How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
To summarise, a committed Leaver proclaims that Remain should be making one argument that he finds completely unconvincing rather than another argument that he finds completely unconvincing.
If we stay in, they will be able to destroy the City's non euro business to boot. If we come out, we'll be able to save that by dint of having our own rules.
But not if we're in the EEA, or any other arrangement where we sign up to the Single Market in financial services.
If the Leave side are saying that we should leave the EU and not sign up to the Single Market in financial services, on the grounds inter alia that that would be better for the City for the reason you give, then that would at least be an intellectually coherent position. Two problems with that, though: (a) no-one serious is suggesting it, and (b) the City most certainly doesn't agree.
True, except nobody really has a crystal ball, and in truth 'the City' is a market of often competing interests.
The City is going to have to change whatever our fate, but I really think staying in, or with EEA, it is well and truly fecked.
If you tell someone that you no longer wish to be their best friend, you should not be surprised if they start treating you differently.
This is no different from the way that most current Leavers thought Scotland should be treated if it voted for independence from the rest of the UK.
Save that some on the Leave side are saying that they do want to be best friends - or good friends - but no longer want to sleep with them.
Saying to someone "you must still sleep with me or else" is not a winning argument, TBH. In fact, it has quite sinister overtones.
I accept that the relationship will be different. Independence / freedom / sovereignty etc have a price. Leaving the EU is not a cost-free exercise and could be painful in the short term.
The difference between us - at least at the moment - seems to be that I see the difference between the advantages of staying and the advantages of going as being really quite small, partly because the renegotiation has been so "meh" and partly because the direction of travel is still the same and still somewhere where I feel it is not in Britain's interests to be heading.
Look at the front pages of the most-read newspapers. Which side in the EURef are they spinning for? Can you really see any of them doing a Scotsman and surprising us a few days before the referendum by saying sure, they might have been stirring up dislike against surrendering Frogs, haughty Krauts and excitable Mediterranean types for years (pushy Yanks rarely get the same treatment), but really what they meant was that we should all work together in the EU, since not being bossed around by Brussels would be very dangerous, all things considered? Would you want to advertise at current rates in such a rag after the vote?
Practically every British media description of a British politician going to an EU meeting on the continent is couched in terms of Mr Competent Straightback goes to sort out the fuzzy-wuzzies and tell 'em what's what. Welcome to Ruritania. Think blowback.
Politics isn't principally about logic; referendums, even less. The price on LEAVE is ridiculously low at the moment.
Myself, I'm for REMAIN. I go to the continent a lot and I'd support Britain joining the euro. The idea that the euro is an oh-so-badly run disaster of a currency is just xenophobia for the middle classes. The next Lehmans could be an order of magnitude, or several orders, bigger than the last one. Britain is not self-sufficient in food, owing to the prevalence here of meat-eating, and I'd like Dover to be kept open for what remains of international trade or barter. Big economies can go bust and have done. Better to be inside the EU in such a scenario.
But that's not how most of the population see it. The Daily Mail speaks for this country. Most people haven't been to the continent except perhaps only a very few times or to a beach hotel where they haven't related to the host country's culture at all. They cringe when they hear politicians say immigration made this country great. The population just don't believe that. They like Farage and the only reason they don't vote for his party in GEs is that he doesn't look like a patrician politician whether New Labourite or Tory, so he's not what they're used to and he doesn't make them feel warm and comfortable. But this referendum isn't about political parties. It's on the other side of an EU election to a British GE. If REMAIN wins, the Tory party will lose its base. And they won't be wanting that. Most Tory members and voters are blockheaded xenophobes, whether they're impoverished petty bourgeois whose children won't be taking over the business, in the golf club or trade association, or in the monarchist flagwaving working class with a couple of family members in the army. As I said, the price on LEAVE is ridiculously low. Even if LEAVE eventually loses, the price will rise on various events in the coming months. (Unless you've got a completely different view of the role of the right-wing media, that is.) I'm piling in today.
The Remain side will inevitably try to define the alternative which the Leave are advocating, since the Leave side adamantly refuse to do so.
I'm afraid that both sides are guilty of this. The Remain side are being utterly dishonest about the fact that Remain does not mean the status quo and what staying in will mean for Britain with QMV and Britain being outvoted on pretty much everything.
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
Leave is a sliding scale. There have always been those who'd want to Leave come hell or high-water since 1975. But there are others who get the single-market case and would have voted Remain had Cameron achieved socio-employment law repatriation, opt-outs on crime and justice, caps on free movement, and protection within the single market. Up until about 10 years ago, I was one of them, but the EU constitution debate changed my mind and it was crystallised by the Lisbon Treaty.
The fact he's aired each of these in the past, and failed on them, probably largely due to the fact the EU said it wouldn't dance, is a major part of the problem.
Painting Remain or Leave as black and white does neither side any credit.
You are right in a sense that we don't get significant repatriation of powers. The time to do that was before Lisbon was signed, when we still had veto poers over key areas. Starting from where we are, halting the process of integration is the best we can get.
Would your view change if in a years time, after we vote REMAIN, the ECJ brushes that agreement to one side and rules against the UK in favour of some law integrating us closer with the EU?
The ECJ is not even consistent with its own ruling, and yet you trust the real power behind the EU with protecting us on the basis of a legal agreement that flies in the face of its founding principle of promoting... ever closer union.
The ECJ judges on the basis of the treaties, and in accordance with its founding principles, and it is staffed by politically appointed judges selected for that purpose, I find your faith in a supposed "legal agreement" touching. Ask John Major what happened with his legal agreement with the EU...
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
To summarise, a committed Leaver proclaims that Remain should be making one argument that he finds completely unconvincing rather than another argument that he finds completely unconvincing.
You seem to have lost your ability to make a cogent argument any more.
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
snip
I might come back to some of these through the day David but just to pick up on this one for now:
Sorry but this does not follow at all. The reason that we have got opt outs in the past has been our antipathy to the EU project and our obvious willingness to consider leaving if we really don't like something. I would contend that the day after we vote REMAIN that threat disappears for decades. As such the EU will have absolutely no reason to pander to our needs and requirements, especially given that so often these are in isolation against all the other members. Any leverage we might have had would have been completely destroyed and I would expect far faster integration with far greater use of QMV ignoring British concerns.
I seem to have written an essay. But does anyone think more than about 10% of the people with "Help for Heroes" stickers in their cars or windows are going to vote REMAIN? How on earth is a rising swell of xenophobia going to be stopped, given that it's been encouraged subliminally for so long, and continues to be encouraged? Most people are going to vote for Britain against European foreigners, as they view it. That's stupid, but since when did stupid not happen?
Would your view change if in a years time, after we vote REMAIN, the ECJ brushes that agreement to one side and rules against the UK in favour of some law integrating us closer with the EU?
Yes, of course, if it's something of significance.
Seriously, when several people are saying it, maybe it's you - not them.
Several of us in the Leave camp were reluctant Remains only a matter of weeks or months ago. We like Cameron. We wanted to be onside. Right until Cameron announced his deal, I was arguing not to assume the worst and rabbits would be produced.
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
To summarise, a committed Leaver proclaims that Remain should be making one argument that he finds completely unconvincing rather than another argument that he finds completely unconvincing.
Consistently, the one group most likely to back Brexit are pensioners. But these also happen to be among the most difficult people to reach online. When they are included in online polls they are often fanatically pro-Brexit, but notably less so in the telephone polls.
This raises another possibility – that online panels are capturing only the most politically engaged and online-savvy pensioners, whereas the less engaged pensioners who might nonetheless still vote are represented to a lesser extent
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
To summarise, a committed Leaver proclaims that Remain should be making one argument that he finds completely unconvincing rather than another argument that he finds completely unconvincing.
Christ on a bike, are you really trying to piss everyone off today. Did you read his first paragraph ?
I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain.
I know you think you are helping REMAIN, but on this evidence, I doubt it.
Well quite. I'm quite willing to accept 5yrs of renegotiating and some temporary trade pain to regain our long term sovereignty and trading freedom.
I see the EU vote as a strategic 40yr + decision.
Yes, this is how it should be seen. Also bear in mind that after 2020, all EU members will be required to join the Euro currency. Only Denmark is exempt (And us), but Denmark has a hard peg anyway.
And in order to succeed, the EU simply has to integrate further in my view.
The voters who wished to vote 'No' in the Scottish Indy ref but expressed a preference for "Yes" should the next Gov't be a Tory majority fell into that illogical trap.
These matters are binding for at least 40 years in my view, we'll still be living with this in 2035 - whereas the Gov't then is completely unknown.
If you tell someone that you no longer wish to be their best friend, you should not be surprised if they start treating you differently.
This is no different from the way that most current Leavers thought Scotland should be treated if it voted for independence from the rest of the UK.
It is actually entirely different.
The Union is a historic formation with far greater ties, integration and emotional connection.
The EU is a trading bloc and customs union pretending to be a quasi-federal supra-national body, with a massive democratic deficit. And, crucially, it is pushing towards greater integation and a wider geographical reach. Look how the EU is treating those who are different (Greece and other southern states) and those who question the direction of travel (us, mostly, but from a different POV the eastern european states who do not have such a deep attachment to the super-liberal Brussels values). They threaten and bully, rather than trying to secure agreement.
The EU is actually more like the Labour party than the Union; led by a disparate group of no-hopers, disconnected from the electorate and trying to change the very nature of the institution far more than is desired by most, even most of its supporters....
Sorry but this does not follow at all. The reason that we have got opt outs in the past has been our antipathy to the EU project and our obvious willingness to consider leaving if we really don't like something. I would contend that the day after we vote REMAIN that threat disappears for decades. As such the EU will have absolutely no reason to pander to our needs and requirements, especially given that so often these are in isolation against all the other members. Any leverage we might have had would have been completely destroyed and I would expect far faster integration with far greater use of QMV ignoring British concerns.
David Cameron is one step ahead of you. He's made sure that any Remain vote will be seen by all as being through gritted teeth and will raise the spectre of a future referendum at any point in time. At least that's the only rational explanation I can see for his weak strategy.
How astonishing that people who have decided that they are going to vote Leave are unimpressed by arguments from Remain.
You really are being pig-headed - and really not helping your cause. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain. And that is what I had been expecting the PM to achieve. Because he said that was what he was going to achieve.
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
To summarise, a committed Leaver proclaims that Remain should be making one argument that he finds completely unconvincing rather than another argument that he finds completely unconvincing.
Christ on a bike, are you really trying to piss everyone off today. Did you read his first paragraph ?
I'm no dyed-in-the-wool BOOer. I have no personal antipathy towards David Cameron. I said on here a couple of days ago that it really wouldn't have needed much to get me over the line to back remain.
I know you think you are helping REMAIN, but on this evidence, I doubt it.
I think Marquee Mark campaigned long and hard for Cameron at the GE.. Just goes to show how closed minded the REMAIN camp is #usandthem
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
snip
I might come back to some of these through the day David but just to pick up on this one for now:
Sorry but this does not follow at all. The reason that we have got opt outs in the past has been our antipathy to the EU project and our obvious willingness to consider leaving if we really don't like something. I would contend that the day after we vote REMAIN that threat disappears for decades. As such the EU will have absolutely no reason to pander to our needs and requirements, especially given that so often these are in isolation against all the other members. Any leverage we might have had would have been completely destroyed and I would expect far faster integration with far greater use of QMV ignoring British concerns.
Translation: I'd like my preferred job offer in writing, Mr. Cameron.
@hopisen: "I want to make a principled stand so long as there is no personal cost to my career" whined a pallid crybaby. https://t.co/uPCuIJjeJG
Most politicians are more concerned with their own interests, than those of the electorate and population at large. See 'Boris Johnson' for further reference.
I often think there's far too much discussion here of what the arguments in the EURef are - even when people fleetingly notice how some politician or other came across that day in the media - and too little on the environment that will influence how people vote.
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
We are net losers on taxpayer contributions, trade and sovereignty.
The only thing that appears to be in it for us is a shed-load of cheap immigration, which is lovely for business bosses but detrimental to the people lower down the scale who are trying to eke out a living, find somewhere affordable to live and hope that they get decent medical treatment and schools which aren't struggling with capacity issues.
If you set foot in a place like Newham, you will find it choc-a-bloc with low grade immigration working in part time, low skilled employment whilst subsidised by high levels of welfare state spending on tax credits and housing benefit.
EU immigration needs to be massively curtailed, the Housing Benefit link to market rents in London needs to be abolished and tax credit income needs to be capped.
If all three of those things are achieved, the London Housing market will show improved affordability,employee wages will grow and the cost of the welfare state will decline.
The EU with it's silliness is a massive obstacle to achieving these social solutions. We must leave to sort the mess out.
Mr. Eagles, I'd swap a thousand bankers for sovereignty.
What's the point of having sovreignty if you don't have a pot to piss in as your tax base fecks off to mainland Europe?
Plus I maintain we're already a Sovreign nation.
In that case you are wrong Mr Eagles.
"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity."
Now we have treaties we have signed which obviously limit actions we can but the EU is the only example where we are governed by an outside body which has supreme authority over significant parts of our legislation.
By any reasoned definition, as long as we remain a part of the EU we are not a Sovereign nation.
Surely if we're part of the EEA, ECHR, and NATO some of that would still apply and by that definition we're not Sovreign.
NATO and the ECHR do not make laws. In the case of NATO everything is defined by the treaty and does not change without a change to that treaty. In the case of the ECHR although they can interpret law they cannot make new law.
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
Consistently, the one group most likely to back Brexit are pensioners. But these also happen to be among the most difficult people to reach online. When they are included in online polls they are often fanatically pro-Brexit, but notably less so in the telephone polls.
This raises another possibility – that online panels are capturing only the most politically engaged and online-savvy pensioners, whereas the less engaged pensioners who might nonetheless still vote are represented to a lesser extent
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
Congratulations, you have just dismissed about 40% of the population, and the majority of the Tory party. You even disagree with 76% of the population that want immigration reduced. You should stand for election.
Mr. Eagles, I'd swap a thousand bankers for sovereignty.
What's the point of having sovreignty if you don't have a pot to piss in as your tax base fecks off to mainland Europe?
Plus I maintain we're already a Sovreign nation.
In that case you are wrong Mr Eagles.
"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity."
Now we have treaties we have signed which obviously limit actions we can but the EU is the only example where we are governed by an outside body which has supreme authority over significant parts of our legislation.
By any reasoned definition, as long as we remain a part of the EU we are not a Sovereign nation.
Surely if we're part of the EEA, ECHR, and NATO some of that would still apply and by that definition we're not Sovreign.
NATO and the ECHR do not make laws. In the case of NATO everything is defined by the treaty and does not change without a change to that treaty. In the case of the ECHR although they can interpret law they cannot make new law.
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
@Pulpstar - on Boris Johnson, there may be a link here..
It's pretty clear to me that the job BJ would be offered is Foreign Secretary; it would suit both Dave and Osborne, particularly George as it would keep Boris well out of his way at Westminster and get him to commit to Remain.
I think Boris has smelt this rat and asked for Home Secretary instead. But May is her own women and refuses to be moved.
At the same time, Hammond has detected this threat to his career and senses it might not be curtains if Boris doesn't come aboard, so is upping his loyalty credentials to the leadership.
Right now I'd say Boris is 55% Leave, 45% Remain but this could change very quickly if Cameron/Osborne up their offer.
Mr. Eagles, you think our economy will collapse if we leave?
A thousand jobs is not a small number, but nor is it a critical one. Besides, leaving the EU reduces the cost of trading with them, and we'll be freer to make trade deals elsewhere. We can also reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses.
Well if Secretary Hammond is right, yes.
DavidL's post down below has had a profound effect on me.
@DavidL is voting (just) to leave Mr Eagles. I'm sure he'll be able to put up just as eloquent arguments for leaving the EU. As can @rcs1000.
Cyclefree also makes an excellent case.
I'm almost jealous I don't share their advocacy skills.
It has been a high quality morning on pb.com.
All the more damning that our movers and shakers are so poor in presenting their case to us.
How thoughtful it is of the Leave side to seek to set out the terms on which the Remain side should make its case to the nation.
I think that's a bit uncalled for, Alastair.
MM has been perfectly reasonable with his posts on here. That post merely points out that us pb'ers can present a far better case, either way, on the Brexit debate than our national leaders.
It's why I love pb.com
pb is at its worst in periods like this when it is dominated by a single side that doesn't attempt to understand opposing points of view. We have now reached the point when posters earnestly debate the arguments that Remain can make without offending the sensitivities of delicate Leavers (while simultaneously we have unending looniness from the sillier Leavers going unnoticed).
Quite possibly one of the most breathtakingly hypocritical posts we have seen on PB for a very long time.
Mr. Eagles, I'd swap a thousand bankers for sovereignty.
What's the point of having sovreignty if you don't have a pot to piss in as your tax base fecks off to mainland Europe?
Plus I maintain we're already a Sovreign nation.
In that case you are wrong Mr Eagles.
"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity."
Now we have treaties we have signed which obviously limit actions we can but the EU is the only example where we are governed by an outside body which has supreme authority over significant parts of our legislation.
By any reasoned definition, as long as we remain a part of the EU we are not a Sovereign nation.
Surely if we're part of the EEA, ECHR, and NATO some of that would still apply and by that definition we're not Sovreign.
NATO and the ECHR do not make laws. In the case of NATO everything is defined by the treaty and does not change without a change to that treaty. In the case of the ECHR although they can interpret law they cannot make new law.
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
I often think there's far too much discussion here of what the arguments in the EURef are - even when people fleetingly notice how some politician or other came across that day in the media - and too little on the environment that will influence how people vote.
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
We are net losers on taxpayer contributions, trade and sovereignty.
The only thing that appears to be in it for us is a shed-load of cheap immigration, which is lovely for business bosses but detrimental to the people lower down the scale who are trying to eke out a living, find somewhere affordable to live and hope that they get decent medical treatment and schools which aren't struggling with capacity issues.
If you set foot in a place like Newham, you will find it choc-a-bloc with low grade immigration working in part time, low skilled employment whilst subsidised by high levels of welfare state spending on tax credits and housing benefit.
EU immigration needs to be massively curtailed, the Housing Benefit link to market rents in London needs to be abolished and tax credit income needs to be capped.
If all three of those things are achieved, the London Housing market will show improved affordability,employee wages will grow and the cost of the welfare state will decline.
The EU with it's silliness is a massive obstacle to achieving these social solutions. We must leave to sort the mess out.
Mr. Eagles, you think our economy will collapse if we leave?
A thousand jobs is not a small number, but nor is it a critical one. Besides, leaving the EU reduces the cost of trading with them, and we'll be freer to make trade deals elsewhere. We can also reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses.
Well if Secretary Hammond is right, yes.
DavidL's post down below has had a profound effect on me.
@DavidL is voting (just) to leave Mr Eagles. I'm sure he'll be able to put up just as eloquent arguments for leaving the EU. As can @rcs1000.
Cyclefree also makes an excellent case.
I'm almost jealous I don't share their advocacy skills.
It has been a high quality morning on pb.com.
All the more damning that our movers and shakers are so poor in presenting their case to us.
How thoughtful it is of the Leave side to seek to set out the terms on which the Remain side should make its case to the nation.
I think that's a bit uncalled for, Alastair.
MM has been perfectly reasonable with his posts on here. That post merely points out that us pb'ers can present a far better case, either way, on the Brexit debate than our national leaders.
It's why I love pb.com
pb is at its worst in periods like this when it is dominated by a single side that doesn't attempt to understand opposing points of view. We have now reached the point when posters earnestly debate the arguments that Remain can make without offending the sensitivities of delicate Leavers (while simultaneously we have unending looniness from the sillier Leavers going unnoticed).
Quite possibly one of the most breathtakingly hypocritical posts we have seen on PB for a very long time.
"...and my next piece of long winded pseudo science on why we should stay in, why nobody is interested in the referendum and why all those who wish to leave are raging homophobic, racist, lunatics will be up later in the day"
I seem to have written an essay. But does anyone think more than about 10% of the people with "Help for Heroes" stickers in their cars or windows are going to vote REMAIN? How on earth is a rising swell of xenophobia going to be stopped, given that it's been encouraged subliminally for so long, and continues to be encouraged? Most people are going to vote for Britain against European foreigners, as they view it. That's stupid, but since when did stupid not happen?
Wow. Can you please go on air for Remain?
FYI, I have a Help for Heroes sticker on my car and find your arguments both patronising and insulting.
@Pulpstar - on Boris Johnson, there may be a link here..
It's pretty clear to me that the job BJ would be offered is Foreign Secretary; it would suit both Dave and Osborne, particularly George as it would keep Boris well out of his way at Westminster and get him to commit to Remain.
I think Boris has smelt this rat and asked for Home Secretary instead. But May is her own women and refuses to be moved.
At the same time, Hammond has detected this threat to his career and senses it might not be curtains if Boris doesn't come aboard, so is upping his loyalty credentials to the leadership.
Right now I'd say Boris is 55% Leave, 45% Remain but this could change very quickly if Cameron/Osborne up their offer.
Getting into the cabinet probably increases Boris' chances of the leadership too. I think he is "leave" but the main point is as, as you say, leverage for the leadership. He's played a better game than May thus far.
Sorry but this does not follow at all. The reason that we have got opt outs in the past has been our antipathy to the EU project and our obvious willingness to consider leaving if we really don't like something. I would contend that the day after we vote REMAIN that threat disappears for decades. As such the EU will have absolutely no reason to pander to our needs and requirements, especially given that so often these are in isolation against all the other members. Any leverage we might have had would have been completely destroyed and I would expect far faster integration with far greater use of QMV ignoring British concerns.
David Cameron is one step ahead of you. He's made sure that any Remain vote will be seen by all as being through gritted teeth and will raise the spectre of a future referendum at any point in time. At least that's the only rational explanation I can see for his weak strategy.
It won't matter what Cameron has done in that way. His reluctance will be seen by the EU as reflecting the fear that the UK might vote to leave. Once that threat has gone (along with Cameron when he steps down) the EU will simply see a country that voted to stay in the EU - just as they have done with other referenda in the past.
Mr. Eagles, I'd swap a thousand bankers for sovereignty.
What's the point of having sovreignty if you don't have a pot to piss in as your tax base fecks off to mainland Europe?
Plus I maintain we're already a Sovreign nation.
In that case you are wrong Mr Eagles.
"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity."
Now we have treaties we have signed which obviously limit actions we can but the EU is the only example where we are governed by an outside body which has supreme authority over significant parts of our legislation.
By any reasoned definition, as long as we remain a part of the EU we are not a Sovereign nation.
Surely if we're part of the EEA, ECHR, and NATO some of that would still apply and by that definition we're not Sovreign.
NATO and the ECHR do not make laws. In the case of NATO everything is defined by the treaty and does not change without a change to that treaty. In the case of the ECHR although they can interpret law they cannot make new law.
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
So going to war on behalf of turkey is not a loss of sovereignty? Agreeing to abide by judgements of the ECHR is not either? Pull the other one. There is little difference between being in the EU and he EEA. There is some but in the real world it is not significant. The arguments on both sides are marginal. In my opinion the arguments on the Right are a trojan horse to turn the tory party into a dark mirror image of Corbyn's labour.
Marxists, Leninists, socialists and other assorted “-ists” find themselves discussing how radical Labour now needs to be, and whether the party’s new leader, and John McDonnell, its shadow chancellor, might already have turned too soft for their liking.... ...Rather than borrowing from the international financial markets, they believe that the Bank of England should simply issue new money to invest in public services they consider ravaged by Tory austerity... ...“I believe we physically have to take their wealth from them,” he says... ..Corbyn should be calling to “renationalise most stuff”, they say, adding that “tax should be much more extreme, we could have high, high taxes on rich people”.
Where is SouthamObserver ? Ah I think I see him over there holding his head in his hands
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
This debate is already utterly toxic and it hasn't even started yet. If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
THOUSANDS more youngsters will get desperately needed treatment for mental health problems following a campaign by The Sun.
NHS England pledged to get at least 70,000 the help they need as part of a shake-up of psychiatric services.
Kids will get priority when an extra £1billion is ploughed into mental health care by 2020/21, allowing them to be treated near their homes rather than travelling hundreds of miles.
The shake up is proposed by a Government task force. NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens yesterday promised to implement all the recommendations.
''The arguments on both sides are marginal. In my opinion the arguments on the Right are a trojan horse to turn the tory party into a dark mirror image of Corbyn's labour.''
The latest polls seem to show voters really like the fact there is a stubborn, independent, bloody minded 'leave' streak in the tory party.
It's now a party that's more popular than its leader, it would seem. And that is very dangerous for that leader.
I hope insulting about half the population made you feel superior.
Out of interest, how would you know if you were in an environment in which a large part of the population were mainly motivated by xenophobia in a referendum but it wasn't publicly admitted by wonks and editors? Or could that never happen?
I'm interested in how the betting market will move. That's why I come here. I don't want to kid myself that everyone votes on the arguments.
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
Congratulations, you have just dismissed about 40% of the population, and the majority of the Tory party. You even disagree with 76% of the population that want immigration reduced. You should stand for election.
"Dismissed"? I just named their motivation. I don't dismiss it. I'm interested in discussing it.
And you are jumping to conclusions about my view on immigration. I haven't expressed my view on that! If certain other policies are kept as they are, I would probably want immigration reduced. But I want those other policies changed.
Someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
Greece showed that the idea that a country using a single currency can vote for what it likes is just nonsense: it is not their money that they are voting to spend.
I don't think that's true. If anything, that's what they thought before the crisis, and it showed the opposite. I mean, I know other EU taxpayers have been coughing up for bail-outs, but amount they've had to chip in is nothing compared to what the voters who voted for the government that got them in the hole have had to put up with.
If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
That's the problem I am having. I really don't want to vote for either of them, but if I sit it out "I don't get to complain about it"
That would be unacceptable
Write Farage is a cock in the box next to Remain or Leave and let the returning officer decide if it is a valid vote.
The problem is that while Farage is indeed as you describe him, history has a pretty good chance of finding that he was actually right about most things European and quite a lot of things immigration.
Mr. Eagles, I'd swap a thousand bankers for sovereignty.
What's the point of having sovreignty if you don't have a pot to piss in as your tax base fecks off to mainland Europe?
Plus I maintain we're already a Sovreign nation.
In that case you are wrong Mr Eagles.
"Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity."
Now we have treaties we have signed which obviously limit actions we can but the EU is the only example where we are governed by an outside body which has supreme authority over significant parts of our legislation.
By any reasoned definition, as long as we remain a part of the EU we are not a Sovereign nation.
Surely if we're part of the EEA, ECHR, and NATO some of that would still apply and by that definition we're not Sovreign.
NATO and the ECHR do not make laws. In the case of NATO everything is defined by the treaty and does not change without a change to that treaty. In the case of the ECHR although they can interpret law they cannot make new law.
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
So going to war on behalf of turkey is not a loss of sovereignty? Agreeing to abide by judgements of the ECHR is not either?
No it is not. It seems that you really don't understand what Sovereignty actually is and so lump in all sorts of other extraneous stuff to try and dilute the idea.
As always when you post on here you display not only your utter ignorance for the subjects at hand but also your utter contempt for the concepts. Its like trying to teach chess to a 3 year old. You simply do not appear to have the mental abilities to understand which, combined with your infantile attitude, makes trying to explain complex concepts to you utterly pointless.
I would suggest you stick to playing with lego but even that is probably too much for you.
Marxists, Leninists, socialists and other assorted “-ists” find themselves discussing how radical Labour now needs to be, and whether the party’s new leader, and John McDonnell, its shadow chancellor, might already have turned too soft for their liking.... ...Rather than borrowing from the international financial markets, they believe that the Bank of England should simply issue new money to invest in public services they consider ravaged by Tory austerity... ...“I believe we physically have to take their wealth from them,” he says... ..Corbyn should be calling to “renationalise most stuff”, they say, adding that “tax should be much more extreme, we could have high, high taxes on rich people”.
Where is SouthamObserver ? Ah I think I see him over there holding his head in his hands
The Great Betrayal has already begun. Corbyn will never be forgiven. Whatever manifesto he eventually stands on the far left will say it was too watered down and if only a more left-wing one had been presented to the people then he would have been swept to victory.
If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
That's the problem I am having. I really don't want to vote for either of them, but if I sit it out "I don't get to complain about it"
That would be unacceptable
Write Farage is a cock in the box next to Remain or Leave and let the returning officer decide if it is a valid vote.
The problem is that while Farage is indeed as you describe him, history has a pretty good chance of finding that he was actually right about most things European and quite a lot of things immigration.
You mean like when he said I think 29 million immigrants from two countries would move to the UK, when their population was fewer than 29 million ?
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
There is an argument for inspecting which side of the argument the metropolitan elite are on then voting the opposite way - 11/10 times you end up doing your patriotic duty and history will thank you.
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
There is an argument for inspecting which side of the argument the metropolitan elite are on then voting the opposite way - 11/10 times you end up doing your patriotic duty and history will thank you.
That reminds me, has Tim Montgomerie revealed his hand on this?
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
There is an argument for inspecting which side of the argument the metropolitan elite are on then voting the opposite way - 11/10 times you end up doing your patriotic duty and history will thank you.
That reminds me, has Tim Montgomerie revealed his hand on this?
If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
That's the problem I am having. I really don't want to vote for either of them, but if I sit it out "I don't get to complain about it"
That would be unacceptable
Write Farage is a cock in the box next to Remain or Leave and let the returning officer decide if it is a valid vote.
The problem is that while Farage is indeed as you describe him, history has a pretty good chance of finding that he was actually right about most things European and quite a lot of things immigration.
You mean like when he said I think 29 million immigrants from two countries would move to the UK, when their population was fewer than 29 million ?
Short term changes are overestimated, whereas long term change is generally underestimated. That was used as an argument regarding the take up of catch up services I heard on the radio one evening about TV/iplayer and the like.
I think it applies equally to immigration. It's very compound interesty whereas provision of services & houses tends to be not so much.
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
There is an argument for inspecting which side of the argument the metropolitan elite are on then voting the opposite way - 11/10 times you end up doing your patriotic duty and history will thank you.
That reminds me, has Tim Montgomerie revealed his hand on this?
I hope insulting about half the population made you feel superior.
Out of interest, how would you know if you were in an environment in which a large part of the population were mainly motivated by xenophobia in a referendum but it wasn't publicly admitted by wonks and editors? Or could that never happen?
I'm interested in how the betting market will move. That's why I come here. I don't want to kid myself that everyone votes on the arguments.
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
Congratulations, you have just dismissed about 40% of the population, and the majority of the Tory party. You even disagree with 76% of the population that want immigration reduced. You should stand for election.
"Dismissed"? I just named their motivation. I don't dismiss it. I'm interested in discussing it.
And you are jumping to conclusions about my view on immigration. I haven't expressed my view on that! If certain other policies are kept as they are, I would probably want immigration reduced. But I want those other policies changed.
Someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
Sensible right-on people didn't believe the BNP about Rotherham because they were nasty people, with hateful views and so and couldn't be telling the truth. Lots of sensible right-on people think the same about the kippers and the EU for similar reasons.
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
There is an argument for inspecting which side of the argument the metropolitan elite are on then voting the opposite way - 11/10 times you end up doing your patriotic duty and history will thank you.
That reminds me, has Tim Montgomerie revealed his hand on this?
Got to consider how people think when they hear stuff from opinion formers.
Many "nice" academic and media opinions on immigration to London, say, function almost as if to insult native British people. The "experts" talk of London as a city that has accepted Huguenots, Jews, Bengalis and Bangladeshis - concentrating on the small part of London that is the East End - but they rarely add to the list the many families whose ancestors migrated to London from other parts of England, families who constituted the majority of the city's population just a generation or two ago and who are probably still the majority of the population in the southeast, now that London itself has a non-white majority.
Talking of London, someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. Which could well happen if the vote goes either way. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
I bet they still end up sending 25 journos to the same new conference though...just rather than each channel, they will be from the different "divisions".
Marxists, Leninists, socialists and other assorted “-ists” find themselves discussing how radical Labour now needs to be, and whether the party’s new leader, and John McDonnell, its shadow chancellor, might already have turned too soft for their liking.... ...Rather than borrowing from the international financial markets, they believe that the Bank of England should simply issue new money to invest in public services they consider ravaged by Tory austerity... ...“I believe we physically have to take their wealth from them,” he says... ..Corbyn should be calling to “renationalise most stuff”, they say, adding that “tax should be much more extreme, we could have high, high taxes on rich people”.
Where is SouthamObserver ? Ah I think I see him over there holding his head in his hands
The Great Betrayal has already begun. Corbyn will never be forgiven. Whatever manifesto he eventually stands on the far left will say it was too watered down and if only a more left-wing one had been presented to the people then he would have been swept to victory.
What exactly has meat eating got to do with it? @isam here is a veggie IIRC and passionate about Leave.
EU animal welfare laws are more relaxed than ours. It's an area where we should have pushed harder so that our farmers are not competitively disadvantaged selling in particular pork products to the continent.
It's also an example of our relative impotence (Or lack of political will), one of the two.
Talking of London, someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. Which could well happen if the vote goes either way. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
Time to put down whatever you are smoking. The City won't "get its comeuppance" it will move to another jurisdiction, very easily and very quickly, and take 22% of the UK GBP with it, and around 12% of total government tax receipts, or putting it another way, about as much as we spend of the NHS and Education combined.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I first saw Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers' - then saw him in an earlier UK TV show 'A Touch of Frost' and my reaction was 'Hasn't that Yank got a great British accent'...
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
This debate is already utterly toxic and it hasn't even started yet. If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
What has surprised me is the vacuity, immaturity and wounded amour propre of the REMAIN camp, on here and elsewhere.
I had significant respect for Meeks and Nabavi as commenters before this. But something about this debate reduces their respective IQs by about a quarter, and also inflicts some weird personality change, where they become over-indulged toddlers, throwing tantrums on Mike's supermarket floor as they are refused the Robinsons Fruit Shoot of an easy referendum win.
To be honest, I expected more of this behaviour from LEAVE. We KNOW that eurosceptics can be frothing and histrionic (I've done enough of it myself). Yet the childish strops are coming from REMAIN - all the way up to the prime minister with his Calais jungle rubbish.
It is an odd phenomenon. Worthy of analysis, after the vote.
That's just an aunt sally you have set up. Just another of your smears. Pathetic really. I just see comments explaining their reasoning and you turn it into childish stops.
@Plato_Says He's one of the few that has stood up personally to Mugabe and Putin over their terrible attitudes towards homosexuality, and has suffered lasting brain injuries as a result of Mugabe's thugs. I have alot of respect for him.
Richard says we have an opt out of ever closer union. This isn't true. You won't be able to quote anywhere in the draft memo where it says "ever closer union" doesn't apply to us.
I had significant respect for Meeks and Nabavi as commenters before this. But something about this debate reduces their respective IQs by about a quarter, and also inflicts some weird personality change, where they become over-indulged toddlers, throwing tantrums on Mike's supermarket floor as they are refused the Robinsons Fruit Shoot of an easy referendum win..
LOL! In a tantrum you posted a few days ago that I wasn't allowed to quote you, although it was a bit mystifying why you thought you had authority to dictate to me. In this case I don't need to quote you, it's not as though your tantrum-throwing is exactly a state secret!
I think the real worry for the EU is that when Britain leaves it will presage the break up of the Union. Germany alone will not be able to hold it together, and we will have set a precedent. They need us in and in fully, so they cannot give up too much in a renegotiation either, hence the poor results that Cameron returned with.
I think the EU will pull out every dirty trick in the book to get us to vote Remain.
What exactly has meat eating got to do with it? @isam here is a veggie IIRC and passionate about Leave.
EU animal welfare laws are more relaxed than ours. It's an area where we should have pushed harder so that our farmers are not competitively disadvantaged selling in particular pork products to the continent.
It's also an example of our relative impotence (Or lack of political will), one of the two.
I bet they still end up sending 25 journos to the same new conference though...just rather than each channel, they will be from the different "divisions".
I've never understood why Radio 2 and Radio 4 break for the news at the same time, but have to have their own newsreader. Are Radio 2 listeners such shrinking violets, they have have a sanitised version of the news? Is it obligatory they end with a kitten-up-a-tree story? Just rampant waste....
Richard says we have an opt out of ever closer union. This isn't true. You won't be able to quote anywhere in the draft memo where it says "ever closer union" doesn't apply to us.
Page 9:
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. ... The references to an ever closer union among the peoples are therefore compatible with different paths of integration being available for different Member States and do not compel all Member States to aim for a common destination.
The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.
Edit: That last sentence is particularly interesting. Leaving aside the legalities, I think it marks a change of attitude amongst our EU friends.
Comments
He then fails to achieve any of that. And worse, he goes backwards as regards the protections that the City needs. Worse still, he then goes on all the media outlets - when he has told his Cabinet opponents they have to keep silent - to tell us he has got a great deal that lays the foundations for a new European Union.
Well, telling ME that I shouldn't call bullshit on that is going to help Remain how? Neither Remain nor Leave is covering itself in glory. But your patronising attitude - that Leave has to make all the arguments - is fast becoming part of the Remain problem, Mr. Meeks. And the direction of travel in the polling suggests it is a real problem.
If Leave wins, Remain is going to have to look at itself and ask "How did Remain manage to piss off so many people that they were prepared to take a crazy leap into the void and Leave?" At that point, go look in the mirror...
I see the EU vote as a strategic 40yr + decision. It's not a GE.
He'll be backing "leave" I suspect. He just wants to build it up into a 'deafening éclat'
The City is going to have to change whatever our fate, but I really think staying in, or with EEA, it is well and truly fecked.
Saying to someone "you must still sleep with me or else" is not a winning argument, TBH. In fact, it has quite sinister overtones.
I accept that the relationship will be different. Independence / freedom / sovereignty etc have a price. Leaving the EU is not a cost-free exercise and could be painful in the short term.
The difference between us - at least at the moment - seems to be that I see the difference between the advantages of staying and the advantages of going as being really quite small, partly because the renegotiation has been so "meh" and partly because the direction of travel is still the same and still somewhere where I feel it is not in Britain's interests to be heading.
Practically every British media description of a British politician going to an EU meeting on the continent is couched in terms of Mr Competent Straightback goes to sort out the fuzzy-wuzzies and tell 'em what's what. Welcome to Ruritania. Think blowback.
Politics isn't principally about logic; referendums, even less. The price on LEAVE is ridiculously low at the moment.
Myself, I'm for REMAIN. I go to the continent a lot and I'd support Britain joining the euro. The idea that the euro is an oh-so-badly run disaster of a currency is just xenophobia for the middle classes. The next Lehmans could be an order of magnitude, or several orders, bigger than the last one. Britain is not self-sufficient in food, owing to the prevalence here of meat-eating, and I'd like Dover to be kept open for what remains of international trade or barter. Big economies can go bust and have done. Better to be inside the EU in such a scenario.
But that's not how most of the population see it. The Daily Mail speaks for this country. Most people haven't been to the continent except perhaps only a very few times or to a beach hotel where they haven't related to the host country's culture at all. They cringe when they hear politicians say immigration made this country great. The population just don't believe that. They like Farage and the only reason they don't vote for his party in GEs is that he doesn't look like a patrician politician whether New Labourite or Tory, so he's not what they're used to and he doesn't make them feel warm and comfortable. But this referendum isn't about political parties. It's on the other side of an EU election to a British GE. If REMAIN wins, the Tory party will lose its base. And they won't be wanting that. Most Tory members and voters are blockheaded xenophobes, whether they're impoverished petty bourgeois whose children won't be taking over the business, in the golf club or trade association, or in the monarchist flagwaving working class with a couple of family members in the army. As I said, the price on LEAVE is ridiculously low. Even if LEAVE eventually loses, the price will rise on various events in the coming months. (Unless you've got a completely different view of the role of the right-wing media, that is.) I'm piling in today.
The fact he's aired each of these in the past, and failed on them, probably largely due to the fact the EU said it wouldn't dance, is a major part of the problem.
Painting Remain or Leave as black and white does neither side any credit.
The ECJ is not even consistent with its own ruling, and yet you trust the real power behind the EU with protecting us on the basis of a legal agreement that flies in the face of its founding principle of promoting... ever closer union.
The ECJ judges on the basis of the treaties, and in accordance with its founding principles, and it is staffed by politically appointed judges selected for that purpose, I find your faith in a supposed "legal agreement" touching. Ask John Major what happened with his legal agreement with the EU...
Sorry but this does not follow at all. The reason that we have got opt outs in the past has been our antipathy to the EU project and our obvious willingness to consider leaving if we really don't like something. I would contend that the day after we vote REMAIN that threat disappears for decades. As such the EU will have absolutely no reason to pander to our needs and requirements, especially given that so often these are in isolation against all the other members. Any leverage we might have had would have been completely destroyed and I would expect far faster integration with far greater use of QMV ignoring British concerns.
Seriously, when several people are saying it, maybe it's you - not them.
Several of us in the Leave camp were reluctant Remains only a matter of weeks or months ago. We like Cameron. We wanted to be onside. Right until Cameron announced his deal, I was arguing not to assume the worst and rabbits would be produced.
How wrong I was.
Useful snippet from Anthony Wells on Twitter on this:
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/699184812867907584
And in order to succeed, the EU simply has to integrate further in my view.
The voters who wished to vote 'No' in the Scottish Indy ref but expressed a preference for "Yes" should the next Gov't be a Tory majority fell into that illogical trap.
These matters are binding for at least 40 years in my view, we'll still be living with this in 2035 - whereas the Gov't then is completely unknown.
The Union is a historic formation with far greater ties, integration and emotional connection.
The EU is a trading bloc and customs union pretending to be a quasi-federal supra-national body, with a massive democratic deficit. And, crucially, it is pushing towards greater integation and a wider geographical reach. Look how the EU is treating those who are different (Greece and other southern states) and those who question the direction of travel (us, mostly, but from a different POV the eastern european states who do not have such a deep attachment to the super-liberal Brussels values). They threaten and bully, rather than trying to secure agreement.
The EU is actually more like the Labour party than the Union; led by a disparate group of no-hopers, disconnected from the electorate and trying to change the very nature of the institution far more than is desired by most, even most of its supporters....
I think Marquee Mark campaigned long and hard for Cameron at the GE.. Just goes to show how closed minded the REMAIN camp is #usandthem
I see this as the worst possible situation.
Summary: LEAVE is the xenophobic side. Many people would agree with the statement that "We should get our country back". Personally I find that view utterly abhorrent. There's a known social-psychological tendency for people to rate an eventuality as more likely because it's what they want. Let's not fall into that trap.
The only thing that appears to be in it for us is a shed-load of cheap immigration, which is lovely for business bosses but detrimental to the people lower down the scale who are trying to eke out a living, find somewhere affordable to live and hope that they get decent medical treatment and schools which aren't struggling with capacity issues.
If you set foot in a place like Newham, you will find it choc-a-bloc with low grade immigration working in part time, low skilled employment whilst subsidised by high levels of welfare state spending on tax credits and housing benefit.
EU immigration needs to be massively curtailed, the Housing Benefit link to market rents in London needs to be abolished and tax credit income needs to be capped.
If all three of those things are achieved, the London Housing market will show improved affordability,employee wages will grow and the cost of the welfare state will decline.
The EU with it's silliness is a massive obstacle to achieving these social solutions. We must leave to sort the mess out.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/15/former-russian-anti-doping-chief-nikita-kamayev-dies-report
With the EEA all law making is unanimous so nothing can be imposed. Additionally of course it only relates to the very limited area of free trade, not the vast swathes of legislation that the EU imposes upon us.
So in answer to your question - no.
Oh and since you keep repeating it, it is 'sovereign', not 'sovreign'.
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/699184812867907584
Guardian grandparents over-represented in the samples ?
Can't think when that last happened..............................................
It's pretty clear to me that the job BJ would be offered is Foreign Secretary; it would suit both Dave and Osborne, particularly George as it would keep Boris well out of his way at Westminster and get him to commit to Remain.
I think Boris has smelt this rat and asked for Home Secretary instead. But May is her own women and refuses to be moved.
At the same time, Hammond has detected this threat to his career and senses it might not be curtains if Boris doesn't come aboard, so is upping his loyalty credentials to the leadership.
Right now I'd say Boris is 55% Leave, 45% Remain but this could change very quickly if Cameron/Osborne up their offer.
I hope insulting about half the population made you feel superior. Golly.
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/feb/15/daniel-craig-tv-adaptation-jonathan-franzen-novel-purity
"One of your best Alastair"
FYI, I have a Help for Heroes sticker on my car and find your arguments both patronising and insulting.
The worst bit about Spectre is that there was a really good Bond movie hidden in there.
Pull the other one.
There is little difference between being in the EU and he EEA. There is some but in the real world it is not significant. The arguments on both sides are marginal. In my opinion the arguments on the Right are a trojan horse to turn the tory party into a dark mirror image of Corbyn's labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12156197/Meet-the-Corbynomics-fans-who-say-Labour-must-be-more-radical-than-Greeces-socialists-ever-were.html Where is SouthamObserver ? Ah I think I see him over there holding his head in his hands
Bond Connoisseurs loved it.
it could have been assembled entirely from (better) clips from the other films
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6931545/Sun-mental-health-plea-wins-1bn-NHS-pledge-to-treat-sick-kids.html
That would be unacceptable
The latest polls seem to show voters really like the fact there is a stubborn, independent, bloody minded 'leave' streak in the tory party.
It's now a party that's more popular than its leader, it would seem. And that is very dangerous for that leader.
I'd say Leave are better than Remain, but not by much.
I'm interested in how the betting market will move. That's why I come here. I don't want to kid myself that everyone votes on the arguments. "Dismissed"? I just named their motivation. I don't dismiss it. I'm interested in discussing it.
And you are jumping to conclusions about my view on immigration. I haven't expressed my view on that! If certain other policies are kept as they are, I would probably want immigration reduced. But I want those other policies changed.
Someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35560929
As always when you post on here you display not only your utter ignorance for the subjects at hand but also your utter contempt for the concepts. Its like trying to teach chess to a 3 year old. You simply do not appear to have the mental abilities to understand which, combined with your infantile attitude, makes trying to explain complex concepts to you utterly pointless.
I would suggest you stick to playing with lego but even that is probably too much for you.
The Great Betrayal has already begun. Corbyn will never be forgiven. Whatever manifesto he eventually stands on the far left will say it was too watered down and if only a more left-wing one had been presented to the people then he would have been swept to victory.
I think it applies equally to immigration. It's very compound interesty whereas provision of services & houses tends to be not so much.
What exactly has meat eating got to do with it? @isam here is a veggie IIRC and passionate about Leave.
It's absurd.
Last time he opined
http://capx.co/george-osborne-probably-wont-even-stand-to-be-the-next-tory-leader/
Many "nice" academic and media opinions on immigration to London, say, function almost as if to insult native British people. The "experts" talk of London as a city that has accepted Huguenots, Jews, Bengalis and Bangladeshis - concentrating on the small part of London that is the East End - but they rarely add to the list the many families whose ancestors migrated to London from other parts of England, families who constituted the majority of the city's population just a generation or two ago and who are probably still the majority of the population in the southeast, now that London itself has a non-white majority.
Talking of London, someone earlier said that the City of London is seeking to get "the protections it needs" in the EU negotiations. What is more likely to be happening is that the City is blackmailing the rest of the EU into allowing it even more power. This is one reason why Boriswatching is relevant. He's their man. This is a key moment for the City. About time it got its comeuppance, if you ask me. Which could well happen if the vote goes either way. How long can an economy so skewed towards finance survive, let alone survive after pulling out of its bloc?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12156923/BBC-to-axe-television-and-radio-divisions-as-part-of-radical-management-overhaul.html
I bet they still end up sending 25 journos to the same new conference though...just rather than each channel, they will be from the different "divisions".
The ability of the Left to indulge in cannibalism never ceases to surprise me. Who on earth does she think she is?
She was all knicker twisting over gay cakes FFS. The Great Betrayal has already begun. Corbyn will never be forgiven. Whatever manifesto he eventually stands on the far left will say it was too watered down and if only a more left-wing one had been presented to the people then he would have been swept to victory.
It's also an example of our relative impotence (Or lack of political will), one of the two.
I think the real worry for the EU is that when Britain leaves it will presage the break up of the Union. Germany alone will not be able to hold it together, and we will have set a precedent. They need us in and in fully, so they cannot give up too much in a renegotiation either, hence the poor results that Cameron returned with.
I think the EU will pull out every dirty trick in the book to get us to vote Remain.
It's just revolting, we'd never ever tolerate this for fear of muck spreaders in Whitehall.
I'm a huge supporter of British farming and our standards are miles ahead.
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.
...
The references to an ever closer union among the peoples are therefore compatible with different paths of integration being available for different Member States and do not compel all Member States to aim for a common destination.
The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.
Edit: That last sentence is particularly interesting. Leaving aside the legalities, I think it marks a change of attitude amongst our EU friends.