politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For their own good, it can be argued, young people should b

Conflict over river delta: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35502084

Wouldn't be the first fight that started over the Ebro...

Mr. Hopkins, well that's true. It's not like terrorists have hit America, Canada, Russia, Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, India or Indonesia, is it?

"Twelve men who sexually exploited a vulnerable teenage girl in West Yorkshire have received jail sentences of up to 20 years.
Eleven were jailed at Bradford Crown Court after being convicted of raping the girl in Keighley from the age of 13."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.

The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.

I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.

The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.

AndyJS said:

"Twelve men who sexually exploited a vulnerable teenage girl in West Yorkshire have received jail sentences of up to 20 years.
Eleven were jailed at Bradford Crown Court after being convicted of raping the girl in Keighley from the age of 13."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Cameron will probably be on the News saying there will be plenty more from where this lot came from if we leave the EU

stodge said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.

The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.

I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.

The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.

Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/696717836824244228

Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest natural gas producer in the United States.

Share price down over 50% today.

david_herdson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago
TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'

Do they know something I don't?!

Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.

It's a nuts bet. I really can't see why Trump would withdraw - short of imminent scandal - unless he loses NH and SC (and not necessarily even then, though he'd be catastrophically damaged as a 'winner' by that point). You can back him to win NH at 1/5 so surely the bet would be to lay him there?

Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.

Trump is lucky the Broncos won the superbowl last night. He tweeted he was bored with it halfway through I think.

stodge said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.

The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.

I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.

The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.

All else being equal, a higher turnout is better than a lower turnout for all sorts of reasons, from perceived legitimacy of those elected to the creation of (or reaffirmation of) a sense of civic or national identity and collectiveness. It's why I'm in favour of a move to elections on Sundays, for example.

It becomes a far trickier question when there's a tradeoff between a higher turnout on the one hand and some negative effect on the other. Security of voting is one obvious example (e-voting and postal voting are not as secure but do drive up turnout), restricting freedom of choice through compulsion of action is another. As always in such cases, it's a judgement call as to what's best, and different people will come up with different judgements.

I don't agree with compulsory voting but as others have said down thread our political classes really have to start addressing the question of why their wares have so few customers.

Safe Labour seats generally seem to have the lowest turnout. No doubt this reflects the difficulty in keeping the register up to date in Inner Cities. Safe Tory seats often have very high turnout, one of the reasons Tory voting efficiency was so poor prior to 2015. So saying that we have too many safe seats is a bit of a cop out. The differences are a few per cent at best.

What will be significant in the future is whether more of those who didn't bother to vote when they were younger will pick up the habit as they grow older. I suspect that a fair bit of the currently disproportionate turnout of oldies is because they grew up in a time when voting was regarded as more of a duty than it is now. If that is the case the proportion of those voting will continue to fall as that generation dies out. The idea of a significant number of our MPs being elected in elections where less than half the eligible electorate voted is not attractive.

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

What Cameron should be doing is explaining how this proposal - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146298/Franco-German-central-bankers-call-for-creation-of-eurozone-treasury.html - and a version of this is coming, will affect Britain and how his "deal" will help Britain.

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLoony said:

Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.

Ewww

Oh not that kind of 'rusty spoon'

Er... does "rusty spoon" mean something other than "rusty spoon"?

@MarqueeMark - Looks like Cameron has you in mind:

"There are any number of opposition politicians in France who would like to tear up the excellent agreement we have with France to make sure we have our birders on their side of the Channel."

Pulpstar said:

Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest natural gas producer in the United States.

Share price down over 50% today.

It has announced it is appointing bankruptcy lawyers for a "restructuring".... Being killed by low oil prices. Saudi must be chuckling.

JohnLoony said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLoony said:

Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.

Ewww

Oh not that kind of 'rusty spoon'

Er... does "rusty spoon" mean something other than "rusty spoon"?

Yes, it is very disgusting, and makes even me go ewwww and I'm no delicate flower.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the love some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

Richard_Nabavi said:

@MarqueeMark - Looks like Cameron has you in mind:

"There are any number of opposition politicians in France who would like to tear up the excellent agreement we have with France to make sure we have our birders on their side of the Channel."

Arf!

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

He did it during the Indyref. He knows people trust him on these matters

Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron

An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11078405/Independent-Scotland-more-at-risk-of-terrorist-attacks-warns-David-Cameron.html

Nato is a different issue. No-one is suggesting that Britain leave Nato.

When France left Nato in the early 1960s did the sky fall in? Was France appreciably more at risk of invasion or other risks? Did other countries refuse to deal with her? Or impose punitive - or any - sanctions on her?

While there are many differences, the case of France and Nato may be a useful guide to how other countries react when a relatively important country chooses to leave an international and significant organization.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?

HMQ having a heart attack and dying if we LEAVE!
Britain sliding into the sea!
Sun going Nova and wiping out the earth!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?

HMQ having a heart attack and dying if we LEAVE!
Britain sliding into the sea!
Sun going Nova and wiping out the earth!

The second and third are directly related to the first, not our leaving the EU

MarqueeMark said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

The Prime Minister is working himself up to full Venkman mode:

Dr. Peter Venkman: ....headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Mr. Eagles, if I were you, I'd be more considered about the Leader of the Opposition wanting open borders, nuclear submarines without nukes, and the long-term dream of disbanding the armed forces.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

What Cameron should be doing is explaining how this proposal - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146298/Franco-German-central-bankers-call-for-creation-of-eurozone-treasury.html - and a version of this is coming, will affect Britain and how his "deal" will help Britain.

He's often explained that, and the corresponding protection we need to go with it. For example in his Bloomberg speech:

First, the Eurozone.

The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union - and the future of every country within it.

The Union is changing to help fix the currency - and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.

And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg

As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.

Yeah, yeah: that was a speech. and some time ago. A speech is just words. It does not amount to any action at all. A speech has no legal standing whatsoever.

What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?

Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?

A plague of foreign rapists in Northern towns?

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Hardly had to change the words. I hope no-one decrying Project Fear II was chortling supportively during Project Fear I.

'Independent Scotland would be more at risk of terrorist attacks, says David Cameron'

http://tinyurl.com/hts435v

Edit: ha, TSE beat me to it.

The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.

What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.

MarkHopkins said:

MarqueeMark said:

Just had two Roe Deer nibbling the garden....

*wonders if that is a euphemism for something*

Only if it's a lady garden....

LOL. Shocking breaking news: Lefty sympathizers don't vote, so lefty politician is in favour of forcing them to.

Cyclefree said:

What Cameron should be doing is explaining how this proposal - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146298/Franco-German-central-bankers-call-for-creation-of-eurozone-treasury.html - and a version of this is coming, will affect Britain and how his "deal" will help Britain.

Agreed. Once EZ states start integrating their fiscal policy for real they will become utterly dominant in the EU and the desire to use the tools, resources and funds of the EU in ways that benefit the EZ bloc will be irresistible under current arrangements. Sometimes those policies will also benefit non-EZ countries, it is of course in our interest that their economies succeed and that their demand for our products grow. And sometimes they will not.

Building a safeguard into the future arrangements that allowed such integration was, for me, what the renegotiation was all about. From things that both Cameron and Osborne have said over time I thought they completely got that, Osborne especially. And I have seen nothing to persuade me that there is any comfort or protection available.

At the moment I am voting Leave with a heavy heart, with a real concern about what it is going to do to the best leadership the Tory party has had in my lifetime, with considerable uncertainty about what comes next and a recognition that in some ways our position in the EEA will be worse, not better, with even less say in how the EU develops without us.

But this club is changing and in a way I don't see this country wanting to follow for the foreseeable future.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

They will perhaps work.

Or they may excite mockery. We'll see.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Indigo said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.

Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave

Sunday Times said he was more Out than In

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

They will perhaps work.

Or they may excite mockery. We'll see.

I thought some of the more OTT stuff at the Indy ref might do that but it turned out to be a sound enough strategy.

(See Uniondivvie's post)

Where Project Fear II will struggle is that there's no question about what currency we will use.

That currency problem is what underpinned Project Fear I, our currency if we remain or if we leave will be Sterling.

'As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.'

Well Richard you are happy to read great things into a few airy phrases, others may not be. As usual, Cyclefree is on the money - where is the solid evidence this will make any difference?

And if you compare what has been achieved with what was being sought, e.g. double majority voting, what we have got is, to use the PM's own phrase 'wafer thin'.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Indigo said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.

Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave

Sunday Times said he was more Out than In

Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MarkHopkins said:

Project Fear continues...

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336

Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU

I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.

Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.

Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.

Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).

He did it during the Indyref. He knows people trust him on these matters

Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron

An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11078405/Independent-Scotland-more-at-risk-of-terrorist-attacks-warns-David-Cameron.html

Lots of fruitcakes about for sure

Cyclefree said:

Yeah, yeah: that was a speech. and some time ago. A speech is just words. It does not amount to any action at all. A speech has no legal standing whatsoever.

What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?

Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.

There are two aspects to that: what we want, and how best to get it.

Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?

(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.

(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.

(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.

If you agree with me so far, there are three main scenarios to consider:

1) We stay in, on the renegotiated terms. As part of that, we've explicitly agreed not to block (b), they've explicitly agreed to (c). We have the original treaty protections against discrimination, plus the extra protection of the renegotiation and formal acknowledgement that the EU is a multi-currency union. Yes it is legally binding. Yes we can go to court to enforce it. Yes government and EU lawyers have opined upon it. Good in principle, right? Now, maybe you'll argue that it's not binding enough. But consider the alternatives:

2) We leave, and join the EEA. We now have zero protection of the type (c), but we're still subject to the rules of the Single Market. They can do what they like, and we're stuffed.

3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.

Look at it as I may, and even taking the most pessimistic view of the renegotiation, I really cannot see how anyone could possibly argue that either of the two alternatives is better from the point of view of Eurozone hegemony. They might be better for other reasons, but not that one.

Maybe I've missed something, I've been hoping that someone would enlighten me if so. Silence so far.

Given that the EU renegotiation hasn't yet been completed and Cameron has already hit the big red FUD button, I think we can now safely say that Cameron never sincerely considered backing leave if his renegotiation was to fail. What a pathetic berk he is turning out to be.

Just listened to the former chief executive of the border agency on Sky confirming that it is correct for the Prime Minister to raise the issue of the border agreement with France which apparently was agreed as we were an EU member

glw said:

Given that the EU renegotiation hasn't yet been completed and Cameron has already hit the big red FUD button, I think we can now safely say that Cameron never sincerely considered backing leave if his renegotiation was to fail. What a pathetic berk he is turning out to be.

You mean has always been, surely. The man bathes in snake oil

Casino_Royale said:

The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.

What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.

Of course. What did anyone expect?

The other side are just as bad, indeed worse, implying we'll be overrun with zillions of terrorists if we Remain.

Welcome to politics.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Indigo said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.

No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed

What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?

This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.

Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave

Sunday Times said he was more Out than In

Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?

No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project

But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave

An orderly departure at a time of Dave's choosing is what is needed, not Dave being toppled before his time

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, because a segment of supporters for one party, which has one MP, are less anti-Putin than most, you seriously think we might leave NATO?

You silly sausage. The point of trolling is doing it so people can't tell. You have laid it on too thick, and betrayed your mischievous intent.

I'm being honest, many Kippers BTL comment about their admiration of Putin, it is alarming.

(A lot of Kippers are vehemently anti Putin, but the Venn Diagram of Putin supporters in the UK and UKIP voters would be very amusing)

And you seem to have a teenage crush on Cameron

Being a one nation Tory not obsessed by Europe under the leadership of IDS, you hoped someone like Dave would appear.

This is going to be my reaction when Dave goes

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsNr9UJeVY

TSE has just invented a new game for his Smartphone - Cameron Crush

What a pathetic idiot you are.
Kippers orgasm over Putin because he is a corrupt bigoted nationalistic dictator who might embarrass Europe.
I think you get the gist of my intent.

flightpath01 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, because a segment of supporters for one party, which has one MP, are less anti-Putin than most, you seriously think we might leave NATO?

You silly sausage. The point of trolling is doing it so people can't tell. You have laid it on too thick, and betrayed your mischievous intent.

I'm being honest, many Kippers BTL comment about their admiration of Putin, it is alarming.

(A lot of Kippers are vehemently anti Putin, but the Venn Diagram of Putin supporters in the UK and UKIP voters would be very amusing)

And you seem to have a teenage crush on Cameron

Being a one nation Tory not obsessed by Europe under the leadership of IDS, you hoped someone like Dave would appear.

This is going to be my reaction when Dave goes

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsNr9UJeVY

TSE has just invented a new game for his Smartphone - Cameron Crush

What a pathetic idiot you are.
Kippers orgasm over Putin because he is a corrupt bigoted nationalistic dictator who might embarrass Europe.
I think you get the gist of my intent.

You need a sense of humour old bean.