I still think LEAVE was the right choice in a hideous, binary decision that could and should have been avoided, but only a simpleton would claim it's all going swimmingly so far. LEAVE have said some extraordinary things.
Hopefully a passing phase of idiocy. But still. Hmpft.
Highly probably done by Remainers. We live in the age of the democratisation of the false flag. I've seen members of forums and posters in news threads join under aliases specifically to make 'a side' look awful. Horrid practise. I think I'd feel utterly empty inside if I were to do that. But it happens.
So there's no such thing as a cretinous xenophobe - they're all people in favour of EU membership pretending. You must have lived a seriously sheltered existence.
I'm not denying the existence of the cretinous xenophobe, and I trust you would not deny the existence of astro-turfers, trolls and other associated pond life.
I'm going to put your 'Highly probably done by Remainers' remark down as 'unfortunate' and leave it at that.
I'll take that as a yes.
Take it as you wish. But I disagree with your use of the words "highly probable". Occam's razor would advise that if we see a sudden uptick in attacks on migrants after a campaign involving LEAVE campaigners Screaming At Migrants and LEAVE newspapers incessantly covering migrants, then LEAVE personnel/voters would be the first logical suspects
I prefer 'Cui Bono' as a rule of thumb. I've yet to be surprised.
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
Can't find the thing I saw earlier on Twitter but it doesn't seem to be clear that he'd be able to get on the ballot.
Big argument brewing on whether he gets on the ballot automatically.
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
It's worth remembering that Schengen confers no rights to work, all it is is an agreement between the various members not to need passports to travel between them.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
I think that's absolutely right, and the sooner we get to that conclusion the better.
I'd settle for this, but no doubt free movement of people and goods will be part of that arrangement. So some would scream betrayal.
some would, but given the closeness of the vote there will have to be compromises if it is to work. I would happily have voted for outer core but Cameron didnt take the offer.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
I met a man on the tube who had "don't believe random anecdotes tattooed to his forehead".
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
Can't find the thing I saw earlier on Twitter but it doesn't seem to be clear that he'd be able to get on the ballot.
I think he will get the 35 backers.
Dunno but wouldn't the left rather run McDonnell? It's hard to imagine them having enough signatures for both.
He is enamored with calling this the end the death ect ect of Corbyn.
I can't actually understand how he believes all this when Corbyn is standing on such solid ground and his enemies on such flimsy ground.
The battlefield (europe) could not have been more favourable for Corbyn (except foreign policy), especially after the Labour MP's have been proven so out of touch on the issue.
And don't forget the lingering animosity towards the MP's from Labour, the main reason why Corbyn was elected was because the Labour party hates it's own MP's. The view is that the MP's are some kind of out of touch aristocrats who need the chop, and their behaviour proves it.
More pertinently, a leader *has* to command at least the passive support of his or her MPs. Corbyn quite clearly no longer does. It's certainly ironic that after so many issues where Corbyn's been out of touch, the one that the MPs finally revolt over is one where the leader's closer to the voters than they are - but it's also beside the point. The pertinent fact is that they are acting, not why.
Corbyn may or may not survive the day. Quite probably he will, given that no-one can force him out at the moment and he will only go if he chooses to. The next hurdle is Tuesday. If he hasn't resigned by then, he will be no confidenced. Today's resignations are the equivalent of the first vote in the 1990 Tory leadership election. Even loyal MPs will know that Corbyn is so damaged that he can't credibly carry on even if they would have wanted him to (obviously, not all but enough to keep the tide flowing heavily against him). How does he carry on after that? Every interviewer and every other political party will bring it up at every opportunity.
Whether or not the MPs who resigned and those who supported their actions are punished by the CLPs is for another day. The deeds are done and cannot be undone.
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
And Labour will have no choice but to kick the out of touch MP's out, in order to survive and strengthen itself. It's time to kick the buggers out.
I still think LEAVE was the right choice in a hideous, binary decision that could and should have been avoided, but only a simpleton would claim it's all going swimmingly so far. LEAVE have said some extraordinary things.
Hopefully a passing phase of idiocy. But still. Hmpft.
Highly probably done by Remainers. We live in the age of the democratisation of the false flag. I've seen members of forums and posters in news threads join under aliases specifically to make 'a side' look awful. Horrid practise. I think I'd feel utterly empty inside if I were to do that. But it happens.
So there's no such thing as a cretinous xenophobe - they're all people in favour of EU membership pretending. You must have lived a seriously sheltered existence.
I'm not denying the existence of the cretinous xenophobe, and I trust you would not deny the existence of astro-turfers, trolls and other associated pond life.
I'm going to put your 'Highly probably done by Remainers' remark down as 'unfortunate' and leave it at that.
I'll take that as a yes.
Take it as you wish. But I disagree with your use of the words "highly probable". Occam's razor would advise that if we see a sudden uptick in attacks on migrants after a campaign involving LEAVE campaigners Screaming At Migrants and LEAVE newspapers incessantly covering migrants, then LEAVE personnel/voters would be the first logical suspects
The key question is, are we seeing an ACTUAL uptick in attacks, or a PERCEIVED uptick in attacks due to the increased posting of them by pissed off remainers on social media. I guess it is going to take a week or two before we find out.
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
I think that's absolutely right, and the sooner we get to that conclusion the better.
I'd settle for this, but no doubt free movement of people and goods will be part of that arrangement. So some would scream betrayal.
some would, but given the closeness of the vote there will have to be compromises if it is to work. I would happily have voted for outer core but Cameron didnt take the offer.
So, it will be almost Remain.
my guess ? Single market, chip in to budget at lower rate, Freeish movement but more restrictions, No closer Union.
I don;t know about you lot but I would treat anything tweeted by a political journalist right now with a ton of salt, unless its attributed to a person directly.
Plenty of making things up to suit your own agenda going on
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
Did they proffer any reasons for this change of heart?
Juncker can shove that where the sun doesn't shine. Bollocks to him.
Juncker was asked in Paris in a presser about 2 weeks ago for his thoughts on Brexit and his reply was "Je m'en fous, integralement" which,i think, means "I really don’t give a damn".
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
Hard to imagine the governments of the countries in the low-income tiers agreeing to that.
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
I think that's absolutely right, and the sooner we get to that conclusion the better.
The UK does not get to play in that game any more.
I'm sure David Cameron will be happy to go to Sweden and recommend this course of action to the Moderate Party hash tag in o cent face
We play in all the games for the next two years until we are out. We still have MEPs, we still have Commissioners, we are at all the debates in the Council of Europe except the ones concerning our departure.
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
I think that's absolutely right, and the sooner we get to that conclusion the better.
I'd settle for this, but no doubt free movement of people and goods will be part of that arrangement. So some would scream betrayal.
some would, but given the closeness of the vote there will have to be compromises if it is to work. I would happily have voted for outer core but Cameron didnt take the offer.
So, it will be almost Remain.
EFTA have negotiated as tiny nations with small markets whilst often profiting on balance from gaining access to the single market.
A re-balancing of the nations changes that to a degree. They could reasonably seek tweaks to existing terms if they had the UK, Swedish and Danish economies to their bloc.
17:24 Having returned from Glastonbury (where he was partying at 4am last night), Tom Watson has spoken. Labour's deputy leader, who enjoys his own mandate, has said that he is "deeply disappointed" at Hilary Benn's sacking and that he is "equally saddened" by the shadow cabinet resignations. Though that's not an endorsement of the coup, it's far from an unambiguous rejection of it. Watson added that his focus was to "hold the Labour Party together" and that he would meet Corbyn tomorrow to discuss the "way forward".
I don;t know about you lot but I would treat anything tweeted by a political journalist right now with a ton of salt, unless its attributed to a person directly.
Plenty of making things up to suit your own agenda going on
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
Can't find the thing I saw earlier on Twitter but it doesn't seem to be clear that he'd be able to get on the ballot.
It's not clear although there was a tweet from a Sky journo (IIRC) that Labour had taken legal advice and the view was that Corbyn would be automatically on the ballot without the need for nomination (which, fwiw, is my opinion of the relevant section too).
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
One thing is certain, I reckon, and that is that we will stay in the single market, or as close to it as possible. This will piss off a lot of LEAVE voters, as we will still have Freedom of Movement.
Somehow 120ish countries of the would do business with us without being in the single market, some of them are rather more prosperous than we are. If we stay with freedom of movement without at least substantial caveats there will be 30 UKIP seats in the next parliament and if they are lucky a Tory minority government.
If Brexit doesn't include an end to Freedom of Movement then half the Leave voters will be furious they were sold a pup and all the remainers will believe the referendum was fraudulently won on a false prospectus. People voted for completely out, Leave can't simply ignore that once they have won, much as I suspect many of them would like to.
But nor can they entirely ignore the 48.2% of Britons, and two of the four nations in the UK, which all voted REMAIN.
It was a nuanced result. It just was.
We need either a General Election where all sides can present their ideas for the future, or a 2nd referendum on our further options, or both.
Boris himself envisaged a 2nd referendum and a renegotiation, following Brexit. That must be his desire. If he can pull it off and get some deal on FoM while keeping us in the EU, he could still emerge as the hero of the hour.
I still think LEAVE was the right choice in a hideous, binary decision that could and should have been avoided, but only a simpleton would claim it's all going swimmingly so far. LEAVE have said some extraordinary things.
Hopefully a passing phase of idiocy. But still. Hmpft.
Highly probably done by Remainers. We live in the age of the democratisation of the false flag. I've seen members of forums and posters in news threads join under aliases specifically to make 'a side' look awful. Horrid practise. I think I'd feel utterly empty inside if I were to do that. But it happens.
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
Except that would have required a treaty change. And thus the unanimous agreement of all 28 (in future 27) states, including Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria.....
And that's the problem of the EU. So much of the things that need changing are hard wired into EU treaties that it's all but impossible to get the unanimity necessary to change them. And so the EU is incapable of changing on issues where it matters.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
The Mail?
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Mr. Dog, I believe Juncker's said it can't happen.
Mr. Speedy, at least there's one realm of continued Chipping Nortonian success.
Thanks Mr Dancer. I cant help wondering why no one (e.g. Ruth) is mentioning that to the Scottish people while Nicola is talking it up as pretty much a done deal. I find it frankly amazing that support for independence isn't higher after the past few days of hysteria and nihilism in the media and on social media, the fact that the UK government has apparently run away, and Nicola wildly promising the broad sunlit uplands of EU paradise. Interesting times.
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
Can't find the thing I saw earlier on Twitter but it doesn't seem to be clear that he'd be able to get on the ballot.
I think he will get the 35 backers.
Dunno but wouldn't the left rather run McDonnell? It's hard to imagine them having enough signatures for both.
We discussed this on PB earlier. Labour have had 3 separate QCs confirm the rules mean Corbyn is auto on ballot.
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
I still think LEAVE was the right choice in a hideous, binary decision that could and should have been avoided, but only a simpleton would claim it's all going swimmingly so far. LEAVE have said some extraordinary things.
Hopefully a passing phase of idiocy. But still. Hmpft.
Highly probably done by Remainers. We live in the age of the democratisation of the false flag. I've seen members of forums and posters in news threads join under aliases specifically to make 'a side' look awful. Horrid practise. I think I'd feel utterly empty inside if I were to do that. But it happens.
So there's no such thing as a cretinous xenophobe - they're all people in favour of EU membership pretending. You must have lived a seriously sheltered existence.
I'm not denying the existence of the cretinous xenophobe, and I trust you would not deny the existence of astro-turfers, trolls and other associated pond life.
I'm going to put your 'Highly probably done by Remainers' remark down as 'unfortunate' and leave it at that.
I'll take that as a yes.
Take it as you wish. But I disagree with your use of the words "highly probable". Occam's razor would advise that if we see a sudden uptick in attacks on migrants after a campaign involving LEAVE campaigners Screaming At Migrants and LEAVE newspapers incessantly covering migrants, then LEAVE personnel/voters would be the first logical suspects
The key question is, are we seeing an ACTUAL uptick in attacks, or a PERCEIVED uptick in attacks due to the increased posting of them by pissed off remainers on social media. I guess it is going to take a week or two before we find out.
Well if there are any physical attacks I hope and expect the police to act on them. As for verbal attacks - well there are probably more on the Guardian Website, Twitter and Facebook than you'll ever see in the streets.
I still think LEAVE was the right choice in a hideous, binary decision that could and should have been avoided, but only a simpleton would claim it's all going swimmingly so far. LEAVE have said some extraordinary things.
Hopefully a passing phase of idiocy. But still. Hmpft.
I agree though once the genie is out of the bottle who knows where it will end, I think there is now a strong chance Trump wins the US Presidency and Le Pen the French Presidency now if a domino effect occurs
Podemos want to rip up the Treaty of Lisbon and they are a potential winner of the Spanish election. PP are still most likely to win but the polls have Podemos close enough to win it.
Yes, looks like another hung parliament with Podemos having more seats in Parliament
Yes, they merged with the Communists, and have basically kept all of their vote.
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
Hard to imagine the governments of the countries in the low-income tiers agreeing to that.
Its the citizenship rights that kill it. Before Maastrict (?) it was free movement of Labour. You had to have a job offer, and you had no welfare/voting rights in the other member states. Now you have to be treated like a citizen of all the member states.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Not if Sturgeon can do a deal with the EU contingent on Scotland becoming Independent, map out an Independence proposal contingent on Scotland staying in the EU, and then put the package out to the vote with whatever the UK has come up with for Brexit as the alternative choice.
It is, of course, a hugely challenging game to pull off - and a lot depends on whether the EU would go for this as a consolation prize after losing rUK or would actually prefer that we all went away and stopped rocking their boat.
But you can't deny that so far Sturgeon seems to have done more thinking about this than all the other politicians put together.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Corbyn will not resign under any circumstances. The membership is likely to re-elect him. Labour will become even more irrelevant. But MPs have no choice but to do what they're doing.
Can't find the thing I saw earlier on Twitter but it doesn't seem to be clear that he'd be able to get on the ballot.
I think he will get the 35 backers.
Dunno but wouldn't the left rather run McDonnell? It's hard to imagine them having enough signatures for both.
We discussed this on PB earlier. Labour have had 3 separate QCs confirm the rules mean Corbyn is auto on ballot.
It seems fairly obvious from any reasonable reading of the rules.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
I know when it comes to Cameron's renegotiation I've been telling everyone that EU treaties take 10 years and that it's very hard getting them through 28 countries each with multiple veto points, but if it's a treaty to allow the continuation of the status quo on the ground, I don't see why they couldn't get it done in 2 years or however long it take the rUK to finish Brexiting. That's assuming Spain or somebody else with a separatist problem doesn't block it outright.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
The report you were reading was tht Scotland couldn't stay part of the EU if the UK exited and Scotland stayed part of the UK.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Thanks. Thats not what theyre being sold. They're being sold independence as stability, ironically, as 'retaining the status quo' of the EU. What I dont understand is why Nicola is marching everyone up to the top of the hill if she has no idea of the EU will actually tell her to just join the queue. She's usually far smarter than to set herself up for a climb down. Perhaps all she's trying to do is add to the instability in London to give the impression that her government is the safe haven Scots should cling to. One thing she isn't going to do is try to make things better for the UK. One must assume her purpose is always going to be making them worse.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Nah germans like things done by the book.
And they play football like gods. Nailed on for this tournament in my opinion.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
Surely you could have kept up a pretence of neutrality for a little longer than 13 posts?
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Seems increasingly to be that the UK will not leave the EU, but we will have two years of chaos, followed by another referendum.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
We leave the EU automatically within 2 years of triggering article 50. Triggering article 50 is not a matter for Parliament, but done under Royal Prerogative. So doesn't matter who has the votes against it.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Seems increasingly to be that the UK will not leave the EU, but we will have two years of chaos, followed by another referendum.
Once we activate Article 50 we are leaving. That will happen once Cameron is gone at the latest.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
The report you were reading was tht Scotland couldn't stay part of the EU if the UK exited and Scotland stayed part of the UK.
Which is 100% unsurprising .
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
Mr. Indigo, our commissioner, Lord Hill, resigned.
Mr. T, good news, if he sticks to that. We should delay triggering Article 50 until we've got ourselves sorted and done at least preliminary negotiations.
If the EU doesn't want the uncertainty of lengthy negotiations, they can make a reasonable offer that can be accepted easily.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Seems increasingly to be that the UK will not leave the EU, but we will have two years of chaos, followed by another referendum.
Dunno but wouldn't the left rather run McDonnell? It's hard to imagine them having enough signatures for both.
We discussed this on PB earlier. Labour have had 3 separate QCs confirm the rules mean Corbyn is auto on ballot.
McDonnell has said he is not a candidate, since Corbyn is standing, which is less than a Shermanesque rejection. Separately, though, he's said he will never be a candidate. Were Corbyn to decide not to stand, I suspect that might be revisited. (I don't have inside information, though.)
Thanks. Thats not what theyre being sold. They're being sold independence as stability, ironically, as 'retaining the status quo' of the EU. What I dont understand is why Nicola is marching everyone up to the top of the hill if she has no idea of the EU will actually tell her to just join the queue. She's usually far smarter than to set herself up for a climb down. Perhaps all she's trying to do is add to the instability in London to give the impression that her government is the safe haven Scots should cling to. One thing she isn't going to do is try to make things better for the UK. One must assume her purpose is always going to be making them worse.
The only noises coming out of the EU to date with any names attached are that Scotland will be welcomed into the EU and that a deal must be done.
Unsubstantiated bullshit in the Daily Mail does not count as a reasonable source in any matter relating to Scotland.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Thanks. Thats not what theyre being sold. They're being sold independence as stability, ironically, as 'retaining the status quo' of the EU. What I dont understand is why Nicola is marching everyone up to the top of the hill if she has no idea of the EU will actually tell her to just join the queue. She's usually far smarter than to set herself up for a climb down. Perhaps all she's trying to do is add to the instability in London to give the impression that her government is the safe haven Scots should cling to. One thing she isn't going to do is try to make things better for the UK. One must assume her purpose is always going to be making them worse.
Like the Leave campaign her aim is independence, if she gets that it doesn't matter whether people call her a liar afterwards. That said, I think continuous EU membership for an independent Scotland is probably achievable, Spain-permitting.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
''all in turnout across almost all of Spain today....''
Is that a surprise? give people something important to vote for, their future, their self government, and they will get up off their backsides and vote in their droves.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
Nah germans like things done by the book.
Very true they would cut off their nose if it was at start of process even when keeping it was later in the schedule.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Why would he call an election?
We can't keep everyone waiting indefinitely to see what the UK/EU relationship is going to be.
The new PM will reach a provisional agreement with the EU, and then activate article 50. The election is not required before 2020.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
The pound is at 1.36 to the Dollar in February it was at 1.38. That's down.
The FTSE 100 was effectively at 8412 if priced in Dollars back in February when the pound was "where it was in February", it is now at 8347. That's down.
The FTSE 250 was at 22862 in dollar terms in February, it is now 21879. That's down.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
We leave the EU automatically within 2 years of triggering article 50. Triggering article 50 is not a matter for Parliament, but done under Royal Prerogative. So doesn't matter who has the votes against it.
OK, fair enough.
Well it's then a question as to whether the next PM triggers Article 50 BEFORE the GE?
If they go for an immediate GE, then it may well be they'll put their whole plan in the manifesto and only trigger Article 50 once they are re-elected.
Then, if there is no majority Con Government, my previous post stands.
Other possibility is no GE. There's obviously a chance of that - moreso if someone like May becomes PM.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Seems increasingly to be that the UK will not leave the EU, but we will have two years of chaos, followed by another referendum.
Once we activate Article 50 we are leaving. That will happen once Cameron is gone at the latest.
hmmm
I still dont think this is over. The establishment have had a good kicking but they will come back and Boris is anything but consistent.
My guess is all sides will want a fudge. Not what you want to hear I know.
I wonder if it will at any stage occur to investors and business people that some of the EU's more onerous regulations will soon no longer apply to the UK.
This putsch will not work against Corbyn. However, the PLP has one weapon - the nuclear one. Parliament does not recognise the leader of the Labour Party. It only recognises the Leader of the PLP. The leadership could be changed by the MPs. The new leader could be the Leader of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons.
However, there could be massive unrest in the Party as a whole. How many would follow such a strategy ?
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
I met a man on the tube who had "don't believe random anecdotes tattooed to his forehead".
exactly! but did he have "tattooed to his forehead" tattooed to his forehead?
Comments
"Out."
https://twitter.com/mirrorpolitics/status/747094369002491904
It's time to kick the buggers out.
Plenty of making things up to suit your own agenda going on
https://twitter.com/dreamboatslim/status/747074264151564288
He won't be helpful.
A re-balancing of the nations changes that to a degree. They could reasonably seek tweaks to existing terms if they had the UK, Swedish and Danish economies to their bloc.
"David Cameron will not trigger Article 50 at Tuesday's summit: BBG."
Of course he won't. He'll sit at the table and sip at a martini, shaken not stirred. "No, Mr Juncker, I expect you to die."
Tell that to the knee-jerks.
And that's the problem of the EU. So much of the things that need changing are hard wired into EU treaties that it's all but impossible to get the unanimity necessary to change them. And so the EU is incapable of changing on issues where it matters.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves.
The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'.
But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660320/NON-EU-slaps-Sturgeon-SNP-leader-dramatically-announces-wants-immediate-discussions-STAY-EU-humiliated-Brussels-says-No-s-not-works.html
It is, of course, a hugely challenging game to pull off - and a lot depends on whether the EU would go for this as a consolation prize after losing rUK or would actually prefer that we all went away and stopped rocking their boat.
But you can't deny that so far Sturgeon seems to have done more thinking about this than all the other politicians put together.
It seems fairly obvious from any reasonable reading of the rules.
Which is 100% unsurprising .
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/747104300430655488
Tell that to the knee-jerks.
It happened before the referendum too. There are too many unattributable 'sources' and 'senior MPs of party X / campaign Y' say...about.
The hacks, like the politicians, have been completely outflanked by events and are really thrashing around.
If only others were.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
Backing Remain should be a career ender.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/747106961536200704
https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/747092548343181312
Mr. T, good news, if he sticks to that. We should delay triggering Article 50 until we've got ourselves sorted and done at least preliminary negotiations.
If the EU doesn't want the uncertainty of lengthy negotiations, they can make a reasonable offer that can be accepted easily.
http://ht.ly/kGh6501MEYk
Unsubstantiated bullshit in the Daily Mail does not count as a reasonable source in any matter relating to Scotland.
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
The sell-off of shares tomorrow is going to be something to behold.
Is that a surprise? give people something important to vote for, their future, their self government, and they will get up off their backsides and vote in their droves.
See last week for ref.
We can't keep everyone waiting indefinitely to see what the UK/EU relationship is going to be.
The new PM will reach a provisional agreement with the EU, and then activate article 50. The election is not required before 2020.
3....
2....
1....
Negotiate!
The FTSE 100 was effectively at 8412 if priced in Dollars back in February when the pound was "where it was in February", it is now at 8347. That's down.
The FTSE 250 was at 22862 in dollar terms in February, it is now 21879. That's down.
Well it's then a question as to whether the next PM triggers Article 50 BEFORE the GE?
If they go for an immediate GE, then it may well be they'll put their whole plan in the manifesto and only trigger Article 50 once they are re-elected.
Then, if there is no majority Con Government, my previous post stands.
Other possibility is no GE. There's obviously a chance of that - moreso if someone like May becomes PM.
I still dont think this is over. The establishment have had a good kicking but they will come back and Boris is anything but consistent.
My guess is all sides will want a fudge. Not what you want to hear I know.
However, there could be massive unrest in the Party as a whole. How many would follow such a strategy ?