also be minimal differences in free movement of people and net contribution. The only difference will be some loss of influence in EU matters and a major waste of time and confidence as conduct tortuous renegotiations of varius treaties. For no real change. So why bother?

Whichever Leave option is pursued there will be a very large net contribution reduction. We would end up paying perhaps 20% -25% of current net contributions.

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Boris is finished, surely? Lots of people in the party like Boris, he's been a great Mayor, he's a fantastic speech-maker, and he has that 'star' quality, but there has always been doubt about how serious a figure he is. That doubt has now been decisively resolved, and not in his favour. I expect he'll stand down at the next election and resume his journalistic and speaking career.

As TSE and I have both been saying, he won't make the final two.