"The government may be forced to delay the EU referendum until 2017 if it loses a parliamentary vote on the electoral franchise later this month. David Cameron has said the in-out vote will take place by the end of 2017 but is thought to prefer a date in 2016. But the Electoral Commission told the BBC if 16 and 17 year-olds are given the vote, the poll should be delayed by as much as 12 months to register them."
Votes for 16/17 year olds? A policy rejected at the ballot box. Let's hope the modification to the franchise gets removed at the Commons stage.
Right. It was supported by a party that got destroyed in the general election, and it would then be passed by unelected peers from the same party. In addition, this change is being made by two parties that never supported the referendum in the first place, but have u-turned so they can rig the electorate. The referendum result would be illegitimate if this went through.
On the specific point of this latest tweet, however - even ignoring the consideration that the poll is so voodoo that it could bring Papa Doc back from the dead - isn't there a bit of a logical faux pas? The referendum comes first. The leadership election comes second. The next leader will be someone on the winning side of the referendum, not the winning side amongst party members.
Why would the next leader come from the winning side? That will be the view of the voters. The Leader will be chosen by members. Members polls have consistently been pro leaving the EC.
It's possible that in the event of a narrow Remain vote, and with Corbyn still doing his thing, the Tory members might go for a leader from the Leave side, if the MPs nominate one. Especially if Cameron is thought to have been less than honest in holding up minor reform as something major in order to secure that narrow Remain victory.
On topic, it it sad to see the usual suspects bash their fellow Conservative activists. Tim Montgomerie is a good man who has worked hard for the party, and I suspect those that are bashing him are fair-weather supporters. It's curious in this thread that he is accused of both not representing conservative views, and also of being excessively conservative. In reality he is just fighting to stop the party being one purely for a wealthy metropolitan class, and this explains why he is both eurosceptic and is against the tax credit changes. I'm not as eurosceptic as he is (I still want to stay in a reformed EU) and I've yet to make my mind up on tax credits, but he is a welcome member of the debate and is very thoughtful.
In terms of the poll itself, it does not seem to be very scientific. I also don't think we can get a very informative poll until we see the results of the renegotiation - many of us are still in the fence. If we get a good renegotiation then I can see a slim majority of members supporting Remain. On the other hand, if we don't get any double majority voting mechanism or red card system so that non-Euro states can stop the Eurozone, as was reported last night, I can see 80%+ voting to Leave.
The lesson for potential leadership contenders is to pay close attention to the renegotiation. Tory activists will be willing to swallow a lot, such as no reform of CAP, no social chapter opt-out, no independence from European courts, but if there is nothing serious on migration or no protection from Eurozone rule, then leadership candidates will damage their credibility if the try to say its real change.
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
Members of Conservative Home or Members of the Conservative Party?. There is a difference. I don't trust polling at all but this is a voodoo poll however you try to colour it. The fact that the 2005 election result was accurate is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
If it's not a voodoo poll then we will see a link to the data tables from the pollster in the next 24 hours...
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
twas a while ago. fair number of that electorate will be dead by now
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
Members of Conservative Home or Members of the Conservative Party?. There is a difference. I don't trust polling at all but this is a voodoo poll however you try to colour it. The fact that the 2005 election result was accurate is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.
They split out the different types. The figs quoted are party members.
I have been using the earlier results from conhome member surveys to bet on alternatives to Osborne. But if punters choose to ignore that factor so be it.
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
twas a while ago. fair number of that electorate will be dead by now
So we had 80 yr olds filling out the survey in droves in 2005?
That said, if it means we can avoid endless posts about the nuances of interpretation of EEA/EFTA, etc I will happily discuss it all night.
What we need is TSE's magnum opus on AV to get the juices flowing!
By 'juices' I assume you mean bile, tears and vomit...
No, the bile, tears and vomit will come when I add the Scottish Independence angle.
"Brexit could trigger Scottish secession, the polls show England wants Scotland to remain the in Union so we can rob them blind of their oil revenues, so will England 'take one for the team' and vote Remain to keep in the Union?"
Why not let them secede, but build a series of artificial Islands first, all across the oil fields (like China and the Spratlys). We claim territorial rights, and we have a nice navy to back it up. Scotland would have a gun boat filled with angry Glaswegians; we'd have a couple of aircraft carriers and some nuclear subs.
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
So they'd know I was at pornxxx.com but couldn't find out my personal predilections without a warrant - and that protection somehow makes it okay?
Muppets, the lot of them. Data like this should be restricted to MI5 and with a warrant from the HS on each occasion. Local police in particular have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and engage in fishing expeditions with the data they have access to already. At least they're not allowing councils near it.
This test match is slipping away from England. They desperately need a couple of wickets, quick time.
Yep. Hafeez is looking rather confident out there this morning. Need a couple before lunch if we're going to make the requirement close to achieveable, maybe 220-230?
Montie is still irked that Cameron won a majority, with a manifesto which likely didn't satsfy most Tory members. Tory members are not representative of the electorate.
Montie is still irked that Cameron won a majority, with a manifesto which likely didn't satsfy most Tory members. Tory members are not representative of the electorate.
Isn't that what annoys them? Perhaps we could devise an Upper House electorate that meets their needs - outright ownership of a freehold property, perhaps.
This test match is slipping away from England. They desperately need a couple of wickets, quick time.
Yep. Hafeez is looking rather confident out there this morning. Need a couple before lunch if we're going to make the requirement close to achieveable, maybe 220-230?
The positive thing is that the pitch does not seem to be deteriorating in the way anticipated but I would have thought 250 would a maximum and it is looking like it might be the minimum. Their scoring rate is really picking up too.
The main test of conhome's survey of members who use it was very accurate in the 2005 leadership election. Those labelling this as a voodoo poll should stop misleading people or provide the contrary facts.
twas a while ago. fair number of that electorate will be dead by now
So we had 80 yr olds filling out the survey in droves in 2005?
we're always told the older demographic are more likely to vote
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
So they'd know I was at pornxxx.com but couldn't find out my personal predilections without a warrant - and that protection somehow makes it okay?
Muppets, the lot of them. Data like this should be restricted to MI5 and with a warrant from the HS on each occasion. Local police in particular have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and engage in fishing expeditions with the data they have access to already. At least they're not allowing councils near it.
I'm not sure how ad servers work nowadays, but would pop-up adverts register as accessing separate domains?
Well, I'm a card-carrying Tory, never visit ConHome - and don't rate Tim Montie either.
ConHome is occasionally ref'd on here and bar Mark Wallace - I don't find myself agreeing with much of its content. That it was the mouthpiece of Nadine, Roger Helmer et al for a long while speaks volumes as to its target audience.
Only playing for pennies but England's price has been too short all morning.
Loving your "avatar" image.
Over the past few months I've steadily become more and more certain that I will be voting to LEAVE and will now help in the fight.
For me it's about sovereignty and common sense.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
I think that come to the crunch, the majority of Conservatives - MPs and members - will rebel against Cameron and vote LEAVE. It won't necessarily tarnish his place in Conservative minds/history IF he goes about it decently.
Well, I'm a card-carrying Tory, never visit ConHome - and don't rate Tim Montie either.
ConHome is occasionally ref'd on here and bar Mark Wallace - I don't find myself agreeing with much of its content. That it was the mouthpiece of Nadine, Roger Helmer et al for a long while speaks volumes as to its target audience.
You mean it's too left-wing for you? Gosh, we'd never have worked that out for ourselves...
Montie is still irked that Cameron won a majority, with a manifesto which likely didn't satsfy most Tory members. Tory members are not representative of the electorate.
Isn't that what annoys them? Perhaps we could devise an Upper House electorate that meets their needs - outright ownership of a freehold property, perhaps.
You forgot a minimum value qualification! £250,000 should do it.
Alternatively we could repeal the House of Lords Act 1999.
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
So they'd know I was at pornxxx.com but couldn't find out my personal predilections without a warrant - and that protection somehow makes it okay?
Muppets, the lot of them. Data like this should be restricted to MI5 and with a warrant from the HS on each occasion. Local police in particular have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and engage in fishing expeditions with the data they have access to already. At least they're not allowing councils near it.
I'm not sure how ad servers work nowadays, but would pop-up adverts register as accessing separate domains?
Yes, most of them do. I use monitoring tools for corporate clients and it's always difficult to filter out the various tracking and advertising tools used on webpages, in order to get to the actual url which you'd see displayed in your browser. It's way more than just pop up ads, it's also the "social media" buttons, tracking and analytics software that reports back stats to website admins etc etc.
Governmental snooping such as that proposed is more difficult than it looks if you're only working from ISP logs rather than from the computer itself, especially as tech like VPN tunnelling, Tor and encrypted connections on FPTP and mail servers become more prevalent. The obvious way to do it is to search across the whole dataset for terr'ists.com - which is why there needs to be an individual warrant system in place to stop this sort of fishing.
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
Only playing for pennies but England's price has been too short all morning.
Loving your "avatar" image.
Over the past few months I've steadily become more and more certain that I will be voting to LEAVE and will now help in the fight.
For me it's about sovereignty and common sense.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
I think that come to the crunch, the majority of Conservatives - MPs and members - will rebel against Cameron and vote LEAVE. It won't necessarily tarnish his place in Conservative minds/history IF he goes about it decently.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It can't happen - all 28 countries to agree AND ratify within the next 2 years?
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It can't happen - all 28 countries to agree AND ratify within the next 2 years?
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
They could sign a legally binding agreement that is guaranteed to be in the next treaty.
This test match is slipping away from England. They desperately need a couple of wickets, quick time.
The decision to put Bairstow behind the stumps looks a bit dodgy after the stumping missed with the second ball of the day.
Hmmm. if you listen to the commentary team on TMs you would never back with folding on anything they said. They have been consistently wrong about how things would pan out. As for Bairstow, Buttler was no better and he couldn't bat. The decision wasn't dodgy, it was the only sensible one. lets give credit where its due, Pakistan are doing well and England are not. The outcome is as yet undecided. There are still three possible outcomes.
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
I am fascinated by your underlying assumption that others need us more than we need them.
'Fess up - you wouldn't be arguing for any of this if you thought there was a cat in hell's chance of recovering the Empire
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
I am fascinated by your underlying assumption that others need us more than we need them.
'Fess up - you wouldn't be arguing for any of this if you thought there was a cat in hell's chance of recovering the Empire
Seriously?
It's not a case of "others needing us more than we need them" or anything like that.
We leave. We negotiate. And in those negotiations we have a greater standing than Norway or Switzerland did when they negotiated their relationships.
My point about leading the "outers" is that the Eurozone of 300m could potentially be negotiating with an outer core bloc of European nation states of 300m (if you include Turkey) and we would be in a good position to lead that outer bloc.
Surely this all makes sense?
And has nothing to do with the Empire - always amazed by people who raise "the Empire". It's like discussing Germany and someone mentioning Hitler for no good reason. (With the obvious exception that the Empire wasn't entirely evil, whilst clearly the Nazis were.)
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It can't happen - all 28 countries to agree AND ratify within the next 2 years?
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
They could sign a legally binding agreement that is guaranteed to be in the next treaty.
ROFL
As someone who has studied law I am actually laughing at that.
"a legally binding agreement"? We're talking about sovereign nation states with periodically changing democratically elected governments (and often with differently elected/politically constituted national parliaments) here.
What a piece of work we have for a Home Secretary......
This Euro referendum looks like tearing the Tory Party apart. It was widely predicted even on here it's just a pity the other parties aren't in a fit state to take full advantage.
I wonder if the Irish will be first to spot the money making possibilities of selling citizenship?
Hamilton's odds will be too short to be value (especially over an 8 month or so waiting period).
Vettel was one of the names I was considering. But there's another (potentially).
McLaren will do well to be scoring regular points next year. The Honda is both too slow and too unreliable. Fixing both problems at once would be very impressive.
Mr. Abroad, alas, the Roman Empire shall not be returning.
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
I am fascinated by your underlying assumption that others need us more than we need them.
'Fess up - you wouldn't be arguing for any of this if you thought there was a cat in hell's chance of recovering the Empire
Seriously?
It's not a case of "others needing us more than we need them" or anything like that.
We leave. We negotiate. And in those negotiations we have a greater standing than Norway or Switzerland did when they negotiated their relationships.
My point about leading the "outers" is that the Eurozone of 300m could potentially be negotiating with an outer core bloc of European nation states of 300m (if you include Turkey) and we would be in a good position to lead that outer bloc.
Surely this all makes sense?
And has nothing to do with the Empire - always amazed by people who raise "the Empire". It's like discussing Germany and someone mentioning Hitler for no good reason. (With the obvious exception that the Empire wasn't entirely evil, whilst clearly the Nazis were.)
As you have studied law, you'll know that what isn't explicitly denied is implicitly accepted - and the idea that we have more in common with the Turks than, say, the Danes or the Dutch needs no gloss on my part - except, perhaps, that it's true in Cornwall - I haven't been there in over 60 years
@CornishBlue I'm actually in favour of an "EU" like entity in principle, and was 'for' until recently - but unfortunately I think it would be in our best interests to have a relationship such as Norway has where it has control over it's own fishing and farming policies. It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
I am in favour of European institutions and in many areas "union", however the EU has become something that does not work for us and will continue down the wrong path.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
I am fascinated by your underlying assumption that others need us more than we need them.
'Fess up - you wouldn't be arguing for any of this if you thought there was a cat in hell's chance of recovering the Empire
Seriously?
It's not a case of "others needing us more than we need them" or anything like that.
We leave. We negotiate. And in those negotiations we have a greater standing than Norway or Switzerland did when they negotiated their relationships.
My point about leading the "outers" is that the Eurozone of 300m could potentially be negotiating with an outer core bloc of European nation states of 300m (if you include Turkey) and we would be in a good position to lead that outer bloc.
Surely this all makes sense?
And has nothing to do with the Empire - always amazed by people who raise "the Empire". It's like discussing Germany and someone mentioning Hitler for no good reason. (With the obvious exception that the Empire wasn't entirely evil, whilst clearly the Nazis were.)
It's actually euroloons who are obsessed by the Empire. Constantly harping on about how we don't have one any more and how we must be part of a powerful bloc to 'wield influence'. Personally I have no wish to 'wield influence' over other sovereign nations. I find the idea profoundly illiberal.
That said, if it means we can avoid endless posts about the nuances of interpretation of EEA/EFTA, etc I will happily discuss it all night.
What we need is TSE's magnum opus on AV to get the juices flowing!
By 'juices' I assume you mean bile, tears and vomit...
No, the bile, tears and vomit will come when I add the Scottish Independence angle.
"Brexit could trigger Scottish secession, the polls show England wants Scotland to remain the in Union so we can rob them blind of their oil revenues, so will England 'take one for the team' and vote Remain to keep in the Union?"
Why not let them secede, but build a series of artificial Islands first, all across the oil fields (like China and the Spratlys). We claim territorial rights, and we have a nice navy to back it up. Scotland would have a gun boat filled with angry Glaswegians; we'd have a couple of aircraft carriers and some nuclear subs.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yeteaty-backed change is possible, mainly becauseo being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
I've got a lot of time for Cameron, I do, and it's a fair point he was written off by many, including me, and proved us, me, wrong. But the task just seems too great, the contempt of the EU too pronounced - I have no confidence in the idea the bureaucrats and the heads of government who support them have a genuine belief that any reform or deviation is necessary or desirable, beyond baubles to get people to shut up. The oft reported 'frustration' at demands and reluctance from Britain, and the lack of respect for anything but full hearted support for more power and money, more integration, is too ingrained in them to want to do anything else, making genuine concessions hard to achieve. Maybe Cameron will prove me wrong, but even if he has the will to try, I cannot see success for his efforts.
Speaking of will, I thought this piece over on the torygraph was quite sound at first glance. Whether one thinks we should do anything in Syria or not - I recall I didn't think it would help last time it came up - there's too much demanding certain aims combined with ruling out actions which are necessary to achieve it. It reminds me of a bizarre question time around the Libya intervention. Failure though that has turned out to be, the endless comments along the lines of 'Gaddafi should stop killing his people and go, but it is wrong for any outside intervention', as though the former could happen without the latter given he seemed the verge of victory, was just laughable.
It's more credible to argue not acting against terrible people or nations because it's not in our interests to do so than argue for it but not support, it would seem, anything substantive. We do the former all the time after all.
What a piece of work we have for a Home Secretary......
This Euro referendum looks like tearing the Tory Party apart. It was widely predicted even on here it's just a pity the other parties aren't in a fit state to take full advantage.
I wonder if the Irish will be first to spot the money making possibilities of selling citizenship?
if you look at the polls (pause to consider that comment) you will see that the country is split. Cons being split about it but rock solid on the economy, health, education, the right to see what hardcore porn sites you visited last month, etc, does not a split party make.
Unless (and he might, although it would be a mistake) Cam expels every LEAVE-er in his party from cabinet positions, it can be portrayed as a healthy debate reflecting that going on in the country as a whole.
Although it is only going on on PB, I believe, right now.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It can't happen - all 28 countries to agree AND ratify within the next 2 years?
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
They could sign a legally binding agreement that is guaranteed to be in the next treaty.
ROFL
As someone who has studied law I am actually laughing at that.
"a legally binding agreement"? We're talking about sovereign nation states with periodically changing democratically elected governments (and often with differently elected/politically constituted national parliaments) here.
I'm not a lawyer, so you're more informed than I am. But the government has all sorts of clever lawyers working for them, so I'm sure they can come up with something. I will wait to see when the renegotiation is published and hear the different legal views on how binding the changes are at the time.
One thing that could well push me towards Leave is if Labour commit to reversing the opt-outs we achieve.
That's why talk of a two-speed Europe never impressed me. We don't want to move towards ever-closer union at a slightly slower rate. We want to go in the opposite direction.
Cameron and Osborne seem to be going for a functional modification of the status quo rather than a fresh start. That's fundamentally my issue with it.
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
It can't happen - all 28 countries to agree AND ratify within the next 2 years?
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
They could sign a legally binding agreement that is guaranteed to be in the next treaty.
ROFL
As someone who has studied law I am actually laughing at that.
"a legally binding agreement"? We're talking about sovereign nation states with periodically changing democratically elected governments (and often with differently elected/politically constituted national parliaments) here.
I'm not a lawyer, so you're more informed than I am. But the government has all sorts of clever lawyers working for them, so I'm sure they can come up with something. I will wait to see when the renegotiation is published and hear the different legal views on how binding the changes are at the time.
One thing that could well push me towards Leave is if Labour commit to reversing the opt-outs we achieve.
Our Cornish chum said he 'd studied law. He didn't say he'd passed any exams, let alone practised
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
'Cameron and Osborne seem to be going for a functional modification of the status quo rather than a fresh start'
Yes, and the crucial point is that the 'status quo' doesn't just mean the same level of integration as now. It means, over time, more. This is why the UK must leave and work out a new relationship that it is comfortable with.
Back in 1992, the Major government (which the current leadership of the Conservatives are direct descendents of, in attitude at least) was telling us that the Maastricht Treaty would 'put the brake on federalism'. How absurd that seems now - but essentially the same deception is being attempted now.
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
I was at an airshow a few years ago when a vulcan did a (low, to me) overflight. It was extraordinary. Like 50 football pitches floating over your head.
If the UK votes OUT the chances must be overwhelming that Scotland would have another referendum and vote to go. It's even possible Wales would follow.
Many of us who work in Europe and see ourselves as European would then look for citizenship iin Scotland (or maybe Ireland) and then the 'Little Englanders' would have what they've always wanted. A little England.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Yep, pretty much agree with that. There will be a big chunk of people undecided and the efforts of both sides to present their case so far have been woeful. Cameron's stance will be key - but if he gets it wrong he's the proverbial cooked bread.
I've no idea of the validity of this poll but this thread has amused me, obsequious tories up in arms because somebody has dared to defy Dave.
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Us undecideds get constant abuse from both sides. Either we are loony conspiracy theorists because we acknowledge criticisms of the EU, or we are sycophantic Cameroon because we'd like to give reform a chance. When the renegotiation is announced, I will be scrolling past the abusive posters and be reading the sensible ones with interest.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yeteaty-backed change is possible, mainly becauseo being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
snip
Speaking of will, I thought this piece over on the torygraph was quite sound at first glance. Whether one thinks we should do anything in Syria or not - I recall I didn't think it would help last time it came up - there's too much demanding certain aims combined with ruling out actions which are necessary to achieve it. It reminds me of a bizarre question time around the Libya intervention. Failure though that has turned out to be, the endless comments along the lines of 'Gaddafi should stop killing his people and go, but it is wrong for any outside intervention', as though the former could happen without the latter given he seemed the verge of victory, was just laughable.
It's more credible to argue not acting against terrible people or nations because it's not in our interests to do so than argue for it but not support, it would seem, anything substantive. We do the former all the time after all.
If the UK votes OUT the chances must be overwhelming that Scotland would have another referendum and vote to go. It's even possible Wales would follow.
Many of us who work in Europe and see ourselves as European would then look for citizenship iin Scotland (or maybe Ireland) and then the 'Little Englanders' would have what they've always wanted. A little England.
Wouldn't France accept you as an well-off asylum seeker who already lives there?
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
In pb.com terms that's checkmate isam, even the Osborne worshippers on here won't counter that.
It's a tired run through of UKIP's greatest hits. It is, as usual, not even coherent internally - objecting to a strengthening of the single market? Really? And in what way is it Britain's interests to have a weak Eurozone on its doorstep?
Most importantly, it completely ducks the burning question that the Leave camp faces: what relationship is Britain to have with the EU in future? George Osborne has set out a positive vision that he is aiming for. You may not like it. You may regard it as actively deceptive. You may regard it as mere window dressing. But he has set it out.
In response, all Douglas Carswell has done is harrumph. That will satisfy the diehard Leavers. I suspect even Douglas Carswell knows it's nowhere near good enough to convert the undecided.
I've no idea of the validity of this poll but this thread has amused me, obsequious tories up in arms because somebody has dared to defy Dave.
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Us undecideds get constant abuse from both sides. Either we are loony conspiracy theorists because we acknowledge criticisms of the EU, or we are sycophantic Cameroon because we'd like to give reform a chance. When the renegotiation is announced, I will be scrolling past the abusive posters and be reading the sensible ones with interest.
I've no idea of the validity of this poll but this thread has amused me, obsequious tories up in arms because somebody has dared to defy Dave.
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Us undecideds get constant abuse from both sides. Either we are loony conspiracy theorists because we acknowledge criticisms of the EU, or we are sycophantic Cameroon because we'd like to give reform a chance. When the renegotiation is announced, I will be scrolling past the abusive posters and be reading the sensible ones with interest.
Undecided? You regard the EU as an evil empire spreading its wicked tentacles everywhere. Pull the other one.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
In pb.com terms that's checkmate isam, even the Osborne worshippers on here won't counter that.
Fishing? Farming?
The only thing Mr and Mrs Average care about on that list is immigration because it leads into jobs, wages, housing, access to services and the way they feel about their community and neighbours.
I've no idea of the validity of this poll but this thread has amused me, obsequious tories up in arms because somebody has dared to defy Dave.
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Think for yourself! Why rely on being convinced by one sides propaganda or the others?
If David Cameron said I was the greatest and Nigel Farage called me a c*** I would still vote to Leave, its not about buttering me up, its about my own opinion
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
'George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
In pb.com terms that's checkmate isam, even the Osborne worshippers on here won't counter that.
It's a tired run through of UKIP's greatest hits. It is, as usual, not even coherent internally - objecting to a strengthening of the single market? Really? And in what way is it Britain's interests to have a weak Eurozone on its doorstep?
Most importantly, it completely ducks the burning question that the Leave camp faces: what relationship is Britain to have with the EU in future? George Osborne has set out a positive vision that he is aiming for. You may not like it. You may regard it as actively deceptive. You may regard it as mere window dressing. But he has set it out.
In response, all Douglas Carswell has done is harrumph. That will satisfy the diehard Leavers. I suspect even Douglas Carswell knows it's nowhere near good enough to convert the undecided.
The key is not our relationship with EU it's our relationship with Germany that counts, most of the members are irrelevant in terms of trade. Germany sells us more stuff than we buy from then, they're not silly enough to jeopardise that.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
Sandpit? Rational? Pull the other one...
Getting the insults in early this morning I see! Anyway, there's cricket to watch.
I've no idea of the validity of this poll but this thread has amused me, obsequious tories up in arms because somebody has dared to defy Dave.
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Us undecideds get constant abuse from both sides. Either we are loony conspiracy theorists because we acknowledge criticisms of the EU, or we are sycophantic Cameroon because we'd like to give reform a chance. When the renegotiation is announced, I will be scrolling past the abusive posters and be reading the sensible ones with interest.
Undecided? You regard the EU as an evil empire spreading its wicked tentacles everywhere. Pull the other one.
No, I don't. I regard the EU as a sprawling bureaucracy in desperate need of reform. One of which is to stop subsidies to fund pro-EU documentaries and business lobbies. I have never used the term "evil empire" and think people equating the EU to the USSR are being a bit ridiculous. But I'm sure the facts of the matter are irrelevant to you, as they seem to be when considering Norway pays less than the UK per head, or when EU funding reaches into BBC output.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
Will you sell me a quid of that?
I'm happy to take your £1 but you shouldn't be confident of collecting in the unlikely event of it being a successful wager.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
People said a Tory majority was never going to happen, and yet it did. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to play the expectations game, so that whatever deal they get looks better than it otherwise would. But I still think genuine treaty-backed change is possible, mainly because I can't believe Cameron and Osborne would accept the Eurozone being able to do what they want to pass new laws we have to abide by. They must also know that genuine restraints on immigration are required, and that means for current EU members, not Serbia and Albania.
There's a lot of us trusting Cameron to come back with something concrete from his negotiations. As you say he has delivered many times where he was written off in the past ten years, so eagerly awaiting what exactly he brings back. I think he realises that if he brings back a fig leaf he's going to struggle to keep his own party with him, let alone the wider electorate.
It sounds like you and I are in the same position. But you're right about his own party in that situation. We like Cameron because he's done a good job. We don't think he's done a good job because we like him. If he ends up not doing a good job at negotiation, then that will be what matters. That's why, in the case of a bad negotiation, the best option for Cameron and those around him is to be honest about it, and possibly recommend Leave. Cabinet ministers risk destroying their credibility over an issue that a lot of members care about, as happened with Labour figures in Scotland.
Mr JEO I'm sure plenty feel that way, as this is a betting site perhaps you'd like to offer a price about Cameron recommending LEAVE? If you'd rather be a punter I'm happy to offer generous odds.
Shadsy's "Christmas Bonus Book" has him 200/1 to lead the Out campaign. Worth a couple of quid at that price.
Mr sandpit I had you down as one of the more rational on here, Cameron's real odds to head the LEAVE campaign are 1,000,000/1.
Sandpit? Rational? Pull the other one...
Getting the insults in early this morning I see! Anyway, there's cricket to watch.
Comments
In terms of the poll itself, it does not seem to be very scientific. I also don't think we can get a very informative poll until we see the results of the renegotiation - many of us are still in the fence. If we get a good renegotiation then I can see a slim majority of members supporting Remain. On the other hand, if we don't get any double majority voting mechanism or red card system so that non-Euro states can stop the Eurozone, as was reported last night, I can see 80%+ voting to Leave.
The lesson for potential leadership contenders is to pay close attention to the renegotiation. Tory activists will be willing to swallow a lot, such as no reform of CAP, no social chapter opt-out, no independence from European courts, but if there is nothing serious on migration or no protection from Eurozone rule, then leadership candidates will damage their credibility if the try to say its real change.
"The web browsing history of every person in the UK will be recorded for a year, under new legislation being announced by the Home Secretary later. Police and security services will be able to access that data - which will include all the sites a person visits, but not the individual pages within that site - without a warrant.
The new Investigatory Powers Bill is an attempt to bring many different surveillance powers of the security services and police under one comprehensive piece of legislation."
http://news.sky.com/story/1581245/all-of-your-web-browsing-history-to-be-recorded
Muppets, the lot of them. Data like this should be restricted to MI5 and with a warrant from the HS on each occasion. Local police in particular have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and engage in fishing expeditions with the data they have access to already. At least they're not allowing councils near it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-to-decriminalise-small-amounts-of-drugs-including-heroin-cocaine-and-cannabis-for-personal-a6719136.html
ConHome is occasionally ref'd on here and bar Mark Wallace - I don't find myself agreeing with much of its content. That it was the mouthpiece of Nadine, Roger Helmer et al for a long while speaks volumes as to its target audience.
Over the past few months I've steadily become more and more certain that I will be voting to LEAVE and will now help in the fight.
For me it's about sovereignty and common sense.
It would be different if Cameron got genuine, treaty-backed reform of the UK's membership, along the lines of "no closer union" etc, but that's not going to happen.
I think that come to the crunch, the majority of Conservatives - MPs and members - will rebel against Cameron and vote LEAVE. It won't necessarily tarnish his place in Conservative minds/history IF he goes about it decently.
Alternatively we could repeal the House of Lords Act 1999.
Governmental snooping such as that proposed is more difficult than it looks if you're only working from ISP logs rather than from the computer itself, especially as tech like VPN tunnelling, Tor and encrypted connections on FPTP and mail servers become more prevalent. The obvious way to do it is to search across the whole dataset for terr'ists.com - which is why there needs to be an individual warrant system in place to stop this sort of fishing.
Well, I always said I thought In would win. If One True Voice is preaching, the other side seem destined for victory.
It's not on the table, but a breakup could be managed so we end up with this relationship... Europe will always need us to some degree.
Draw a bit short at 3.35 now - that will jump with a wicket.
Let's face reality: the EU is unreformable, as is our relationship with it. Let's leave and build a new relationship outwith.
When it gets going, I've got a couple of early ideas, depending on the numbers looking nice.
We need to maintain NATO, a single market, and certain institutions such as the European Space Agency. If particular counties want to go further, let them - the Eurozone can become a federal country. With Britain outside that inner union, we can lead the "outer" countries - those countries that are European but not part of the new federal country. And lead the way in how Europe functions with "inner" and "outer" tiers. Now is the time.
'Fess up - you wouldn't be arguing for any of this if you thought there was a cat in hell's chance of recovering the Empire
It's not a case of "others needing us more than we need them" or anything like that.
We leave. We negotiate. And in those negotiations we have a greater standing than Norway or Switzerland did when they negotiated their relationships.
My point about leading the "outers" is that the Eurozone of 300m could potentially be negotiating with an outer core bloc of European nation states of 300m (if you include Turkey) and we would be in a good position to lead that outer bloc.
Surely this all makes sense?
And has nothing to do with the Empire - always amazed by people who raise "the Empire". It's like discussing Germany and someone mentioning Hitler for no good reason. (With the obvious exception that the Empire wasn't entirely evil, whilst clearly the Nazis were.)
As someone who has studied law I am actually laughing at that.
"a legally binding agreement"? We're talking about sovereign nation states with periodically changing democratically elected governments (and often with differently elected/politically constituted national parliaments) here.
EU reform only moves in one direction.
This Euro referendum looks like tearing the Tory Party apart. It was widely predicted even on here it's just a pity the other parties aren't in a fit state to take full advantage.
I wonder if the Irish will be first to spot the money making possibilities of selling citizenship?
Hamilton's odds will be too short to be value (especially over an 8 month or so waiting period).
Vettel was one of the names I was considering. But there's another (potentially).
McLaren will do well to be scoring regular points next year. The Honda is both too slow and too unreliable. Fixing both problems at once would be very impressive.
Mr. Abroad, alas, the Roman Empire shall not be returning.
Speaking of will, I thought this piece over on the torygraph was quite sound at first glance. Whether one thinks we should do anything in Syria or not - I recall I didn't think it would help last time it came up - there's too much demanding certain aims combined with ruling out actions which are necessary to achieve it. It reminds me of a bizarre question time around the Libya intervention. Failure though that has turned out to be, the endless comments along the lines of 'Gaddafi should stop killing his people and go, but it is wrong for any outside intervention', as though the former could happen without the latter given he seemed the verge of victory, was just laughable.
It's more credible to argue not acting against terrible people or nations because it's not in our interests to do so than argue for it but not support, it would seem, anything substantive. We do the former all the time after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11973525/Why-dont-our-MPs-just-admit-they-havent-the-will-to-fight-Isil-in-Syria.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/04/the-hearts-are-the-final-straw-its-time-to-nationalise-twitter
Unless (and he might, although it would be a mistake) Cam expels every LEAVE-er in his party from cabinet positions, it can be portrayed as a healthy debate reflecting that going on in the country as a whole.
Although it is only going on on PB, I believe, right now.
One thing that could well push me towards Leave is if Labour commit to reversing the opt-outs we achieve.
Cameron and Osborne seem to be going for a functional modification of the status quo rather than a fresh start. That's fundamentally my issue with it.
Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.
In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.'
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/meet-osbornes-new-eu-same-as-the-old-eu/2904
The ECJ is an activist, pro-integration organisation that would happily interfere.
And if we don't get such promises fulfilled, what we do?
A Conservative leader would be wary of a referendum splitting the party, and Corbyn's more likely to complain we haven't given Brussels enough power.
Edited extra bit: indeed, Mr. Royale. It's presentational, mere window-dressing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712344
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/570059-oh-they-wouldnt-would-they.html
For "I'm undecided" read "I'm waiting for Dave to tell me how to vote".
I'm considering joining the Conservative Party, it will save me the trouble of thinking for myself.
Yes, and the crucial point is that the 'status quo' doesn't just mean the same level of integration as now. It means, over time, more. This is why the UK must leave and work out a new relationship that it is comfortable with.
Back in 1992, the Major government (which the current leadership of the Conservatives are direct descendents of, in attitude at least) was telling us that the Maastricht Treaty would 'put the brake on federalism'. How absurd that seems now - but essentially the same deception is being attempted now.
Many of us who work in Europe and see ourselves as European would then look for citizenship iin Scotland (or maybe Ireland) and then the 'Little Englanders' would have what they've always wanted. A little England.
As for Wales: no.
They have 3% of the UK population and 2% of the wealth. If they want to leave and impoverish themselves massively overnight they'd be mad as hatters.
Lastly, you've preached doom and gloom if we vote to leave but not a single positive reason for voting to stay.
Most importantly, it completely ducks the burning question that the Leave camp faces: what relationship is Britain to have with the EU in future? George Osborne has set out a positive vision that he is aiming for. You may not like it. You may regard it as actively deceptive. You may regard it as mere window dressing. But he has set it out.
In response, all Douglas Carswell has done is harrumph. That will satisfy the diehard Leavers. I suspect even Douglas Carswell knows it's nowhere near good enough to convert the undecided.
The only thing Mr and Mrs Average care about on that list is immigration because it leads into jobs, wages, housing, access to services and the way they feel about their community and neighbours.
Add welfare and crime.
If David Cameron said I was the greatest and Nigel Farage called me a c*** I would still vote to Leave, its not about buttering me up, its about my own opinion
Anyway, there's cricket to watch.
Farage was right all along.
This will be his nemesis, be in no doubt.
You'll have to put it down as a pyrrhic victory.