If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.
Exactly. Its got everything to do with a shared border and common infrastructure and nothing to do with the EU.
<"sarcasm"> But given if we do leave the EU the UK will be transformed overnight into such an economic basket case the camps of refugees wanting to get into Britain from France will evaporate.....so I don't know what Dave is worrying about <"/sarcasm">
Cameron doesn't care. He has forced his cabinet members to keep quiet so he can dogwhistle without anyone of stature refuting him. His credibility is falling rapidly.
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.
Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?
And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?
I voted Blair three times and it resonates with me. Us left leaners deserve better than donkeys in charge of Labour right now.
Blair got Tories to vote for him. Did you vote Labour in 1992 and/or 2010?
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.
handwavium > handwringium
No. It's yet another issue that hardline BOOers are just ignoring, saying everything will be alright, as if saying it will make it true. As we can see from the posts on here this morning.
What do the Remain supporters think we should do if Eurozone starts passing laws that we disagree with over us?
I'm not a remain supporter: I'll probably be voting leave for the reasons I've given passim. But I daresay many remainers will say it's European democracy in action. And that issue of sovereignty is the heart of the issue, isn't it?
Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven?
That's an invasion, and should be dealt with as it was in Fishguard, 1797.
Wouldn't we just close the Channel Tunnel??
I doubt 4000 immigrants have ever headed across it in a few hours, I was assuming Aden pirates had picked up a new trade in Le Manche as @JosiapJessop's question was phrased.
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.
handwavium > handwringium
No. It's yet another issue that hardline BOOers are just ignoring, saying everything will be alright, as if saying it will make it true. As we can see from the posts on here this morning.
It has nothing to do with the EU its bilateral treaty between neighbouring countries, if the French wish to abrogate that treaty they will. Being in out out of the EU doesn't make that situation better or worse.
JJ Any Ferry company that attempted to land several thousand immigrants at one of the UK ports without permission to land would simply be cutting its own throat and the Skippers career would be severely curtailed..
If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.
Project fear... I feel like I'm turning into malc!!
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.
Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.
I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.
It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.
I think the problem here is that a good proportion of the selectorate are not "very Labour". A traditional Labour selectorate would go for Dan Jarvis or Hattie or Benn, but the bunch of SWP/Greens/CPGB morons they have managed to admit to the party for the princely sum of three quid would not hear of such sensible and moderate people, they are all a bunch of Tories to them. When the members are largely a bunch of hard left nutters, the only leader that is going to get elected is a hard left nutter. I would be putting my folding on Watson as next leader because he is left enough with excellent union connections, and he is deputy leader.
Having backed airstrikes and come out for Trident Watson is now probably too rightwing for the present Labour membership
It will be interesting, the members might vote, but the unions hold the purse strings. "You can elect that eejit if you want, but we are not paying for it"
A couple of weeks ago I wondered what odds would be reasonable for an Ed M return, at least on a temporary basis.
It would seem crazy to go with the "tried and failed", even if he wanted it - which he probably doesn't.
Nevertheless, the thought struck me, in the same way it did Mr Meeks, that he is placed as someone respected (probably too much so) within the party and someone who both centrist and fairly left supporters could rally round. Moreover this placement is unusual.
Assuming Corbyn is replaced by a current MP - not certain, particularly if he somehow wins the next election and a newly elected MP from the next parliament might have a chance to succeed him, or if a Big Beast like Ed Balls or David M makes a surprise return to the green benches at a by-election in this parliament. Odds in the region of 200-1 rate Ed Miliband's chances as about the average for a Labour MP right now. That's not completely unreasonable, since there is a (highly unlikely, but feasible) path for his return, compared to a lot of MPs who can be ruled out entirely due to their lack of stature, age, political tendencies etc.
Labour have been out of power for a while now, and will have been for even longer by the time Corbyn is replaced. My main disagreement with the analysis in the header is the assumption of needing to be a former cabinet member. That seems too high a bar. Someone with junior experience (perhaps under Brown) and with a Shad Cab role under Miliband/Corbyn would probably be "good enough" to fulfill the "high status" aspect, in my view. The fact that there are fewer ex-governing Cabinet members still around doesn't concentrate the probability in the hands of the survivors, rather it diffuses it to the next generation.
JJ Any Ferry company that attempted to land several thousand immigrants at one of the UK ports without permission to land would simply be cutting its own throat and the Skippers career would be severely curtailed..
Legally that ferry could not sail in the first place. Neither can the French force the vessel out of their port either. It would remain a French problem.
This isn't going to make the SNP's case for delaying a second referendum any easier: 150 UK oil platforms to be scrapped in the next ten years. Scotland's oil - what oil?
If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.
Project fear... I feel like I'm turning into malc!!
As in some other fields I felt as an MP that I ought to have a look for myself (pause for obvious joke), so I had a tour and talked to a fair number of people and wrote this report for constituents, which may still be roughly accurate:
This isn't going to make the SNP's case for delaying a second referendum any easier: 150 UK oil platforms to be scrapped in the next ten years. Scotland's oil - what oil?
Do you really want the Myth* to develop of the Tory BritNats who impoverished Scotland by destroying the oil industry?
Is that going to be any more electorally beneficial to you in the long run than the Myth* of the Tory NeoLiberals who impoverished The North by destroying the coal industry?
* "Myth" might be true, might be false, might even be bits of both, but by the time it's been mythologised it's not the truth value that matters anymore.
On topic, I can't see more than half a dozen people agitating within Labour for a return of Ed Miliband. It is basically saying the Labour Party would return to the default setting before it went all screwy and elected Corbyn. So back to the point where it got kicked in the nuts by the voters and told to get rid of, er, saviour-of-the-Party Ed Miliband.
There's value bets, and then there's the bookies' Christmas party fund bets.
Since the election I've been calling out Cameron, the pb tories have given me all sorts of stick. Now he's saying if we leave the EU there'll be jungle camps at Dover and that prisoners are only going to be banged up at weekends.
If Corbyn had suggested the latter the tories on here would wetting themselves with excitement.
As for the EU, he is clearly all in, potentially 6 months from political ignominy, he's only got himself to blame. The man is the biggest fraud in Conservative history.
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.
Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.
I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.
It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.
I think the problem here is that a good proportion of the selectorate are not "very Labour". A traditional Labour selectorate would go for Dan Jarvis or Hattie or Benn, but the bunch of SWP/Greens/CPGB morons they have managed to admit to the party for the princely sum of three quid would not hear of such sensible and moderate people, they are all a bunch of Tories to them. When the members are largely a bunch of hard left nutters, the only leader that is going to get elected is a hard left nutter. I would be putting my folding on Watson as next leader because he is left enough with excellent union connections, and he is deputy leader.
Having backed airstrikes and come out for Trident Watson is now probably too rightwing for the present Labour membership
It will be interesting, the members might vote, but the unions hold the purse strings. "You can elect that eejit if you want, but we are not paying for it"
When the Unions are the moderates in Labour you know it has problems
This isn't going to make the SNP's case for delaying a second referendum any easier: 150 UK oil platforms to be scrapped in the next ten years. Scotland's oil - what oil?
Do you really want the Myth* to develop of the Tory BritNats who impoverished Scotland by destroying the oil industry?
Is that going to be any more electorally beneficial to you in the long run than the Myth* of the Tory NeoLiberals who impoverished The North by destroying the coal industry?
* "Myth" might be true, might be false, might even be bits of both, but by the time it's been mythologised it's not the truth value that matters anymore.
Not celebrating, just observing.
And even your average Nat is going to have to struggle with the notion of weak-as-piss England still controlling the international price of oil....
One has to at least consider the possibility that if we vote Leave, the rest of the EU will treat us as a hostile State, and impose a variety of sanctions on us. These could be economic, and they could also involve using migrants as a weapon against us. Though, one would have to question whether it was worth remaining a member of such a club.
No wonder Labour is in so much trouble; it has suffered a serious brain drain.
A tad generous?
Which King 'over the water' could come to their rescue/found a safe seat?
The Conservatives had (among some views, not my own) Boris should Cameron have failed in 2015 - but who have Labour got?
Which 'Best Prime Minister we never had' departed the Labour benches in 2015? I can think of several from previous intakes - but none from the class of 2010.
The problem goes back to Blair, a decade ago, who should have stopped Brown sidelining any potential challengers to his own coronation.....
There might be a myth building here. Who were these challengers Brown sidelined? Clarke was axed by Blair; Purnell and D Milliband were in Brown's Cabinet, as was Jack Straw; Alan Milburn maybe?
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Yes, it does. The Channel Tunnel remains open.
Fog in Channel, Continent cut off?
If its not in their interest to keep it open, why are they doing it now??
This agreement causes a lot of hostility in France. Stupefying though Leavers might find it, other countries occasionally accommodate Britain at inconvenience to themselves to keep us happy.
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
One has to at least consider the possibility that if we vote Leave, the rest of the EU will treat us as a hostile State, and impose a variety of sanctions on us. These could be economic, and they could also involve using migrants as a weapon against us. Though, one would have to question whether it was worth remaining a member of such a club.
They could, but they would have to amend their own treaties first.
Article 8 TEU requires the EU to "shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries” and the same text appears in I-57 TCE. Further its its mandatory formulation by the use of “shall” entails the Union is under an obligation to develop such a relationship.
On MP suspects vs rape suspects, surely the position is that the police and CPS aren't supposed to gossip casually about who they are suspecting of something? That's why you get statements like "The police are interviewing a 46 year old man." The highly public raid on Cliff Richard's home was an aberration, not I hope the norm. If you get charged, that's different, though personally I would prefer defendants and witnesses to be allowed anonymity until conviction unless there are special reasons why not.
The press play by different rules, sadly, but they don't seem to have been given the details. MPs are particularly subject to malicious gossip and personally I'm happy to wait for actual charges before wanting to know who someone has pointed the finger at.
If bookies were to operate a book on the sack race for football club Chairmen in the same way as they do for Managers, then Ed Balls, the recently installed head honcho at Norwich City, would surely be the odds-on favourite following the club's recent disastrous sequence of results. What are the chances that fellow Labourite Delia Smith will be cooking his bacon before long?
On topic, I can see the logic and took this bet a week ago.
The Twelvers, for the purposes of comparison I looked at how many ex Tory cabinet ministers were still MPs in 2003.
Michael Howard, Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo, Peter Lilley, Virginnia Bottomley, Brian Mawhinney, Sir George Young, Stephen Dorrell, Gillian Shepherd, John Gummer, Willam Hague, John Redwood and Douglas Hogg.
That's one more than Labour now. But the Tories only had 166 MPs then compared to Labour's 232.
Plus the Tories also had a cabinet cull in 1997 when seven cabinet ministers lost their seats. But Portillo came back as a retread.
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
2021 - Sajid vs Sadiq over the despatch box would say something about modern Britain.
relatively interesting article (you get one free if you don't subscribe):
Another Kipper with no knowledge of history. Cœur de Lion was a Jonny Foreigner from the EU. He was a definite Remainer.
Patrick O'Flynn
Just done séance on EU Ref. Wellington was for Out, Nelson said "why do you even need to ask me?" Richard Lionheart worried about migration.
He was born just north of Oxford. Granted his parents and ancestors were frogs, but you can't have everything It's well known now that a increasing proportion of immigrants in this country think there is too much immigration.
One has to at least consider the possibility that if we vote Leave, the rest of the EU will treat us as a hostile State, and impose a variety of sanctions on us. These could be economic, and they could also involve using migrants as a weapon against us. Though, one would have to question whether it was worth remaining a member of such a club.
They could, but they would have to amend their own treaties first.
Article 8 TEU requires the EU to "shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries” and the same text appears in I-57 TCE. Further its its mandatory formulation by the use of “shall” entails the Union is under an obligation to develop such a relationship.
That hasn't prevented the imposition of sanctions on Russia.
The EU would certainly have no interest in making life easy for us if we left. As I wrote a few days ago, I would expect to see EU influence make itself felt in the Scottish and Irish questions.
JJ Any Ferry company that attempted to land several thousand immigrants at one of the UK ports without permission to land would simply be cutting its own throat and the Skippers career would be severely curtailed..
Legally that ferry could not sail in the first place. Neither can the French force the vessel out of their port either. It would remain a French problem.
We're talking about illegal immigration here. Legality is of little interest to those who want to come over here, for whatever reason.
Another Kipper with no knowledge of history. Cœur de Lion was a Jonny Foreigner from the EU. He was a definite Remainer.
Patrick O'Flynn
Just done séance on EU Ref. Wellington was for Out, Nelson said "why do you even need to ask me?" Richard Lionheart worried about migration.
He was born just north of Oxford. Granted his parents and ancestors were frogs, but you can't have everything It's well known now that a increasing proportion of immigrants in this country think there is too much immigration.
He spoke French, spent most of his life outside England, got married outside England, and is buried in France.
One has to at least consider the possibility that if we vote Leave, the rest of the EU will treat us as a hostile State, and impose a variety of sanctions on us. These could be economic, and they could also involve using migrants as a weapon against us. Though, one would have to question whether it was worth remaining a member of such a club.
This is why I've said all along that I want any break with the EU to be on good terms, and with the minimum of fuss. If we start playing silly beggars they could make our lives slightly difficult. Or worse.
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
2021 - Sajid vs Sadiq over the despatch box would say something about modern Britain.
relatively interesting article (you get one free if you don't subscribe):
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Yes, it does. The Channel Tunnel remains open.
Fog in Channel, Continent cut off?
If its not in their interest to keep it open, why are they doing it now??
This agreement causes a lot of hostility in France. Stupefying though Leavers might find it, other countries occasionally accommodate Britain at inconvenience to themselves to keep us happy.
France signed an agreement in 2003 purely out of pan-EU generosity, with no benefits for their side??
Before the GE there was a lot of talk about whether enough Conservative MPs would sign letters of no confidence in David Cameron.and send them to the 1922 committee to trigger a leadership election.
Might we see such talk again? And on a procedural point, is this system reset after the GE? I.e. any letters sent before last May are now invalid?
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
Indeed. I would expect a credible Leave prospectus to include plans for repairing those relationships.
Do we really have to go over this every few days. The Leave campaign don't get to decide the manner of our leaving, or what subsequently happens, this is an advisory referendum to the government of the day, that government is the one that invokes Article 50, and negotiates what happens next (god help us given the recent examples of Dave's negotiating prowess). The Leave campaign could wish for any future after they referendum they want, it doesn't matter, they don't get to make the decision.
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.
Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?
And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?
I voted Blair three times and it resonates with me. Us left leaners deserve better than donkeys in charge of Labour right now.
Blair got Tories to vote for him. Did you vote Labour in 1992 and/or 2010?
By 'committed Tories' you're including those that desert them three elections in a row?? So what you're saying is Labour should only worry about those that still vote for the party in losing elections??
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
2021 - Sajid vs Sadiq over the despatch box would say something about modern Britain.
One has to at least consider the possibility that if we vote Leave, the rest of the EU will treat us as a hostile State, and impose a variety of sanctions on us. These could be economic, and they could also involve using migrants as a weapon against us. Though, one would have to question whether it was worth remaining a member of such a club.
They could, but they would have to amend their own treaties first.
Article 8 TEU requires the EU to "shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries” and the same text appears in I-57 TCE. Further its its mandatory formulation by the use of “shall” entails the Union is under an obligation to develop such a relationship.
That hasn't prevented the imposition of sanctions on Russia.
The EU would certainly have no interest in making life easy for us if we left. As I wrote a few days ago, I would expect to see EU influence make itself felt in the Scottish and Irish questions.
As in some other fields I felt as an MP that I ought to have a look for myself (pause for obvious joke), so I had a tour and talked to a fair number of people and wrote this report for constituents, which may still be roughly accurate:
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
2021 - Sajid vs Sadiq over the despatch box would say something about modern Britain.
That mediocrity isn't a race thing?
It dawned on me last night because of the EURef, you Scots will be seeing a lot more of David Coburn on the telly box in the run up to the referendum.
Makes me want to move to Scotland for the referendum.
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
I do hope some of these arguments get aired in public before the referendum. I can just imagine the Remain campaign saying - "Don't vote Leave, it might upset the French".
Germany has been willing to overlook serious breaches of law from Russia to maintain relations, and France does deals with very questionable African leaders. Yet these same countries would treat us as 'hostile state' because public didn't support government's position to stay in??
After Cameron played the Islamophobia card this morning, it feels like Remain side is desperate.
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
I do hope some of these arguments get aired in public before the referendum. I can just imagine the Remain campaign saying - "Don't vote Leave, it might upset the French".
Indeed two implied corkers from REMAIN today
"Don't vote Leave, it might upset the French"
and
"Don't vote Leave, we can't control our borders without the French"
JJ Are3 you suggesting that illegals would commandeer or steal the ferry..really..they still have to berth the bugger..
Or swim across to the ship, use smaller boats, etc, etc.
And it is just one possible mechanism: a few already managed to get on a ferry at Calais a few weeks ago.
You seem to be massively underestimating the desire of these people to make it across to the UK.
But I think it's much more likely (though still unlikely) that supporters charter a ship, and the French authorities say they don't have the resources to stop them boarding it. An associate of mine helps out at the Jungle, and he gives the impression he would do anything to help people across. He's being a bit of an idiot IMO ...
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
Indeed. I would expect a credible Leave prospectus to include plans for repairing those relationships.
Do we really have to go over this every few days. The Leave campaign don't get to decide the manner of our leaving, or what subsequently happens, this is an advisory referendum to the government of the day, that government is the one that invokes Article 50, and negotiates what happens next (god help us given the recent examples of Dave's negotiating prowess). The Leave campaign could wish for any future after they referendum they want, it doesn't matter, they don't get to make the decision.
Two points:
1. The fact that the Leave campaign isn't in a position to answer a question doesn't make it a bad question (same is true for Remain btw).
2. What I'm looking for is something the Leave campaign *can* give, which is a set of credible suggestions for how to handle the hostility which seems, to me, almost inevitable.
JJ Are3 you suggesting that illegals would commandeer or steal the ferry..really..they still have to berth the bugger..
Or swim across to the ship, use smaller boats, etc, etc.
And it is just one possible mechanism: a few already managed to get on a ferry at Calais a few weeks ago.
You seem to be massively underestimating the desire of these people to make it across to the UK.
But I think it's much more likely (though still unlikely) that supporters charter a ship, and the French authorities say they don't have the resources to stop them boarding it. An associate of mine helps out at the Jungle, and he gives the impression he would do anything to help people across. He's being a bit of an idiot IMO ...
Then ship in question wouldn't be allowed to dock. This really is a daft argument.
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
The official policy of the New Fiscally Dry, Socially Liberal, not obsessed by the gays and Europe Conservative Party has yet to be decided
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
Whilst the departure of the UK would be a shock and cause initial hysteria, I expect that would calm down and real politik to take over within a few months. We have 2 years under Article 50 to negotiate exit. You can point to EU politicians who threaten us with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You can also point to others, like Schulz, who think that if we want to leave we should leave and be allowed to do so.
I think the reality that it would be good for the residual EU, and for us, would be quickly realised as they could federate unhindered. So punitive sanctions are unlikely.
The EU is going to still need the UK as an ally whether we are in or out.
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
My first loyalty is towards The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I've been lucky in the past the interests of the country and party used to align, almost perfectly.
General point on topic: the proportion of speculation about leaders going to leaders actually going is normally I'd guess around 20:1. Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon - it's not that he's having fun, but he feels it's improper for socialists to step back just because something is difficult or personally wearying. He has an unflinching sense of duty which IMO is worthy of some respect, but even if you don't agree, don't bet on a quick change.
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
2021 - Sajid vs Sadiq over the despatch box would say something about modern Britain.
That mediocrity isn't a race thing?
It dawned on me last night because of the EURef, you Scots will be seeing a lot more of David Coburn on the telly box in the run up to the referendum.
Makes me want to move to Scotland for the referendum.
One can never have too much of the tweedy buffoon. #FeeltheCoburn.
Another Kipper with no knowledge of history. Cœur de Lion was a Jonny Foreigner from the EU. He was a definite Remainer.
Patrick O'Flynn
Just done séance on EU Ref. Wellington was for Out, Nelson said "why do you even need to ask me?" Richard Lionheart worried about migration.
He was born just north of Oxford. Granted his parents and ancestors were frogs, but you can't have everything It's well known now that a increasing proportion of immigrants in this country think there is too much immigration.
He spoke French, spent most of his life outside England, got married outside England, and is buried in France.
Mere technicalities, by the grace of God he was born in England, and would be eligible to play for all of our national sporting teams, that's more than good enough to claim him.
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
The official policy of the New Fiscally Dry, Socially Liberal, not obsessed by the gays and Europe Conservative Party has yet to be decided
It never will get decided because you are not obsessed by Europe. However if you vote LEAVE the Great Undecided might never talk to you again
Have the French said they'll repudiate the Le Touquet Treaty, if we vote to Leave?
France can terminate on two years' notice. It's reasonable to assume that it would if Britain left the EU. It doesn't get much out of it.
Why? To spite us for leaving?
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
It's fanciful to imagine that Britain can leave the EU without severe short term damage to our relations with other EU countries.
Whilst the departure of the UK would be a shock and cause initial hysteria, I expect that would calm down and real politik to take over within a few months. We have 2 years under Article 50 to negotiate exit. You can point to EU politicians who threaten us with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You can also point to others, like Schulz, who think that if we want to leave we should leave and be allowed to do so.
I think the reality that it would be good for the residual EU, and for us, would be quickly realised as they could federate unhindered. So punitive sanctions are unlikely.
The EU is going to still need the UK as an ally whether we are in or out.
I'm now clear in my mind that it would be good for the EU for Britain to leave. What I'm not clear about is whether it would be good for Britain for Britain to leave.
I think you're far too optimistic about how quickly realpolitik would take over. I'd date the turning point of Britain's relations with the rest of the EU to Black Wednesday. This would be a far bigger shock than that to those relations.
Comments
It would seem crazy to go with the "tried and failed", even if he wanted it - which he probably doesn't.
Nevertheless, the thought struck me, in the same way it did Mr Meeks, that he is placed as someone respected (probably too much so) within the party and someone who both centrist and fairly left supporters could rally round. Moreover this placement is unusual.
Assuming Corbyn is replaced by a current MP - not certain, particularly if he somehow wins the next election and a newly elected MP from the next parliament might have a chance to succeed him, or if a Big Beast like Ed Balls or David M makes a surprise return to the green benches at a by-election in this parliament. Odds in the region of 200-1 rate Ed Miliband's chances as about the average for a Labour MP right now. That's not completely unreasonable, since there is a (highly unlikely, but feasible) path for his return, compared to a lot of MPs who can be ruled out entirely due to their lack of stature, age, political tendencies etc.
Labour have been out of power for a while now, and will have been for even longer by the time Corbyn is replaced. My main disagreement with the analysis in the header is the assumption of needing to be a former cabinet member. That seems too high a bar. Someone with junior experience (perhaps under Brown) and with a Shad Cab role under Miliband/Corbyn would probably be "good enough" to fulfill the "high status" aspect, in my view. The fact that there are fewer ex-governing Cabinet members still around doesn't concentrate the probability in the hands of the survivors, rather it diffuses it to the next generation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35512217
I suspect Cameron is trying to make Brexit all about migrants, an issue that by itself won't win it for Leave.
Best to ignore him and focus on all the positive reasons to leave.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BroxtoweInfo/conversations/messages/420
Do you really want the Myth* to develop of the Tory BritNats who impoverished Scotland by destroying the oil industry?
Is that going to be any more electorally beneficial to you in the long run than the Myth* of the Tory NeoLiberals who impoverished The North by destroying the coal industry?
* "Myth" might be true, might be false, might even be bits of both, but by the time it's been mythologised it's not the truth value that matters anymore.
There's value bets, and then there's the bookies' Christmas party fund bets.
If Corbyn had suggested the latter the tories on here would wetting themselves with excitement.
As for the EU, he is clearly all in, potentially 6 months from political ignominy, he's only got himself to blame. The man is the biggest fraud in Conservative history.
I'd rather bet on Dr Eoin or Owen Jones.. now there would be a page turned.
And even your average Nat is going to have to struggle with the notion of weak-as-piss England still controlling the international price of oil....
Cameron scored a home run here. And I say that in sorrow.
Cameron doth protest too much.
Or the field?
Also, if donald did get the nomination, is he really likely to be 2/1 vs Hillary, as the odds imply?
I'm not so sure. In such a matchup, 6/4-4/6 would be my best guess - and I wouldn't be surprised if he went below evens at some point before November.
I don't know.
When Donald tacks to the populist centre, he could be popular in a way Hillary just isn't.
I'm having second-third-fourth thoughts on Donald. This may be the last chance to get on @ long odds.
hmm.
(this is a splurge of consciousness, not a betting tip btw)
And Paul Flynn goes in Francis' little black book of total tw@ts....he has nearly made it on several previous occasions mind you.
Patrick O'Flynn
Just done séance on EU Ref. Wellington was for Out, Nelson said "why do you even need to ask me?" Richard Lionheart worried about migration.
I see no reason why the UK couldn't continue to have strong bilateral relations with France in the event of leaving.
We have a defence treaty with them as well that is in their national interest.
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt/
If he did fall under a bus, I think the membership would only select someone who hadn't attacked him personally - for example, if Danczuk became leader, I'd resign from the party, and I don't say that lightly. That doesn't rule out Benn, who has been scrupulous in his arguments, though the "warmonger" accusation would need time to die down. Other possibilities are Tom Watson for the reasons mentioned downthread and, if he wins in May, Sadiq Khan, who seems to me to have exactly the right profile for a membership looking for a potential winner who won't sell the pass and will then have a record of - we hope - successful administration. Yes, he won't be an MP right away, but that can be addressed, as Boris has demonstrated.
But we're talking post-2020 in my opinion.
Article 8 TEU requires the EU to "shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries” and the same text appears in I-57 TCE. Further its its mandatory
formulation by the use of “shall” entails the Union is under an obligation to develop such a relationship.
The press play by different rules, sadly, but they don't seem to have been given the details. MPs are particularly subject to malicious gossip and personally I'm happy to wait for actual charges before wanting to know who someone has pointed the finger at.
World could do with another test playing side anyway.
What are the chances that fellow Labourite Delia Smith will be cooking his bacon before long?
The Twelvers, for the purposes of comparison I looked at how many ex Tory cabinet ministers were still MPs in 2003.
Michael Howard, Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo, Peter Lilley, Virginnia Bottomley, Brian Mawhinney, Sir George Young, Stephen Dorrell, Gillian Shepherd, John Gummer, Willam Hague, John Redwood and Douglas Hogg.
That's one more than Labour now. But the Tories only had 166 MPs then compared to Labour's 232.
Plus the Tories also had a cabinet cull in 1997 when seven cabinet ministers lost their seats. But Portillo came back as a retread.
relatively interesting article (you get one free if you don't subscribe):
Foreign Affairs
The EU would certainly have no interest in making life easy for us if we left. As I wrote a few days ago, I would expect to see EU influence make itself felt in the Scottish and Irish questions.
Zeroed out Cruz and taken advantage on the others.
Rubio's implied POTUS odds are now actually only ~ 2.2 which is probably where they'd start out or so.
Before the GE there was a lot of talk about whether enough Conservative MPs would sign letters of no confidence in David Cameron.and send them to the 1922 committee to trigger a leadership election.
Might we see such talk again? And on a procedural point, is this system reset after the GE? I.e. any letters sent before last May are now invalid?
That said, 200/1for Miliband is more than fair value.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/567141/France-quit-Le-Touquet-Treaty-making-free-to-cross-channel
No doubt the same people who last year were touting this are this year deciding it's incredible.
Makes me want to move to Scotland for the referendum.
After Cameron played the Islamophobia card this morning, it feels like Remain side is desperate.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
"Don't vote Leave, it might upset the French"
and
"Don't vote Leave, we can't control our borders without the French"
[And, if you must consider Farage's opinion, consider also that leaving will cut UKIP off at the knees].
Mr. Die, it seems rather odd given all the advantages Remain enjoys.
And it is just one possible mechanism: a few already managed to get on a ferry at Calais a few weeks ago.
You seem to be massively underestimating the desire of these people to make it across to the UK.
But I think it's much more likely (though still unlikely) that supporters charter a ship, and the French authorities say they don't have the resources to stop them boarding it. An associate of mine helps out at the Jungle, and he gives the impression he would do anything to help people across. He's being a bit of an idiot IMO ...
1. The fact that the Leave campaign isn't in a position to answer a question doesn't make it a bad question (same is true for Remain btw).
2. What I'm looking for is something the Leave campaign *can* give, which is a set of credible suggestions for how to handle the hostility which seems, to me, almost inevitable.
I think the reality that it would be good for the residual EU, and for us, would be quickly realised as they could federate unhindered. So punitive sanctions are unlikely.
The EU is going to still need the UK as an ally whether we are in or out.
What about the Commonwealth? Nordic Alliance? Central/South America Trade Foundation?
I've been lucky in the past the interests of the country and party used to align, almost perfectly.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaorSxCW4AEIEm0.jpg
Remember @DavidL was on the same side as Galloway in the Indy ref.
I bet he feel proud to be in such distinguished company.....
I loathe the man.
I think you're far too optimistic about how quickly realpolitik would take over. I'd date the turning point of Britain's relations with the rest of the EU to Black Wednesday. This would be a far bigger shock than that to those relations.