politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the past 6 weeks EU referendum polls have ranged from a
Comments
-
Depends how mutually beneficial is defined at the time.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, are you suggesting the US would refuse a mutually beneficial trade treaty on the basis that we'd left the EU? You silly sausage.
Mr. Isam, quite. Not only that, there are opportunities elsewhere, as the eurozone languishes in a quagmire of predictable idiocy.0 -
So when Aus and NZ went solo, they didn't have the concerns about the future that we do about leaving the EU? Why is that?OldKingCole said:
No.isam said:
Doesn't your last sentence show that we don't have to stay in the EU?OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US preseident would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally insie the EU be a disadvasntage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.0 -
OKC It would not be a deal if it was not mutually beneficial..that's how it works..0
-
In a slightly unexpected move, Erdogan has blamed IS for Saturday's bombings that killed at least 97 people:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34505030
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with respect to November's election.0 -
Agreed, I grew up in Aus and this was a major issue for them. This is the #1 reason I'm tempted to vote In.richardDodd said:OKC I have OZ and NZ friends who still need a visa to visit Europe..so little has changed for them in that aspect..
0 -
Remain need to figure out where their 50% comes from. Differential voter turnout is going to be key. Eurosceptics will be highly motivated already. It's all about getting those that aren't bothered but dislike change to block them. So that requires a safety & security campaign.JEO said:
I always assumed the Leave campaign would be more shambolic, but the Remain campaign has had a very poor start. They appointed a very internationalist millionaire from a sector dominated by cheap EU labour. They started their campaign going negative on the risk angle. They have already used two different sets of numbers about how much we'd lose. And then they insult half of the voters as being akin to losers.Roger said:On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown
2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors
3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties
4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business
5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive
6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
On the plus side, at least they're not wheeling out celebrity luvvies.
If we assume a breakdown.
CON:40, LAB: 30, UKIP:15, LD+NAT: 15
Assume LD+NAT and UKIP cancel each other out.
That leaves the battle in the LAB & CON parties. If REMAIN get half of the Tories, they should be safe.0 -
PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..0
-
That the US President wants an ally in the EU is great for America, less significant for Brits. We may have wanted America to be a part of our Empire but what mattered is what the Americans want. What we want trumps what the Americans want.OldKingCole said:Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.0 -
The Australian market is not as large as Benelux.0
-
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.0 -
PT A simple question for you which you may be able answer given your OZ connections..Why do the Japanese not need a visa to travel to OZ and Brits do.
Were you aware of a complete Japanese town in Queensland where Australians are banned from visiting.. it is for the Japanese only..0 -
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.0 -
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
0 -
Jonathan,
It is not clear that Scottish nationalists will vote In if its their best chance for leaving the UK.
Liberal Democrat voters are also not as pro-EU as their activists and MPs are.
I agree Conservative voters are the swing bloc that will determine this.0 -
PT Visas can be applied both ways...that is why we have passports in Europe..even those countries that are not members do not need visas..
0 -
I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria and have never heard of that town or that visa requirement. Though the Australians have long sought closer deals with Japan and the rest of South East Asia (via ASEAN etc) as their future. In my primary school Japanese was a compulsory second language and it along with French, Latin and Indonesian were the language options available.richardDodd said:PT A simple question for you which you may be able answer given your OZ connections..Why do the Japanese not need a visa to travel to OZ and Brits do.
Were you aware of a complete Japanese town in Queensland where Australians are banned from visiting.. it is for the Japanese only..
Looking online it seems the Japanese have the same visa requirements to enter Australia as we do and only Kiwis (with whom Australia have a reciprocal deal) can enter Australia visa-free: http://www.australia.com/en/planning/visa-information.html0 -
If you take into account income tax on the pension they will be nearer 87 as a basic rate tax payer (or even 93 if higher rate). Take into account the loss of value on your "investment" due to inflation I can't see many people being best advised to do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually the example is invest £8900 for £520pa for life.flightpath01 said:
People who have just retired and under new rues can do what they like with their lump sum if they have one and could choose to place some of it this way. This does not make them wealthy, just prudent during their working life. Invest about 8000 to get 1200pa for life at 65. ??DecrepitJohnL said:
A couple of pb-ers are experts, aiui, but as a voter on the Clapham omnibus, my first impression is that, like Labour's ISAs, this measure seems aimed at people with money rather than those without.OldKingCole said:Totally O/t but does anyone think the new top-up pensions proposals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34489326)are a good thing for pensioners
I realise that they might seem to be a good thing for the Tory Party!
The person who does that would break even (except for time value of money) at age 82.
A bit of a gimmick to put more funds in government coffers.0 -
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.0 -
So what?blackburn63 said:
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.0 -
Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?0
-
pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..0
-
Give it time.JEO said:
I always assumed the Leave campaign would be more shambolic, but the Remain campaign has had a very poor start. They appointed a very internationalist millionaire from a sector dominated by cheap EU labour. They started their campaign going negative on the risk angle. They have already used two different sets of numbers about how much we'd lose. And then they insult half of the voters as being akin to losers.Roger said:On paper the 'out' campaign hasn't got a hope in hell. 'In' has everything.
1. Dislike of trips into the unknown
2. It's backers are more impressive than it's detractors
3. It has the backing of all the leaders of all political parties
4. It has the backing of all leaders of BIG business
5. The fear of not being cast adrift is a massive incentive
6. Scotland would almost certainly secede
So if OUT manage to make any inroads at all it can only be down to an absolutely abysmal campaign.
On the plus side, at least they're not wheeling out celebrity luvvies.0 -
Absolutely visas can be applied both ways, deals should always be reciprocal. I would never want a deal that is not reciprocal.richardDodd said:PT Visas can be applied both ways...that is why we have passports in Europe..even those countries that are not members do not need visas..
If an Australian wants to live or work in France they need a visa.0 -
The Australian government says the Japanese do so I suspect there is a misunderstanding somewhere.richardDodd said:pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..
0 -
Morning all,
Anyone done the maths on the £20k pension thingy ? Not that I'm eligible and my Dad will miss out on it by being 3 months too young
Hargreaves Lansdowne chap reckoned it was a good deal but I'm not certain £20k in for £25/week return with loss of capital is actually THAT good even if it is inflationproofed.0 -
So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..0 -
Mr. Isam, no.
Nobody will believe him after his hokey-cokey non-resignation before, it'll discredit when of the names in the Out campaign, and it'll shift the focus (such as it is) from Rose inventing unconvincing numbers to the dubious credibility of a figure that's of more use to In than Out.
Also, calling perhaps the critical group you need to get on-side 'imbeciles' for disagreeing isn't going to win hearts and minds.0 -
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.0 -
I'm only calling those who say they would vote Remain to spite Farage 'imbeciles', not all Tories... There can't be manyMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Isam, no.
Nobody will believe him after his hokey-cokey non-resignation before, it'll discredit when of the names in the Out campaign, and it'll shift the focus (such as it is) from Rose inventing unconvincing numbers to the dubious credibility of a figure that's of more use to In than Out.
Also, calling perhaps the critical group you need to get on-side 'imbeciles' for disagreeing isn't going to win hearts and minds.
Well maybe Farage should frame it differently, 'I won't quit until we leave' might be better than 'I will if we do'0 -
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.0 -
isam has anyone said they'd vote to stay in because of Farage alone?0
-
No, it's a good deal for some people. For example, at age 65 it's equivalent to an annuity yielding 5.84%, and it's effectively index-linked. That's a lot better than you could get by buying an index-linked annuity on the open market.MikeSole said:If you take into account income tax on the pension they will be nearer 87 as a basic rate tax payer (or even 93 if higher rate). Take into account the loss of value on your "investment" due to inflation I can't see many people being best advised to do it.
A bit of a gimmick to put more funds in government coffers.
See the table towards the bottom of this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34474028
0 -
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.Philip_Thompson said:
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.0 -
@HTScotPol: More interesting stuff on .@BizforScotland, esp as Colin Pyle is ex-Salmond SpAd http://t.co/HgSCIR4C090
-
According to some on here, yesPhilip_Thompson said:isam has anyone said they'd vote to stay in because of Farage alone?
0 -
'Ooh the big boys will bully us'. Whatever. That sounds like scaremongering.OldKingCole said:
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The UK has a few bargaining chips if it came to dealing with a US playing silly beggars. (Which they won't).0 -
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
0 -
Excellent summary. Mr Rose may as well stand aside now as well - he's made a silly claim, insulted a load of potential voters and pwned as a business man who said he wanted cheap immigrant labour. Terrible starting position.Casino_Royale said:
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:
Good point. (Not about the sky!) OUT suggests that we will be able re-negotiate treaties and deals with the US, China etc to our benefit, but there’s no evidence that that will be possible. Indeed, the current US president would prefer us to be IN, and there’s no evidence that his successor will take a different view. Will not the loss of his native English-speaker ally inside the EU be a disadvantage?watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
snip
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
And I can’t see the Aussies, Kiwis etc wanting to return to something like the Empire Preference situation. "Them days is gorn!” They’ve all rejigged their economies to trade with other people.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.0 -
It’s not one of these short-term tourist-visa-on-arrival arrangements, is it? When a Brit (or an Aussie) goes to Thailand the passport is stamped with the arrival date and there’s a penalty if one overstays. Seem to recall a similar situation when we last went to Oz. And the time before we were on a cruise ship, and the Oz immigration people were much more friendly to us as Brits and what did we think of the then current cricket tour than they were to the Yanks, who were the majority on the ship. (I can recall ALL the friendly immigration officials I’ve every met)Philip_Thompson said:
The Australian government says the Japanese do so I suspect there is a misunderstanding somewhere.richardDodd said:pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..
The Americans were somewhat jealous of our friendly treatment!0 -
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".Casino_Royale said:
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.Philip_Thompson said:
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.0 -
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?isam said:Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
0 -
Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.0 -
The Japanese are treated the same as Brits are from what I can see. Which means its a lot easier to get a visa including a working holiday visa.OldKingCole said:
It’s not one of these short-term tourist-visa-on-arrival arrangements, is it? When a Brit (or an Auusie goes to Thailand the passport is stamped with the arrival date and there’s a penalty if one overstays. Seem to recall a similar situation when we last went to Oz.Philip_Thompson said:
The Australian government says the Japanese do so I suspect there is a misunderstanding somewhere.richardDodd said:pt The Japanese certainly did not need need visas the last time I was there..and that did pee off a lot of Aussies..
0 -
The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.0 -
It's a stupid claim.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
For £450 you can control immigration, stop benefit tourism, avoid overloading the NHS, schools and housing and regain some of the £760 each household pays in to the EU.
Daft.0 -
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.0 -
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.Philip_Thompson said:
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".Casino_Royale said:
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.Philip_Thompson said:
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.0 -
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.SandyRentool said:The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.0 -
I really don't know.. He never said he was quitting politics at the GE, just standing down as UKIP leader.MarqueeMark said:
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?isam said:Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
But, given he has health problems and his life's ambition would have been realised, it may suit him to give up on the back of a leave vote, and may reduce any fears the undecided have about a post EU Britain0 -
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.0 -
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argumentPhilip_Thompson said:
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.0 -
I can't recall anyone saying that.isam said:
According to some on here, yesPhilip_Thompson said:isam has anyone said they'd vote to stay in because of Farage alone?
0 -
Or as Tommy Cooper used to say "People used to laugh at me when I said some day, I'd be a professional comedian. Well, no one's laughing now!"Sean_F said:
When I make a joke, let me assure you its no laughing matter.BannedInParis said:
First they came for those with a sense of humour....MarqueeMark said:
... and that's from Labour ...BannedInParis said:Plato_Says said:The UnCut piss take on Corbynism is rather funny http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/11/the-a-z-of-corbsplaining/
Milliband – Previous leader of the Labour party, whose ideas were insufficiently leftist, causing the electorate to vote Conservative in protest.
Prior diary commitment – What you organise quickly just after the Labour party press office schedule a tricky interview.
Campaign Group – A group of MPs who do not campaign but do tweet a lot.
oof
Now nobody's laughing.
I thought that was Bob Monkhouse...0 -
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?MarqueeMark said:
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?isam said:Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
0 -
isam said:
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argumentPhilip_Thompson said:
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Not surprised at all, will probably end with the same outcome too. Although as less sovereignty is at stake and as the out campaign is not being led by the national government (like Out Scotland being led by the Scottish government) I don't expect it to be as close.isam said:
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argumentPhilip_Thompson said:
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.0 -
I can't help thatPhilip_Thompson said:
I can't recall anyone saying that.isam said:
According to some on here, yesPhilip_Thompson said:isam has anyone said they'd vote to stay in because of Farage alone?
0 -
All this talk on the EU referendum is getting rather boring. There's little new to discuss, and so we're going into peoples' characters and examining the entrails of conversations.
Can we have an AV thread please?0 -
MaybePhilip_Thompson said:isam said:
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argumentPhilip_Thompson said:
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.
Not surprised at all, will probably end with the same outcome too. Although as less sovereignty is at stake and as the out campaign is not being led by the national government (like Out Scotland being led by the Scottish government) I don't expect it to be as close.isam said:
Is that surprising?! It is basically the same argumentPhilip_Thompson said:
As did Scottish Nationalists.Plato_Says said:Times readers are saying cheap at the price too.
Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
I swear we're doing the Time Warp now. The arguments both sides are making are a reheat of the independence debate so far.0 -
Good piece from Boris http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11925511/Labour-directs-its-impotent-fury-at-all-but-those-responsible-itself.html
Well, my fellow scumsters, just remember, in the unlikely event that you mind these insults: it’s not about you, it’s about them.
0 -
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.0 -
I thought Mandy and Danny Alexander were going to be leading the charge alongside Rose this morning?Alanbrooke said:
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.SandyRentool said:The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.0 -
watford30 said:
There's no rational reason why sensible free trade arrangements could not be arranged between the UK and R-EU. It would be in both parties' interests.OldKingCole said:
'Ooh the big boys will bully us'. Whatever. That sounds like scaremongering.watford30 said:
But we have to deal withn the US, and, if OUT will be small state dealing with the big one.OldKingCole said:
blockquote>watford30 said:
The sky will fall in.isam said:
What is the worst that can happen?SouthamObserver said:
Clearly we have not given away aspects of our sovereignty irrevocably. We are having a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, if you give away sovereignty then getting it back is more difficult. You may argue ceding helps in situation X, but how can you tell whether a decade down the line the organisation to which its ceded will have changed to our disadvantage?
Retaining sovereignty enables multi-lateral deals to be struck when they accord with our interest. Surrendering sovereignty means we don't get to pick and choose whether something helps us or not, because we've given away responsibility for our own governance.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I partly agree. The way the debate goes now will frame the way the final deal, or lack thereof, is viewed, I think. So, a bit like qualifying, you don't score points, but it's better to start on pole than 20th.
What we are not getting, though, is a vote on the level of sovereignty we should enjoy. We are not being provided with a definitive alternative scenario should we vote to Leave. In fact, we have absolutely no idea what happens if we vote Out. That strikes me as a major flaw in the Out argument. What does it actually mean in practical terms?
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
The UK has a few bargaining chips if it came to dealing with a US playing silly beggars. (Which they won't).
But, it's possible that that R-EU might react very emotionally if we voted to Leave, and seek to punish us for it. Rational self-interest isn't everything in politics.
Not, that I would regard that as a strong reason to Remain.0 -
They're in worse shape than I thought then :-)SandyRentool said:
I thought Mandy and Danny Alexander were going to be leading the charge alongside Rose this morning?Alanbrooke said:
Time for Remain to wheel out Tony Blair and Mandy. That should turn things around.SandyRentool said:The more big-business millionaire fat cats the Remain side roll out, the more centre-left and especially Jezlamist left voters will switch to the Leave camp.
If all Remain can offer is "the establishment knows best - just be good boys and girls and do what we say", then it illustrates the hollowness of the claim that EU membership is essential to the UK's wellbeing.0 -
Again an issue of nation states. The fact is we're dealing with Merkel and not Juncker.Casino_Royale said:
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.Philip_Thompson said:
Which is a nation state future. Germany is a nation state. At the moment other nations are bust and need to do what Germany says because Germany is paying them, it is blackmail not integration. "Do what we say or we'll cut your funding".Casino_Royale said:
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.Philip_Thompson said:
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
If nations can cope without German money they can say no, like the UK since we ejected Labour in time and didn't go bust. Or Ireland have resolved their problems better than others and so have said in no uncertain terms that they won't compromise on corporation tax like Germany wants them to do.
The EU is nowhere near a monolithic superpower that either its vehement supporters or vehement opponents imagine. The importance of Merkel is symptomatic of the EU being an EU of nations still today. It is economics and realpolitik that make Merkel and Cameron so important.0 -
These crazy made up numbers are what piss me off most about the IN campaign. They are plucked out their arse, but with a religious conviction. Have the temerity to vote LEAVE and you will be damned to the hellfires for all eternity - plus you'll be worse off to the tune of £3,000 a year.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
The £3k figure was for each family.JEO said:
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?blackburn63 said:
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figurerichardDodd said:The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
As other posters have said, it's all made up nonsense.
By early 2016, they'll be claiming voting LEAVE will give you anal warts.
0 -
I thought that was Bob Monkhouse...notme said:
Or as Tommy Cooper used to say "People used to laugh at me when I said some day, I'd be a professional comedian. Well, no one's laughing now!"Sean_F said:
When I make a joke, let me assure you its no laughing matter.BannedInParis said:
First they came for those with a sense of humour....MarqueeMark said:
... and that's from Labour ...BannedInParis said:Plato_Says said:The UnCut piss take on Corbynism is rather funny http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/11/the-a-z-of-corbsplaining/
Milliband – Previous leader of the Labour party, whose ideas were insufficiently leftist, causing the electorate to vote Conservative in protest.
Prior diary commitment – What you organise quickly just after the Labour party press office schedule a tricky interview.
Campaign Group – A group of MPs who do not campaign but do tweet a lot.
oof
Now nobody's laughing.
Actually, I think you're correct. It's a good joke.0 -
PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..0
-
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.Alanbrooke said:
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.0 -
Nine quid a week to get rid of the nonsense that is the EU .. A bargain0
-
It'll cause catastrophic climate change...MarqueeMark said:
These crazy made up numbers are what piss me off most about the IN campaign. They are plucked out their arse, but with a religious conviction. Have the temerity to vote LEAVE and you will be damned to the hellfires for all eternity - plus you'll be worse off to the tune of £3,000 a year.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
The £3k figure was for each family.JEO said:
Didn't he claim £3000 just last week?blackburn63 said:
Rose said this morning everybody is better off by £450 pa via the EU, I would love to see how he established this scaremongering figurerichardDodd said:The Stay team need to focus on the reasons for staying in.. not denigrate the ones who may consider leaving..enough of the nonsense Rose..the UK population need really good reasons from both teams.. and are completely peed off with the rumour mongers
As other posters have said, it's all made up nonsense.
By early 2016, they'll be claiming voting LEAVE will give you anal warts.0 -
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.Alanbrooke said:Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
0 -
X
We will keep the poundPhilip_Thompson said:
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.Alanbrooke said:
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.0 -
I tend to agree with this so what does the EU offer?Casino_Royale said:
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:watford30 said:
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.
Possible answers are:
A structure in which a series of relatively small states can coordinate policy on trade, diplomacy, crime prevention, minimum standards and fair trade.
A structure which allows that bloc to talk on at least equal terms with other blocs such as the NAFTA.
Joint policies on issues like pollution where actions in one country have immediate effects on their neighbours.
A portfolio of rights to the individual citizen including the right to visit or set up a business in any member state, to vote in some of their elections and to be treated fairly when applying for a job or a University place or a contract there.
Structural funds to help the poorer areas of the EU (including, historically, parts of the UK) come up to the standards of the majority.
Is the EU absolutely essential to achieve all these things? Probably not. But it undoubtedly makes at least some of them easier. Does it do all of these things well? Absolutely not. But maybe better than the alternatives?
As I have said I swither on this from day to day. I struggle to see how anyone can see this as something clear cut. It is a very complicated trade off between the undoubted irritations and the benefits. Where that cost benefit analysis ends up overall will depend in part as to how the EU is going to move forward from here. But only in part because it has come a long way already.0 -
Remain says we will keep the pound too - but only if those nice people in Brussels say that we can.isam said:X
We will keep the poundPhilip_Thompson said:
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.Alanbrooke said:
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.0 -
Mr. Brooke, Out should hire Blair to make speeches for In.
Mr. F, aye, I thought it was Monkhouse.0 -
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up on both sides and until Cameron comes back with a definitive package they're all second guessing in any event.Philip_Thompson said:
The SNP did a better job of answering questions than the Leave campaign are so far. The currency blew up as a problem because nobody believed the SNP's answer but they at least had one.Alanbrooke said:
The Nat issue was on more than £500. The Nats couldn't answer any of the questions on the currency. There is no currency problem for the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
Didn't work for Scottish Nationalists. Leaving the UK being a much bigger change for sovereignty than leaving the EU is.Alanbrooke said:
saying have your sovereignty back for £450 might.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really as its the exact same argument that won it for In with the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls for Scots showed that a majority would vote In if they thought they'd be £500 better off and Out if they thought they'd be £500 better off.Alanbrooke said:So now Mr Rose says Remain is worth £450 net per household or £11.25bn to the UK. That's 0.75% of GDP or just over a quarter's growth.
At this level out seems a bargain, work a bit harder for a year and we can run our own show again.
In are in a mess if this is their message..
Saying "you'll only be £450 worse off" will never be a vote winner.
Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
Leave might care to point out that if the 3 million jobs have been taken by the 3 million immigrants it's a false economy.
What is the Leave campaigns answer on the EEA? Some say we'll join, others say we won't.
On free movement? Related to above question, some say leave so we get our powers back, others say we can leave and keep free movement.
There are plenty of problems ready to blow up. As always the status quo has less questions to answer than those proposing change.
However I have been surprised by how badly presented Remain has been to date on their trump card of the economy.
The arguments better improve or they're in trouble.0 -
WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.0 -
Yes you're right, both arguments are veering towards the spherical but I'm afraid it'sd what we will be stuck with for the next 2 years.Richard_Nabavi said:
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.Alanbrooke said:Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
A kind of fast track Indyref.0 -
@RIchard_Nabavi Yes, actually £20k for £25/week is surprisingly enough a good deal. Most annuity deals look simply awful to me though.0
-
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?blackburn63 said:
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
0 -
It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.richardDodd said:PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..
0 -
I don't want to remain part of an EU where negotiations on matters of interest to us on shared competencies are subject to wild cards played by one nation state where we have an opt-out.Philip_Thompson said:
Again an issue of nation states. The fact is we're dealing with Merkel and not Juncker.Casino_Royale said:
Merkel is very unhappy with Cameron's position on her EU migration policy and has been putting a lot of pressure on him to take part, with her cooperation on the renegotiation as the stick.Philip_Thompson said:
WCasino_Royale said:
I think Merkel is very much in favour of further EU integration, just on her terms.Philip_Thompson said:
If that happens we can have another vote. I don't think you're right though, the EU has given up (for now) on principled integration like in the past and is just trying to tread water and not drown as they go from one crisis to another.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, I said getting back sovereignty was more difficult than giving it away, not that it was irrevocably so.
When you're chained to a corpse that's dragging you beneath the surface, the most important thing is breaking the chain. Worrying about a life raft can wait a minute.
The EU is heading towards ever more integration, against our interests and the desire of the British people, and the eurozone monstrosity has a critical mass for passing QMV [thanks, Brown].
We may well vote In for the status quo (I suspect that will be the result), but the EU will take that as a thumbs up to full steam ahead, and in a few years, or a decade at most, the EU will have changed in a way which is against the desire and expectation of most of the British people.
The time of pro-integration visionaries for things like the Euro has passed. Now we have a leader in Frau Merkel going for the easiest answer and kicking difficult decisions down the road until they blow up again.
And that's not just about the money. The future is quite clear from the migration crisis: Germany makes a policy decision, and the rest of the EU are expected to help deal with its consequences.
The EU is nowhere near a monolithic superpower that either its vehement supporters or vehement opponents imagine. The importance of Merkel is symptomatic of the EU being an EU of nations still today. It is economics and realpolitik that make Merkel and Cameron so important.
It doesn't have to be a monolith. If one nation state is so dominant it is able to dictate terms then the de jure QMV of a series of individually sovereign nation states becomes academic.0 -
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?blackburn63 said:
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?blackburn63 said:
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.0 -
These are all very nice, however, the benefits of many are far outweighed by the loss of self determination and sovereignty.DavidL said:
I tend to agree with this so what does the EU offer?Casino_Royale said:
The trouble for Remain is that they are using all the arguments from c.1975 to convince us to stay: 'The Empire is gone', 'we wouldn't want WWII again would we?', 'don't be a xenophobe' and 'the US won't like it'.watford30 said:
We should stay because it's beneficial to the US? Err, No thank you.OldKingCole said:watford30 said:
It's about our sovereignty, not another country's interests.
It's they who stuck in the past. These arguments are irrelevant as they are ludicrous. It's the question of the future they need to answer, and that's where they are weakest.
The rest of us have moved on.
Possible answers are:
A structure in which a series of relatively small states can coordinate policy on trade, diplomacy, crime prevention, minimum standards and fair trade.
A structure which allows that bloc to talk on at least equal terms with other blocs such as the NAFTA.
Joint policies on issues like pollution where actions in one country have immediate effects on their neighbours.
A portfolio of rights to the individual citizen including the right to visit or set up a business in any member state, to vote in some of their elections and to be treated fairly when applying for a job or a University place or a contract there.
Structural funds to help the poorer areas of the EU (including, historically, parts of the UK) come up to the standards of the majority.
Is the EU absolutely essential to achieve all these things? Probably not. But it undoubtedly makes at least some of them easier. Does it do all of these things well? Absolutely not. But maybe better than the alternatives?
As I have said I swither on this from day to day. I struggle to see how anyone can see this as something clear cut. It is a very complicated trade off between the undoubted irritations and the benefits. Where that cost benefit analysis ends up overall will depend in part as to how the EU is going to move forward from here. But only in part because it has come a long way already.0 -
STAY versus LEAVE. It's not mainly about "costs" and "benefits".
People will make the choice according to whether they feel better about policies being decided by our government in Britain or by the EU.
If you distrust the government here, then you'll want it to be constrained and have policy-making outsourced to Brussels. This is what drives Scottish nationalists' preference for the EU for example. And it is why Greece has not yet ditched the Euro – they trust Brussels more than Athens.
Speaking for myself I distrust Brussels more than Westminster because of its lax governance and accountability, and also because decisions within the club reflect other countries' preferences and interests (e.g. the CAP for France, or the "vision" thing of ever closer union). I want Cameron to pull us out of the federalist tide and towards a looser confereration of autonomous nations.
0 -
I have no problem with that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a visa for a trip of up to 90 days as a holiday or business visitor, it does not allow you to work in Australia. Brits can apply for an ETA as well, but need to do it via a Travel Agent or other sources.richardDodd said:PT The Japanese only need a Electronic Travel Authority, applied for via internet and is valid for a visa free trip of up to 90 days..No Visa required. source .. The Japanese Government..
0 -
I want to see Tony Blair working very hard publicly for Remain.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Brooke, Out should hire Blair to make speeches for In.
Mr. F, aye, I thought it was Monkhouse.0 -
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.Sean_F said:WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.0 -
Given the pathetic stuff we are being told is at the centre of our negotiating position, I can't see me voting to STAY. My big fear is we get a 52% REMAIN vote, with Scotland having stopped the UK voting LEAVE. We are then told, "that's settled then" and end up getting voted into ever closer union, regardless of us having in our hands a piece of paper....Casino_Royale said:
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?MarqueeMark said:
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?isam said:Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
I have some respect for the way that the EU has stuck together over the Euro, when many thought that Greece must leave. But I don't want to be on the wrong end of that democratic deficit, when 26 decide to stick it to us over something which will be to their benefit and our considerable detriment, such as stuffing the City of London. LEAVE has considerable attractions. I just worry that Farage, the EU's Useful Idiot, will muddy the waters with his temper tantrums, preventing a coherent alternative narrative being allowed to form.
I have no worries about the role of the UK outside the EU. I suspect not much will actually change, other than we won't have to write out huge subscription cheques. I would really love for LEAVE to highlight where they would spend this saving on domestic infrastructure projects. That would REALLY start to get the message through.0 -
You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.Philip_Thompson said:
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?blackburn63 said:
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?blackburn63 said:
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
0 -
As is the claim that the EU benefits each household by £3,000 a year and has a cost:benefit ratio of 10:1.Richard_Nabavi said:
The Vote Leave campaign doesn't seem to be running the 3 million immigrants argument, whereas Leave.EU probably will. A lot is going to depend on this point. It's bollocks either way, of course.Alanbrooke said:Remain and Leave will both basically lie on the ease of trade deals and costs so it still comes down to 3 million jobs versus 3 million immigrants.
0 -
I would price up the last two as 1/25 to vote to remain...Obv not taking bets on this!Casino_Royale said:
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.Sean_F said:WRT differential turnout, I think it's finely balanced demographically. Older voters favour Leave, but middle class voters favour Remain.
I do think Leave probably has a larger number of people who are highly motivated to vote, though.
At the moment I sense 'not sure' but if unconvinced they will default to the status quo in the privacy of the voting booth.
Some people just want the conversations to be about them0 -
Australia discriminates, as we were discussing above. It is a lot easier to get into Australia as a Brit or Japanese than it is from other nations - and reciprocally it is easier for Australians to enter the UK or Japan than it is many other nations.blackburn63 said:
You were brought up in Australia, I'd be very happy to copy their process of taking in migrants.Philip_Thompson said:
We have always discriminated and always will, quite rightly too. We have reciprocal deals with many nations including those outside of the EU. Would you scrap all of them?blackburn63 said:
Well if you think its right and fair to discriminate based on country of origin good for you. I want us to take people in regardless of where they come from.Philip_Thompson said:
So what?blackburn63 said:
Our current situation is discriminatoryPhilip_Thompson said:
No you misunderstood. I would vote In so that we keep our existing rights (that I value) of reciprocal free movement etc with the rest of Europe that the Antipodes do not have.richardDodd said:PT So you would vote in so that some folk from the antipodes could get easy access to Europe..hmm.. got to give that one some thought..
If we Leave then we could need a visa etc like my friends down under have to apply for. I dislike bureaucrats deciding what we can and can't do and who can and shouldn't be where and would prefer our current situation.
Australia also has a free movement agreement with New Zealand.0 -
Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.0
-
PT It is not a visa..not even called a visa..no attempt to be a visa..It is an Electronic Authority applied for on the web... Brits have to apply for a visa even for a very short trip.....or we don't get in..I said nothing about going to work in Aus If we turn up in OZ without a visa then we get back onthe plane The Japanese can get the Authority as they enter..0
-
Yeah, annuity rates are not exactly overwhelming in their generosity.Pulpstar said:@RIchard_Nabavi Yes, actually £20k for £25/week is surprisingly enough a good deal. Most annuity deals look simply awful to me though.
The other thing worth considering for anyone near pension age is simply deferring the state pension if they can afford to do so - that is currently an extremely good deal, but the rules are changing and for people who reach state pension age after 6 April 2016 it becomes much less generous.
http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/state-pension-explained/deferring-your-state-pension/
0 -
If voters like DavidL, TSE and Antifrank are convinced to vote Leave then Leave will win.
...by 70% to 30%. None of them are really on the fence.0 -
Thanks MM. That's good to hear, and I agree entirely with you.MarqueeMark said:
Given the pathetic stuff we are being told is at the centre of our negotiating position, I can't see me voting to STAY. My big fear is we get a 52% REMAIN vote, with Scotland having stopped the UK voting LEAVE. We are then told, "that's settled then" and end up getting voted into ever closer union, regardless of us having in our hands a piece of paper....Casino_Royale said:
Have you made up your mind on the EU referendum MM?MarqueeMark said:
Are there any circumstances in which Farage won't offer to quit politics? And are there any circumstances in which he actually will?isam said:Any Tory imbeciles that vote remain just to spite Farage are voting to keep UKIPs raisin d'être in place as well as the splits in their own party and Farages career... Still, it might be worth Farage announcing he will quit politics if we leave?
I have some respect for the way that the EU has stuck together over the Euro, when many thought that Greece must leave. But I don't want to be on the wrong end of that democratic deficit, when 26 decide to stick it to us over something which will be to their benefit and our considerable detriment, such as stuffing the City of London. LEAVE has considerable attractions. I just worry that Farage, the EU's Useful Idiot, will muddy the waters with his temper tantrums, preventing a coherent alternative narrative being allowed to form.
I have no worries about the role of the UK outside the EU. I suspect not much will actually change, other than we won't have to write out huge subscription cheques. I would really love for LEAVE to highlight where they would spend this saving on domestic infrastructure projects. That would REALLY start to get the message through.
Have you seen the Vote Leave launch video? That largely answers your final question.0 -
Mr Dancer, your lack of powers disappoints me....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, if I had dictatorial powers over the Out campaign, I'd have Farage kept in a shed for the next two years, and spend as much as possible getting Blair to make speeches for In.
0 -
Mr. Mark, me too 0
