That really would be a stupid line because it implies that the entire renegotiation is a sham. While hardline Eurosceptics might well believe that, it won't persuade any floating voters, and those are the ones who'll determine the outcome.
Not sure, objectively. The Remain case as stated by Cameron is that the renegotiation was important and has produced results on the lines requested. He's the PM, so people will tend to believe that he's broadly got what he wanted and that's why he's for staying in. It may be more effective to play on public cynicism and say it was all smoke and mirrors than for the relatively minor politicians on the Leave side to try to argue the details with Cameron.
But without a popular figurehead to put the case I think they are on a loser whatever they do. This is so like the last referendum, where we saw Government plus Opposition plus CBI plus TUC vs Benn and Powell and some people from outside politics. In the end floating voters will feel it's complicated and not that interesting, but the consensus among people they have actually heard of and trust seems to be for Remain.
''If we leave, and join the EEA, nothing significant changes in respect of the two large areas of most concern to me (the City, and migration); the minor benefits of the EEA route aren't worth the cost and loss of influence IMO. In fact I think the City would be at more risk. ''
Your argument seems to be that it is completely impossible for Britain to determine its own future, whether inside or outside the EU.
Most countries are neither in the EU nor the EEA, not any other treaties that yoke them to the EU in any shape or form whatsoever, and they seem to do OK.
Most developed countries are in big trading blocs of one kind or another, mind. NAFTA, ASEAN, EEA, Russian Customs Union, Merctor, etc.
Yes - and these blocks are more than just customs unions.
You obviously known more about ASEAN that we do then. Their free movement of labour for example is interesting. Only eight professions are considered at the moment (physicians; dentists; nurses; architects; engineers; accountants; surveyors; and tourism professionals) all of which have to pass local qualifications and license requirements, and all of which have to work for local companies and are not able to start their own.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
I tend to disagree. I think without us as an Atlanticist counterweight, continental Europe would go Russia-ward, not the other way around.
But consider the practical things that are likely to happen. We would have a behemoth on our doorstep that whose existence would make life difficult for us whether it wanted to or not. The EU would end up taking a partisan position regarding the reunification of Ireland; it would be helpful towards the Scottish government in achieving its aim of breaking away and rejoining the EU. It would not have any reason to be cooperative on migration or other practical issues affecting us.
The British government would find all of this intolerable and would quickly find very like-minded interlocutors in the Kremlin.
Whether or not that happened, our Government as it stands is not some Palmerstonian entity that goes 'finding' allies. That ebbed away at some point in the 20th century. We are pretty much a US appendage, that is locked down, and whatever trouble Europe gives us we are not going to go knocking on Putin's door.
Even in the unlikely event that we did, we are a far less attractive prospect to Russia than the EU, which shares a continent with Russia and brings a huge ammount more people and money to the table. They already have leanings - remember also the French trying to sell Putin that aircraft carrier before being heavily slapped down, Italy seem quite openly flouting the 'party line' on Russia calling for the end of sanctions. Many of the senior EU office holders are probably also still nursing the dream of being a counterweight to the US.
I think our best bet (were we looking) would be to ally with (please don't accuse me of harbouring dreams of Empire) the other nations of the Commonwealth.
I wonder if anyone (here) has changed their mind either way.
If this is the final deal, I have swung from undecided to firm leave. Most important to me was protection for non-Euro nations and we've received nothing there. Even principle of non-discrimination has been qualified.
Steve Baker today to Europe Minister David Lidington "This in-at-all-costs deal looks funny, it smells funny, it might be superficially shiny on the outside but poke it and it’s soft in the middle. Will my Right Honourable Friend admit to the House that he has been reduced to polishing poo?"
I don't know what anyone else thinks but i thought Cameron was the best I've heard him. Like Blair all over again. Relaxed with none of that pained sincerity that can sound so false. What's more for the most part he avoided sounding condescending to his fellow Europeans. Something Tory politicians have always struggled to do. I'd give him 9/10
That really would be a stupid line because it implies that the entire renegotiation is a sham. While hardline Eurosceptics might well believe that, it won't persuade any floating voters, and those are the ones who'll determine the outcome.
Not sure, objectively. The Remain case as stated by Cameron is that the renegotiation was important and has produced results on the lines requested. He's the PM, so people will tend to believe that he's broadly got what he wanted and that's why he's for staying in. It may be more effective to play on public cynicism and say it was all smoke and mirrors than for the relatively minor politicians on the Leave side to try to argue the details with Cameron.
But without a popular figurehead to put the case I think they are on a loser whatever they do. This is so like the last referendum, where we saw Government plus Opposition plus CBI plus TUC vs Benn and Powell and some people from outside politics. In the end floating voters will feel it's complicated and not that interesting, but the consensus among people they have actually heard of and trust seems to be for Remain.
I don't know what anyone else thinks but i thought Cameron was the best I've heard him. Like Blair all over again. Relaxed with none of that pained sincerity that can sound so false. What's more for the most part he avoided sounding condescending to his fellow Europeans. Something Tory politicians have always struggled to do. I'd give him 9/10
Fair words and all that, but interesting nonetheless.
It gets worse the more you look at it. "Full expectation". Who decides if we can pull the brake, if our expectations will be met? The EU parliament? The Commission? The ECJ? None of these are known for being overly friendly to Britain.
If they decide after we've voted IN what are the chances they will say Sod your brake, you can't use it. 100%? What do we do then? Nothing.
I've never held Cameron in more contempt than I do now. He'd be better off saying the EU is tolerable as it is, outside is worse, that's that. At least that would have the merit of veracity. It's what he clearly thinks. But trying to say he's got meaningful reforms when he knows he's done nothing of the kind. It's like Blair and Iraq and the dossiers.
I predict Cameron will win this referendum and I further predict the Tory party will then turn on him, he'll quit amidst much rancour, and in time he will be historically reviled, like Heath.
It's the Council that decides. The emergency brake will apply for a period of X years when pulled, where X has not yet been agreed in the deal. It then automatically expires and can only be pulled three times in a row.
Now I hear Branson is on the side of stay, I am tempted to vote leave.. in fact my holiday was booked with BA deliberately such that Branson didn't get a penny of my money. My experience of Virgin with their broadband made me determined never to give that man another penny of my money.
''Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?''
So in a sense you are saying YES, there's Britain has no way of substantially determining its own future. Democracy, has, essentially gone forever, for you.
It's either EU or EEA, both of which will lead us to accepting very many onerous overseas imposed conditions which run very contrary to the will of many citizens.
Imagine a bureaucrat, stomping on the face of a british voter, forever
I'm mainly saying that the Leave side shouldn't assume that their characterisation of the EU as the root of all evil is shared by the floating voters they need to persuade. That's why I keep banging on about the need for an alternative.
I'm also saying that the EU, like it or not, is here to stay. We can't simply ignore it, and, yes, we will be hugely affected by EU decisions, whether we leave or not. Like Canada's relation to the US.
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
There's a crucial difference. We trust Cameron to govern us and don't want Farage. But this isn't deciding the Government, it's selling us the EU. Farage won the last EU election, and convincingly trounced Nick Clegg over Europe, so on this specific issue he perhaps (only a thought) has more trust than he does as a potential PM.
Of course he does... its a shame I am not allowed to respond to some people on here as I have had to sit on my hands while ridiculous memes that compare pineapples with orange coloured football shirts are floated in a desperate attempt to look important.
Fair enough, Cameron won the Election and UKIP got one seat.. but this isn't about who we elect to run the country, its about whether the people we elect have the power to run our country, and so a Corporate giant like the Tory party doesn't have the edge over a start up like UKIP that it does in a GE
Now I hear Branson is on the side of stay, I am tempted to vote leave.. in fact my holiday was booked with BA deliberately such that Branson didn't get a penny of my money. My experience of Virgin with their broadband made me determined never to give that man another penny of my money.
Lol, not wanting to give up an easy Leave vote, but Virgin Media has nothing to do with Branson other than the Virgin brand. It is fully owned by Liberty Global, a company Branson has no interest in.
You humiliated him, in public. Nabavi has now gone to his safe space.
Not at all, but it's tiresome arguing with posters who are reduced to accusing people of dishonesty just because they happen to form a different view on the same facts. This seems to be a feature of some of the Leave side, unfortunately, and it's a pity that Max has caught the virus.
As I said, there are some Remain supporters on here who are making a principled stand, you are not.
Bye
So no defence of your position? Well I'll let everyone else make up their minds on where you stand.
You humiliated him, in public. Nabavi has now gone to his safe space.
Well I didn't want to call his stance unprincipled, but there was no other way of describing it. Pretending to an undecided while being a full on Europhile is not principled. It is astroturfung of the worst kind.
Fair words and all that, but interesting nonetheless.
It gets worse the more you look at it. "Full expectation". Who decides if we can pull the brake, if our expectations will be met? The EU parliament? The Commission? The ECJ? None of these are known for being overly friendly to Britain.
If they decide after we've voted IN what are the chances they will say Sod your brake, you can't use it. 100%? What do we do then? Nothing.
I've never held Cameron in more contempt than I do now. He'd be better off saying the EU is tolerable as it is, outside is worse, that's that. At least that would have the merit of veracity. It's what he clearly thinks. But trying to say he's got meaningful reforms when he knows he's done nothing of the kind. It's like Blair and Iraq and the dossiers.
I predict Cameron will win this referendum and I further predict the Tory party will then turn on him, he'll quit amidst much rancour, and in time he will be historically reviled, like Heath.
The wording says, the Commission would pronounce a view on the proposed brake and it would be sent for final agreement by the Council of Ministers. The Commission's "Full Expectation" suggests very strongly that they would give a civil service recommendation in favour of the brake, so it would be the Council of Ministers who decided from that.
Also, as said down thread the 4 year ban is graduated, so effectively is going to be more like a two year ban.
The odds on the Council of Ministers saying stuff your brake afterwards? Despite the assurances and the fact there have probably be some pre-talks on the likelihood of this brake getting through, I think that could be pretty close to evens money.
I'm just stating the obvious. People are being asked to make a choice. They are not daft, they want to know what they are choosing between. In the absence of any even vaguely coherent information on what Leave means, they'll stick with the status quo.
Anyone on the Leave side who doesn't recognise this as a major, major problem is deluding himself.
As for dishonest crap, by far the most egregious example in this whole topic is the Leave side talking about 'control of our borders', whilst simultaneously pointing to Norway or Switzerland as models.
Why not make a deal? The politicians agree that if the UK votes Leave, the officially designated Leave campaign will handle the negotiations with the EU. Then we can legitimately ask them what sort of deal they'll be pressing for.
I think the challenge being made here is for Leave to define what it wants life outside the EU to look like.
They have the floor since Remain ain't going to define a post-exit plan, and they want out so they must have a view on it. Even if HMG will lead any post-exit negotiations, the ability to paint an effective vision now could strongly influence and even dictate the terms of that negotiation.
Surely, surely, surely Leave would want to do that, wouldn't they?
It seems to me that either EEA membership, or a bespoke deal, would be better than the current situation. And better than the likely future situation.
Not
If we vote Remain, we vote for continued arguments between the countries that want to have more Europe, and ourselves.
Your individual view - I would look to the Leave campaign as a whole to thrash out some kind of proposal or options - maybe as you lay out, maybe different.
How much of the reduced contributions will be mopped up in creating British versions of the things we don't subscribe to? For example, I rather assume that the UK will retain some kind to cost more.
A fair amount could be saved from agricultural subsidies. A UK only programme would be tiny compared to the mega contribution we make for the CAP.
Leave campaign should draft a budget with how they would spend extra £20bn showing that Wales, Scotland, Norn Iron, scientific research, rural areas, universities and NHS would all get more money than they do now. Put numbers on each amount and make it add up. They could then respond to everyone who says X would be worse off.
''Almost all countries in Europe are either EU members or EEA members, or have a deal which is similar to the EEA deal, or are trying to join. What a terrible thing the EU must be, eh?''
So in a sense you are saying YES, there's Britain has no way of substantially determining its own future. Democracy, has, essentially gone forever, for you.
It's either EU or EEA, both of which will lead us to accepting very many onerous overseas imposed conditions which run very contrary to the will of many citizens.
Imagine a bureaucrat, stomping on the face of a british voter, forever
I'm mainly saying that the Leave side shouldn't assume that their characterisation of the EU as the root of all evil is shared by the floating voters they need to persuade. That's why I keep banging on about the need for an alternative.
I'm also saying that the EU, like it or not, is here to stay. We can't simply ignore it, and, yes, we will be hugely affected by EU decisions, whether we leave or not. Like Canada's relation to the US.
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
I imagine this will only get worse too. As left-wing governments across Europe inevitably return to power in some of the non-euro countries and begin euro adoption in early 2020s. In a short period (in the grand scheme of things) we may quickly become the only country without the euro or a euro peg.
You humiliated him, in public. Nabavi has now gone to his safe space.
Not at all, but it's tiresome arguing with posters who are reduced to accusing people of dishonesty just because they happen to form a different view on the same facts. This seems to be a feature of some of the Leave side, unfortunately, and it's a pity that Max has caught the virus.
So please outline what Leave would have to do to get you to vote to Leave? I've said time and again what it would take for me to vote to stay, while you have always been vague about what Leave should put forwards. Even if it is completely unworkable in real life or unlikely, go for it.
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
No, I think you are wrong on that. That was the one of the four heading on which it seems to me that progress has been made. In particular I liked the explicit recognition that even in inter-governmental agreements, the position of non-Euro countries has to be protected.
Now I hear Branson is on the side of stay, I am tempted to vote leave.. in fact my holiday was booked with BA deliberately such that Branson didn't get a penny of my money. My experience of Virgin with their broadband made me determined never to give that man another penny of my money.
I tend to ignore the witterings of tax exile millionaires, but my immediate thought was "What's in it for him?"
Now I hear Branson is on the side of stay, I am tempted to vote leave.. in fact my holiday was booked with BA deliberately such that Branson didn't get a penny of my money. My experience of Virgin with their broadband made me determined never to give that man another penny of my money.
Lol, not wanting to give up an easy Leave vote, but Virgin Media has nothing to do with Branson other than the Virgin brand. It is fully owned by Liberty Global, a company Branson has no interest in.
Hmmm.. you mean Branson doesn't get a penny for the use of the Virgin brand name....
You're not thinking laterally enough. There's some excellent value around if you go looking for it. Some of it has been touched on obliquely on this thread.
You humiliated him, in public. Nabavi has now gone to his safe space.
Not at all, but it's tiresome arguing with posters who are reduced to accusing people of dishonesty just because they happen to form a different view on the same facts. This seems to be a feature of some of the Leave side, unfortunately, and it's a pity that Max has caught the virus.
I thought you were undecided Richard. But are you in fact in favour of remaining ?
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
In particular I liked the explicit recognition that even in inter-governmental agreements, the position of non-Euro countries has to be protected.
White van man will breathe a sigh of relief on that one
You're not thinking laterally enough. There's some excellent value around if you go looking for it. Some of it has been touched on obliquely on this thread.
I've got May dutched with George on Betfair already, and Patterson at long odds in case you're worrying about that side of things
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
In particular I liked the explicit recognition that even in inter-governmental agreements, the position of non-Euro countries has to be protected.
White van man will breathe a sigh of relief on that one
Haha... yes no one talks down the pub about losing work to immigrants, that would be dirty... its all about the intra whatever treaties
EU is not the route of all evil, but will now be controlled by Eurozone's unilateral decisions. If Eurozone supports a new law, it passes and we won't be able to do anything to stop it.
In particular I liked the explicit recognition that even in inter-governmental agreements, the position of non-Euro countries has to be protected.
White van man will breathe a sigh of relief on that one
Haha... yes no one talks down the pub about losing work to immigrants, that would be dirty... its all about the intra whatever treaties
To be fair to Cameron at least he recognises its best to get this vote done and dusted - either way it needs to happen sooner rather than later.
I don't think a drawn out campaign is a big boost to either side as "events" can happen either way.
Fair words and all that, but interesting nonetheless.
It gets worse the more you look at it. "Full expectation". Who decides if we can pull the brake, if our expectations will be met? The EU parliament? The Commission? The ECJ? None of these are known for being overly friendly to Britain..
I predict Cameron will win this referendum and I further predict the Tory party will then turn on him, he'll quit amidst much rancour, and in time he will be historically reviled, like Heath.
It's the Council that decides. The emergency brake will apply for a period of X years when pulled, where X has not yet been agreed in the deal. It then automatically expires and can only be pulled three times in a row.
So the Council can decide that our full expectations can go wank in a German hot tub, and simply say No.
Great. This is the brilliantest deal ever brought to the British people by a prime minister. I bow only to Nabavi in my admiration for Cameron's godlike statesmanship.
I particularly love what he's done on ever closer union. This is what Tusk says:
"References in the Treaties and their preambles to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe blah blah
Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties"
That's it. A statement of vague intent, a nice piece of waffle, like a new husband promising not to "go to the pub too much". A statement to be interpreted by the EU courts themselves if they ever make it into a new Treaty (incredibly unlikely).
Cameron promised he would get the UK exempted from ever closer union. He has entirely failed. This is comically bad.
Its quite a sad reflection on us that we are even talking about the possibility that this might have meant something.
Cameron is a Europhile, always has been always will be. He didn't want a referendum on the EU and only promised one as a panicky reaction to UKIP polling.. Jesus when a man says he wasn't to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, is PRIME MINISTER, yes PRIME MINISTER, for 6 years and its through the roof, mainly down to EU immigration why believe that he wanted to do anything about it?
Breaking: reports of large explosion inside school gymnasium at Karlstad, Sweden...
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago A loud explosion has been heard in the centre of Karlstad in Sweden - local authorities say the blast came from inside a secondary school
Astoundingly, Cameron has secured a "deal" with is even MORE feeble and meaningless than the meaningless, feeble "deal" we knew he'd secure
In the end there was no rabbit, there was no hat. There wasn't even a magician on stage, pretending.
Even if we accept your first point, I'd disagree with your second. Cameron gave us a sneak preview of his campaign for May/June and it was effective. Three or four wins that sound good.
Karl Rove once said "when you're explaining, you're losing". Unless 'Out' can find a counter to his position that doesn't involve a load of detail, they'll be struggling badly.
[snip the amusing bits]
If REMAIN win it won't be anything to do with this laughable piffle. It will be because Brits are cautious, conservative and Cameron is asking us to trust him, and many will.
And your final point is right. But in order for people to believe Cameron, he has to say something that sounds credible, which this will; he has to believe it himself and it sounds like it does.
As you imply, the referendum will be won by the side that's most trusted. One will have David Cameron and Richard Branson, the other will have Nigel Farage and a bunch of oddballs.
There's a crucial difference. We trust Cameron to govern us and don't want Farage. But this isn't deciding the Government, it's selling us the EU. Farage won the last EU election, and convincingly trounced Nick Clegg over Europe, so on this specific issue he perhaps (only a thought) has more trust than he does as a potential PM.
But at the risk of stating the obvious, a referendum is a referendum not an election. Leave need to put together a coalition of 50% (as, of course, does Remain). UKIP's 15% GE share is a good start and the crossover voters from the EP election adds a few more percent. The question is where the rest come from. Leave needs to tap into the Eurosceptic Con and Lab voters and needs leaders who can do that.
Virtually the entire Lab and LD political machines will be behind Remain (perhaps at one remove and not necessarily with great conviction but they'll be there all the same). Where Cameron is weak with left-of-centre voters, he has allies who can speak to them. Leave, by contrast, has a gap there.
What's wrong with EEA? It's not like we have any say now - so at worst it's no change...
We do have a say now, including a vote in the Council (including some veto powers), MEPs, commissioners, and Eurocrats. We also have some institutional protection from the treaties, which are slightly reinforced by the new document.
Also, the transition of leaving the EU is by no means a no-cost exercise. Two years or more of economic damage from the uncertainty is not to be dismissed. I'd want something more than just buying back in through the EEA to justify it.
So the Council can decide that our full expectations can go wank in a German hot tub, and simply say No.
Great. This is the brilliantest deal ever brought to the British people by a prime minister. I bow only to Nabavi in my admiration for Cameron's godlike statesmanship.
I particularly love what he's done on ever closer union. This is what Tusk says:
"References in the Treaties and their preambles to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe blah blah
Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties"
That's it. A statement of vague intent, a nice piece of waffle, like a new husband promising not to "go to the pub too much". A statement to be interpreted by the EU courts themselves if they ever make it into a new Treaty (incredibly unlikely).
Cameron promised he would get the UK exempted from ever closer union. He has entirely failed. This is comically bad.
I differ on this one. OK, Cameron has negotiated very little in all that, but the statement of existing fact in the section is a strong one and well worth noting.
[The EU can only extend its competencies via Treaty agreed by all 28 member countries]
Simply pointing out that the founding principle of 'ever closer union' is in itself a crock of merde with as little substance as much of what Cameron has negotiated ought to be worth something to you!
That really would be a stupid line because it implies that the entire renegotiation is a sham. While hardline Eurosceptics might well believe that, it won't persuade any floating voters, and those are the ones who'll determine the outcome.
Not sure, objectively. The Remain case as stated by Cameron is that the renegotiation was important and has produced results on the lines requested. He's the PM, so people will tend to believe that he's broadly got what he wanted and that's why he's for staying in. It may be more effective to play on public cynicism and say it was all smoke and mirrors than for the relatively minor politicians on the Leave side to try to argue the details with Cameron.
But without a popular figurehead to put the case I think they are on a loser whatever they do. This is so like the last referendum, where we saw Government plus Opposition plus CBI plus TUC vs Benn and Powell and some people from outside politics. In the end floating voters will feel it's complicated and not that interesting, but the consensus among people they have actually heard of and trust seems to be for Remain.
I think if Leave are going to win then they need to pretty much leave the renegotiation to one side and attack the EU directly. Belittle Cameron's agreement, sure, but to argue that it has nothing at all will lose them credibility because that's exactly what those sceptical of Euro-obsessives would expect them to say.
Fair words and all that, but interesting nonetheless.
It gets worse the more you look at it. "Full expectation". Who decides if we can pull the brake, if our expectations will be met? The EU parliament? The Commission? The ECJ? None of these are known for being overly friendly to Britain.
If they decide after we've voted IN what are the chances they will say Sod your brake, you can't use it. 100%? What do we do then? Nothing.
I've never held Cameron in more contempt than I do now. He'd be better off saying the EU is tolerable as it is, outside is worse, that's that. At least that would have the merit of veracity. It's what he clearly thinks. But trying to say he's got meaningful reforms when he knows he's done nothing of the kind. It's like Blair and Iraq and the dossiers.
I predict Cameron will win this referendum and I further predict the Tory party will then turn on him, he'll quit amidst much rancour, and in time he will be historically reviled, like Heath.
It's the Council that decides. The emergency brake will apply for a period of X years when pulled, where X has not yet been agreed in the deal. It then automatically expires and can only be pulled three times in a row.
So the Council can decide that our full expectations can go wank in a German hot tub, and simply say No.
Great. This is the brilliantest deal ever brought to the British people by a prime minister. I bow only to
Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties"
That's it. A statement of vague intent, a nice piece of waffle, like a new husband promising not to "go to the pub too much". A statement to be interpreted by the EU courts themselves if they ever make it into a new Treaty (incredibly unlikely).
Cameron promised he would get the UK exempted from ever closer union. He has entirely failed. This is comically bad.
The remain campaign is claiming we have a UK opt out of ever closer union, when as you can see we don't have anything of the sort.
But despite shortcomings on benefits and ever closer union, neither are the main issue. The biggest one is that the Eurozone can pass any law it likes, even if it hurts the City of London. It is even allowed to treat non-Euro nations differently for 'objective reasons'.
As to Britain's best interests, I don't know. The EU is dysfunctional and it's not the best travelling companion. On its own, however, it's all too easy to imagine those delusional and paranoiac tendencies leading Britain towards Leave making things much worse before they got better.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
I tend to disagree. I think without us as an Atlanticist counterweight, continental Europe would go Russia-ward, not the other way around.
But
I think our best bet (were we looking) would be to ally with (please don't accuse me of harbouring dreams of Empire) the other nations of the Commonwealth.
Probably what we should have done all along.
Ironically if UK leaves the EU I think it creates an awful problem for Ireland. They are so dependent on the UK that their future is bound up with us. They would feel very detached seeing the UK (including the significant bit that shares their landmass) go it alone. With controls possibly introduced at the border. And at the same time as Ireland will seriously have to contemplate joining us, the nationalists in Scotland perfectly reasonably and legitimately will hold another indy ref assuming a large majority of Scots voted to stay in.
What's wrong with EEA? It's not like we have any say now - so at worst it's no change...
We do have a say now, including a vote in the Council, MEPs, commissioners, and Eurocrats. We also have some institutional protection from the treaties, which are slightly reinforced by the new document.
Also, the transition of leaving the EU is by no means a no-cost exercise. Two years or more of economic damage from the uncertainty is not to be dismissed. I'd want something more than just buying back in through the EEA to justify it.
If we're just joining the EEA there is no reason it would take 2 years for starters. Secondly our MEPs are practically useless because to displace the EPP + ALDE + S&D grand coalition is practically impossible currently. That just leaves a single commissioner assigned to us and a vote in the council - it is pittance. Do EEA members get their seat back at the WTO? If we do that alone makes it a massively worthwhile trade-off in my opinion. Plus there would be no reason for markets to fear because it would just speed up our free market ambitions as opposed to the potential Front National or CAP style protectionism some backward Europeans are heading towards.
It's also very disappointing that Cameron has agreed non-Euro states will not interfere with new treaties for Eurozone integration, meaning giving up leverage to get new protections then. As I said, this isa disaster. Really, really disappointed.
Where the UK would go outside the EU is a non-trivial question. There would be meaningful geopolitical forces drawing us towards a closer alliance with Russia which would run contrary to our recent posture towards that country.
The only thing that's clear is that the 'anglosphere' fantasists will be in for a rude awakening.
I tend to disagree. I think without us as an Atlanticist counterweight, continental Europe would go Russia-ward, not the other way around.
But consider the practical things that are likely to happen. We would have a behemoth on our doorstep that whose existence would make life difficult for us whether it wanted to or not. The EU would end up taking a partisan position regarding the reunification of Ireland; it would be helpful towards the Scottish government in achieving its aim of breaking away and rejoining the EU. It would not have any reason to be cooperative on migration or other practical issues affecting us.
The British government would find all of this intolerable and would quickly find very like-minded interlocutors in the Kremlin.
Whether or not that happened, our Government as it stands is not some Palmerstonian entity that goes 'finding' allies. That ebbed away at some point in the 20th century. We are pretty much a US appendage, that is locked down, and whatever trouble Europe gives us we are not going to go knocking on Putin's door.
Even in the unlikely event that we did, we are a far less attractive prospect to Russia than the EU, which shares a continent with Russia and brings a huge ammount more people and money to the table. They already have leanings - remember also the French trying to sell Putin that aircraft carrier before being heavily slapped down, Italy seem quite openly flouting the 'party line' on Russia calling for the end of sanctions. Many of the senior EU office holders are probably also still nursing the dream of being a counterweight to the US.
I think our best bet (were we looking) would be to ally with (please don't accuse me of harbouring dreams of Empire) the other nations of the Commonwealth.
And why would it be in *their* interests?
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
If we're just joining the EEA there is no reason it would take 2 years for starters.
Come on, it's going to take at least two years, probably more. EEA membership is not like filling in a form and sending off a membership fee - it would all have to be negotiated. The existing EEA countries will be worried about the UK dominating things, so that would all have to be discussed. Untangling the provisions of EU law in UK law is another complication.
And that assumes that we know from the start that we want to go down the EEA route. That would be hugely controversial, given that a large proportion of those voting Leave would have thought they were voting to end free movement.
Again, the airy way the Leave side ignore all these realities is just extraordinary.
The BBC are also pro-EU. Print media is largely against, but, barring the migrant crisis affecting things, I agree Remain are a strong favourite to win.
If we're just joining the EEA there is no reason it would take 2 years for starters.
Come on, it's going to take at least two years, probably more. EEA membership is not like filling in a form and sending off a membership fee - it would all have to be negotiated. The existing EEA countries will be worried about the UK dominating things, so that would all have to be discussed. Untangling the provisions of EU law in UK law is another complication.
And that assumes that we know from the start that we want to go down the EEA route. That would be hugely controversial, given that a large proportion of those voting Leave would have thought they were voting to end free movement.
Again, the airy way the Leave side ignore all these realities is just extraordinary.
Even if it does take 2 years, it is still a good deal. You just ignored the other points I raised. Are you a closet federalist? At least that would be a rational explanation...
The EU has offered us the very least it considered it could get away with, given the situation right now. Given the highly popular UK PM is a Europhile, the leave campaign utterly useless and Britain is cautious and 'better the devil you know' in nature.
They clearly think there's no chance we will leave, and they may very well be correct.
The BBC are also pro-EU. Print media is largely against, but, barring the migrant crisis affecting things, I agree Remain are a strong favourite to win.
The question will be how long afterwards before Remain turns in to Regret.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
If we're just joining the EEA there is no reason it would take 2 years for starters.
Come on, it's going to take at least two years, probably more. EEA membership is not like filling in a form and sending off a membership fee - it would all have to be negotiated. The existing EEA countries will be worried about the UK dominating things, so that would all have to be discussed. Untangling the provisions of EU law in UK law is another complication.
And that assumes that we know from the start that we want to go down the EEA route. That would be hugely controversial, given that a large proportion of those voting Leave would have thought they were voting to end free movement.
Again, the airy way the Leave side ignore all these realities is just extraordinary.
Even if it does take 2 years, it is still a good deal. You just ignored the other points I raised. Are you a closet federalist? At least that would be a rational explanation...
God, not another one!
No, I'm not a closet federalist/Europhile/Quisling etc etc.
Whether the EEA a good deal or not is a matter of judgement. Personally I don't think it is. Others on the same facts may disagree.
How much say we have in the EU is a matter of fact. How much weight you give to it is again a matter of judgement, but incontrovertibly we have more say in than out.
What's perhaps most interesting about this debate is that several people here - often in the most intemperate terms - accuse me of dishonesty etc for not supporting the EEA route. But if the EEA route is so attractive, why the hell don't the Leave side say so in clear terms? It's clearly the route which is least dangerous economically, and would be a decent answer to the 'leap into the dark' argument, so what's holding them back?
The EU has offered us the very least it considered it could get away with, given the situation right now. Given the highly popular UK PM is a Europhile, the leave campaign utterly useless and Britain is cautious and 'better the devil you know' in nature.
They clearly think there's no chance we will leave, and they may very well be correct.
But hell, what an incentive to prove them wrong...
If we're just joining the EEA there is no reason it would take 2 years for starters.
Come on, it's going to take at least two years, probably more. EEA membership is not like filling in a form and sending off a membership fee - it would all have to be negotiated. The existing EEA countries will be worried about the UK dominating things, so that would all have to be discussed. Untangling the provisions of EU law in UK law is another complication.
And that assumes that we know from the start that we want to go down the EEA route. That would be hugely controversial, given that a large proportion of those voting Leave would have thought they were voting to end free movement.
Again, the airy way the Leave side ignore all these realities is just extraordinary.
Even if it does take 2 years, it is still a good deal. You just ignored the other points I raised. Are you a closet federalist? At least that would be a rational explanation...
God, not another one!
No, I'm not a closet federalist/Europhile/Quisling etc etc.
Whether the EEA a good deal or not is a matter of judgement. Personally I don't think it is. Others on the same facts may disagree.
How much say we have in the EU is a matter of fact. How much weight you give to it is again a matter of judgement, but incontrovertibly we have more say in than out.
What's perhaps most interesting about this debate is that several people here - often in the most intemperate terms - accuse me of dishonesty etc for not supporting the EEA route. But if the EEA route is so attractive, why the hell don't the Leave side say so in clear terms? It's clearly the route which is least dangerous economically, and would be a decent answer to the 'leap into the dark' argument, so what's holding them back?
There is no single leave side. There are dozens of groups all advocating their own preferred outcome after exit, so obviously you won't get a unified single preference. Furthermore their preference is practically irrelevant because it will be up to the government and they aren't going to outline a position for obvious reasons. I personally find that move cynical and derisory .
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
The Commonwealth? For different reasons, but I suppose cheifly because we're a very good and potentially improving market for their goods, and in their turn, they could be an even better market for our services.
It goes without saying that I think you're totally wrong about Russia and America, but whilst I don't expect the scales to fall from your eyes in the space of one of my posts, I think it should be obvious that a superpower aiming at 'full spectrum dominance' of the world is a far greater danger than one (with lower capabilities) aiming for regional dominance. And the objective numbers of regime changes, incursions, bombings, destabilisation campaigns etc. make my point for me. If a greater danger to world peace than the US is to rise, it will be China, but we are not there yet. Russia is a side show - they simply won't bow to the US the way the rest of us have, and I applaud them for it.
There is no single leave side. There are dozens of groups all advocating their own preferred outcome after exit, so obviously you won't get a unified single preference. Furthermore their preference is practically irrelevant because it will be up to the government and they aren't going to outline a position for obvious reasons. I personally find that move cynical and derisory .
In other words, many of the Leave side agree with me that the EEA route is not worth the candle. Quite why I'm accused of being unprincipled/dishonest/Europhile etc for agreeing with Leave.EU and others on the Leave side is a bit of mystery.
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
Right now I am still entirely undecided. If I do vote REMAIN (because, selfishly, London, and, unselfishly, Scotland) I will do it with shuddering regret, but then I shall then dedicate the rest of my life to loathing David Cameron and doing my best to see that his historical reputation is worse than Heath's. What a nasty little c*nt of a man he is. Just a liar. A sneering liar.
I am emotionally pro-EU and really wanted a good deal on non-EU protections. If we'd have got a good one I would have been a strong In supporter. I was expecting mediocre protections but instead we've got nothing at all. The entire City of London is at risk of decisions influenced by the Eurozone, which is dominated by nations hostile to it. Unless Cameron really turns this round, I don't see any choice but voting to leave. Staying is too much of a risk now.
There is no single leave side. There are dozens of groups all advocating their own preferred outcome after exit, so obviously you won't get a unified single preference. Furthermore their preference is practically irrelevant because it will be up to the government and they aren't going to outline a position for obvious reasons. I personally find that move cynical and derisory .
In other words, many of the Leave side agree with me that the EEA route is not worth the candle. Quite why I'm accused of being unprincipled/dishonest/Europhile etc for agreeing with Leave.EU and others on the Leave side is a bit of mystery.
It was a genuine question, I've not spoken to you before and wasn't sure if you were a Cameronite tory or a liberal democrat. (If you can put the fag packet between them) My apologies.
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
But hell, what an incentive to prove them wrong...
IF RN is correct, then even if we do leave, they can essentially impose whatever conditions they like on us via EEA, so whether we leave or stay is irrelevant.
In fact, it might be better for them if we left.
Fact is, the notion of a free, independent, self determining UK is dead. The EU probably grasps that, whereas we don't.
Mr. T, so... you might vote for Cameron's deal, and then loathe him for it? It's your vote. If you choose to endorse Cameron's negotiated deal it's not very consistent to then berate him for the very thing you supported at the ballot box.
No, I would not be voting for his deal, it is a despicable farrago of fibs.
I'd vote to REMAIN in the EU solely on the - selfish - basis that leaving would damage London, and the London property market (ergo my personal wealth) and the unselfish basis that Brexit gives the Scot Nats one last but very good chance - in this generation - of breaking up the UK.
These considerations have nothing to do with Cameron's squalid little "deal". The deal is merely the reason I now despise him.
The London property market is on the slide, albeit slowly, due to oil price, China etc
The Scots will leave at some point anyway, if they want to go back into the EU nightmare and join the Euro then let them.
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
Given I don't think I could bring myself to vote Leave and I can't really envision voting Remain and therefore endorsing this pissy little deal and the EU as it stands, I think on polling day I shall spoil my ballot by voting Remain but scribbling "but not on these terms" across the ballot.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
Right now I am still entirely undecided. If I do vote REMAIN (because, selfishly, London, and, unselfishly, Scotland) I will do it with shuddering regret, but then I shall then dedicate the rest of my life to loathing David Cameron and doing my best to see that his historical reputation is worse than Heath's. What a nasty little c*nt of a man he is. Just a liar. A sneering liar.
In the unlikely event we vote to Leave, I think it's highly unlikely Scotland will up sticks. The same issues remain, and the economic issues are worse. They will face massive upheaval vs. things being largely the same. Assuming Leave is a step closer to more controls on immigration, they will also be making themselves destination numero uno for migrants, which in spite of the #refugeeswelcome signs, I really don't think they want. And there is every chance that the Scots will have voted for it anyway. Scots have no real love for the EU.
The one thing to take from this thread... Richard Nabavi backtracked on his initial praise of the "red card". This unprecedented non praise leads me to believe the LEAVE campaign should ridicule the measure for all its worth
The one thing to take from this thread... Richard Nabavi backtracked on his initial praise of the "red card". This unprecedented non praise leads me to believe the LEAVE campaign should ridicule the measure for all its worth
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
No, we would be four states - England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
I think this ridiculous "deal" will go down quite badly with a lot of Tory MPs, though many will pay lip service, as the careerists they are (cf Nick Palmer)
But there is a huge prize here for any well-known Tory willing to seize the torch and lead the LEAVERS, even if they are likely to lose. He will then be seen as a man (or woman) of integrity, and will surely reap the benefits post IN vote, as we all get buyer's remorse, and the Tories turn on the Cameron wing of the party.
This is Boris's moment. He should man up, lead the LEAVE campaign, and take it to honourable defeat. He would then get the sympathy vote, as the SNP did after NO.
Conversely giving this silly deal enthusiastic support could be longterm poison for Tory leadership contenders.
What are betting implications for this? Back Johnson, May, Patel? Short Osborne?
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
Washington would view our leaving as a lurch towards 'nativism' and would see us as the black sheep of the Western world. Their most important European alliance is with Germany and they would not be willing to indulge our eccentric ideas at the expense of their strategic interests.
''Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.''
It really does sound as if the notion of an independent, self determining nation not relying upon the say-so of others to determine policy really is not an option.
The one thing to take from this thread... Richard Nabavi backtracked on his initial praise of the "red card". This unprecedented non praise leads me to believe the LEAVE campaign should ridicule the measure for all its worth
Unless its a double bluff...
What initial praise?
"- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics"
You later said
"Yes, having looked further at it, my characterisation of the idea as 'interesting' on the previous thread was a bit generous. "
So it seems the direction of travel is from "interesting" to "crap"
I suppose you will say "interesting" wasn't a positive..
I'm actually feeling sorry for people on the fence who were waiting for the renegotiation. It was never going to please many, but I'd assumed there would be more than this - maybe the sceptics played the expectations game well. I'm surprised there wasn't more on child benefit being sent abroad in particular.
Anyway, let Cameron take the heat on this. If you thought the EU was worth staying in yesterday, you probably do today. I'm just not sure there's much extra campaigning ammo from today, when I hoped there might be.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Not to mention that most Brits would have some difficulty establishing a cultural affinity with a hyper-religious populace who are obsessed with gun ownership and who apparently believe that Donald Trump might be a believable answer to a problem.
As opposed to a hyper religious populace hellbent on forcing their own rule of law over us?
What is Osborne gonna do now? He was the leader in pushing for protections for City of London. Can't see how he will defend this without looking ludicrous.
I think this ridiculous "deal" will go down quite badly with a lot of Tory MPs, though many will pay lip service, as the careerists they are (cf Nick Palmer)
But there is a huge prize here for any well-known Tory willing to seize the torch and lead the LEAVERS, even if they are likely to lose. He will then be seen as a man (or woman) of integrity, and will surely reap the benefits post IN vote, as we all get buyer's remorse, and the Tories turn on the Cameron wing of the party.
This is Boris's moment. He should man up, lead the LEAVE campaign, and take it to honourable defeat. He would then get the sympathy vote, as the SNP did after NO.
Conversely giving this silly deal enthusiastic support could be longterm poison for Tory leadership contenders.
What are betting implications for this? Back Johnson, May, Patel? Short Osborne?
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Reestablishing a Commonwealth of the Dominions is going to be a hard sell, given how badly we ditched NZ and Aus in our rush to join the EEC and be 'good Europeans'.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
I'm always curious about the thinking of Eurosceptics who dislike what they perceive as the domineering and alien attitude of the EU and ECJ and then propose instead to join the US.
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
Quite.
And I'm not sure why the latter sentiment expressed in Tim's post, albeit in jest, can fly here when someone expressing any pro-Russia sentiment whatever (let alone suggesting the end of our country to be assimilated into another) is denounced as a traitor. The US is not Britain. They're not (as a political entity - I love people from the US) even particularly friendly toward us. They even had a plan to instigate a war of conquest with us until World War II effectively did the job for them.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
Washington would view our leaving as a lurch towards 'nativism' and would see us as the black sheep of the Western world. Their most important European alliance is with Germany and they would not be willing to indulge our eccentric ideas at the expense of their strategic interests.
Really?
And Germany isn't a member of the Five Eyes intelligence agreement.
Comments
Even in the unlikely event that we did, we are a far less attractive prospect to Russia than the EU, which shares a continent with Russia and brings a huge ammount more people and money to the table. They already have leanings - remember also the French trying to sell Putin that aircraft carrier before being heavily slapped down, Italy seem quite openly flouting the 'party line' on Russia calling for the end of sanctions. Many of the senior EU office holders are probably also still nursing the dream of being a counterweight to the US.
I think our best bet (were we looking) would be to ally with (please don't accuse me of harbouring dreams of Empire) the other nations of the Commonwealth.
"This in-at-all-costs deal looks funny, it smells funny, it might be superficially shiny on the outside but poke it and it’s soft in the middle. Will my Right Honourable Friend admit to the House that he has been reduced to polishing poo?"
So he's doing little more than "appeasing" Brussels?
Fair enough, Cameron won the Election and UKIP got one seat.. but this isn't about who we elect to run the country, its about whether the people we elect have the power to run our country, and so a Corporate giant like the Tory party doesn't have the edge over a start up like UKIP that it does in a GE
Also, as said down thread the 4 year ban is graduated, so effectively is going to be more like a two year ban.
The odds on the Council of Ministers saying stuff your brake afterwards? Despite the assurances and the fact there have probably be some pre-talks on the likelihood of this brake getting through, I think that could be pretty close to evens money.
However, it's worth noting the amount of detail yet to be worked out. We'll see how the 18th February conference ends up going.
I think remain will.
I can't see value in any of the odds.
Bookended...is that from an urban dictionary?
Not with any great enthusiasm, needless to say. I wouldn't have started from here.
Anyone but Boris !
I don't think a drawn out campaign is a big boost to either side as "events" can happen either way.
Cameron is a Europhile, always has been always will be. He didn't want a referendum on the EU and only promised one as a panicky reaction to UKIP polling.. Jesus when a man says he wasn't to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, is PRIME MINISTER, yes PRIME MINISTER, for 6 years and its through the roof, mainly down to EU immigration why believe that he wanted to do anything about it?
A loud explosion has been heard in the centre of Karlstad in Sweden - local authorities say the blast came from inside a secondary school
Virtually the entire Lab and LD political machines will be behind Remain (perhaps at one remove and not necessarily with great conviction but they'll be there all the same). Where Cameron is weak with left-of-centre voters, he has allies who can speak to them. Leave, by contrast, has a gap there.
Also, the transition of leaving the EU is by no means a no-cost exercise. Two years or more of economic damage from the uncertainty is not to be dismissed. I'd want something more than just buying back in through the EEA to justify it.
[The EU can only extend its competencies via Treaty agreed by all 28 member countries]
Simply pointing out that the founding principle of 'ever closer union' is in itself a crock of merde with as little substance as much of what Cameron has negotiated ought to be worth something to you!
But despite shortcomings on benefits and ever closer union, neither are the main issue. The biggest one is that the Eurozone can pass any law it likes, even if it hurts the City of London. It is even allowed to treat non-Euro nations differently for 'objective reasons'.
I think it's easy to dismiss airy fantasies of that sort, myself.
Do EEA members get their seat back at the WTO? If we do that alone makes it a massively worthwhile trade-off in my opinion. Plus there would be no reason for markets to fear because it would just speed up our free market ambitions as opposed to the potential Front National or CAP style protectionism some backward Europeans are heading towards.
On the US, you're right. There will come a time (is coming?) when the US asks itself what it gets out of Europe and Nato other than a lot of free riders. On Russia, however, you are wrong: it is an expansionist, dangerous threat to peace on the continent. The countries that form Britain's natural allies are on our own doorstep: they're about our own size and share our strategic interests.
Therefore I'll have done neither thing I don't feel able to do, won't have endorsed either unpalatable option, will have said what I really think, and won't have abstained and not turned out at all.
It ticks all the boxes. Unlike Dave's stitch up...
And that assumes that we know from the start that we want to go down the EEA route. That would be hugely controversial, given that a large proportion of those voting Leave would have thought they were voting to end free movement.
Again, the airy way the Leave side ignore all these realities is just extraordinary.
Labour-and all flanks of the party-are solid for 'Remain'
The PM is at last firing on all cylinders and he's for 'Remain' as are most of his cabinet.
The Lib Dems and the Nats are solid for Remain as are big business and the heads of all important foreign companies sited here......
Which just leaves Farage and the fruitcakes..... and a few pensioners worried about I know not what.
The 'Remain' forces are overwhelming.......It is going to be a rout. Put your house on it.
I'd guess at least 60/40 'Remain'
The BBC are also pro-EU. Print media is largely against, but, barring the migrant crisis affecting things, I agree Remain are a strong favourite to win.
The EU has offered us the very least it considered it could get away with, given the situation right now. Given the highly popular UK PM is a Europhile, the leave campaign utterly useless and Britain is cautious and 'better the devil you know' in nature.
They clearly think there's no chance we will leave, and they may very well be correct.
The question will be how long afterwards before Remain turns in to Regret.
You're just waving your hands around now, aren't you? Laughable.
If that is the case, why did Cameron bother with a renegotiation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/karlstad-powerful-explosion-reported-at-secondary-school-sweden-a6848901.html
Just to clarify 'gymnasium' is the equivalent of a grammar school I believe, not sports related.
No, I'm not a closet federalist/Europhile/Quisling etc etc.
Whether the EEA a good deal or not is a matter of judgement. Personally I don't think it is. Others on the same facts may disagree.
How much say we have in the EU is a matter of fact. How much weight you give to it is again a matter of judgement, but incontrovertibly we have more say in than out.
What's perhaps most interesting about this debate is that several people here - often in the most intemperate terms - accuse me of dishonesty etc for not supporting the EEA route. But if the EEA route is so attractive, why the hell don't the Leave side say so in clear terms? It's clearly the route which is least dangerous economically, and would be a decent answer to the 'leap into the dark' argument, so what's holding them back?
Furthermore their preference is practically irrelevant because it will be up to the government and they aren't going to outline a position for obvious reasons. I personally find that move cynical and derisory .
It goes without saying that I think you're totally wrong about Russia and America, but whilst I don't expect the scales to fall from your eyes in the space of one of my posts, I think it should be obvious that a superpower aiming at 'full spectrum dominance' of the world is a far greater danger than one (with lower capabilities) aiming for regional dominance. And the objective numbers of regime changes, incursions, bombings, destabilisation campaigns etc. make my point for me. If a greater danger to world peace than the US is to rise, it will be China, but we are not there yet. Russia is a side show - they simply won't bow to the US the way the rest of us have, and I applaud them for it.
Personally, if the UK votes leave, I think we should apply for NAFTA and a closer relationship with the US.
On the fantasy side, joining the US as 10 new states (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia and East Anglia, Dumnonia, Northumbria and Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) would make for an interesting world.
IF RN is correct, then even if we do leave, they can essentially impose whatever conditions they like on us via EEA, so whether we leave or stay is irrelevant.
In fact, it might be better for them if we left.
Fact is, the notion of a free, independent, self determining UK is dead. The EU probably grasps that, whereas we don't.
The Scots will leave at some point anyway, if they want to go back into the EU nightmare and join the Euro then let them.
Unless its a double bluff...
https://mobile.twitter.com/GaryJRobinson/status/694543768838619136
https://twitter.com/GaryJRobinson/status/694543768838619136
Even joining Nafta would mean becoming part of a club where one component dominates to an even greater extent than the Eurozone does within the EU, and which doesn't have any neutralish supranational institutions to balance that effect.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKCN0VB1H7
It really does sound as if the notion of an independent, self determining nation not relying upon the say-so of others to determine policy really is not an option.
Not an option at all.
You later said
"Yes, having looked further at it, my characterisation of the idea as 'interesting' on the previous thread was a bit generous. "
So it seems the direction of travel is from "interesting" to "crap"
I suppose you will say "interesting" wasn't a positive..
Anyway, let Cameron take the heat on this. If you thought the EU was worth staying in yesterday, you probably do today. I'm just not sure there's much extra campaigning ammo from today, when I hoped there might be.
George Osbourne ceases to be Chancellor 2019.
Interestingly cut to 3-1 after I put £20 on at 5-1.
More reasons why our being independent is completely impossible and out of the question. Why bother with a parliament at all?
And I'm not sure why the latter sentiment expressed in Tim's post, albeit in jest, can fly here when someone expressing any pro-Russia sentiment whatever (let alone suggesting the end of our country to be assimilated into another) is denounced as a traitor. The US is not Britain. They're not (as a political entity - I love people from the US) even particularly friendly toward us. They even had a plan to instigate a war of conquest with us until World War II effectively did the job for them.
And Germany isn't a member of the Five Eyes intelligence agreement.