'Like you say, Labour would be a lot more likely to give stuff away to the EU. Only a complete idiot would believe we would never have another Labour government so the best way to stop then giving away more power to the EU is to make sure that by the time they get back into power we are no longer in the EU at all.'
Spot on.
The PM is busy proving that the Conservatives can't be trusted on the EU, and Labour certainly can't be. The only way people can stop more surrenders to the EU is to take control of the situation and vote LEAVE.
Alan Johnson could well prove pivotal in getting Labour voters out for Remain
It never ceases to amaze me how much this non-entity is talked up on here. I even remember him being predicted to be 'a fine Shadow Chancellor'
He polls well with Labour voters though and does not turn off Tories, if Johnson gets out the Labour vote, Cameron around half of the Tory vote, Farron the LD vote and Sturgeon the SNP vote Remain should win
Quite right. Johnson comes across as affable, reassuring and measured. Leave need their own equivalent, not these beings they keep raising from the crypt. Moreover, I was troubled to see that Remain have launched a 'fact-checker' site http://infacts.org/sin-bin/, which appears to be making monkeys out of star Leavers such as Dan Hannan. I haven't seen any rebuttal from Hannan but it could be a schoolboy blunder on his part. Not good enough if so. Leave need to sharpen up.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
Leave does not imply "glorious isolation" or even isolation at all.
It implies an outward looking participation in world affairs by a European nation with a proud history and strong national values built on tolerance, liberty and democracy. We are the world's 5th largest economy, we have unbelieveable resources of talent, capital and experience and we can flourish inside or outside the EU.
Elderly should do community work or lose pension, peer says
Older people should lose their pensions if they refuse to do community work to stop them being a “negative burden on society", a former senior Whitehall official has suggested.....
One of the top comments.... "The author of this report can go and stick his head up a dead bears arse!"
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
Me not stupid. I know that Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms. I even know that Ireland had two sets of second referenda: one for Nice, one for Lisbon. But (as I took some pains to explain) that has problems in this case. Did you genuinely not read what I wrote?
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
I may be mistaken, but I thought those referenda (-dums?) were voting to approve or reject treaty changes? This is a straight in-out vote.
It says 90% of those interested in sovereignty but worried about the economy and jobs are female. They don't read BBC news (or go much on blogs too, I assume) but do spend a lot of time on social media.
Food for thought. How many female Leavers are posting here? And how many silent Remainers are not?
I think I will be voting Leave. No ill-will to Europe or Europeans, but ever-closer union does not feel right to me, and it's hard to envisage the EU-crats giving up on their dream destination. Unless, of course, it gives up on them, which I think still may happen.
Edited to add: But of course I don't post very much!
Both your good self and Cyclefree are the honourable exceptions.
Is there any different approach needed, do you think, for Leave to cut through more to females?
Or is that just patronising?
I don't want to sound rude but I don't think with my ovaries.
I have had over the years a hell of a lot to do with the EU and EU Directives and also saw a bit of how the game was played with the SEA. And I can smell dishonesty and bullshit a mile away. So I've gradually become more sceptical of the EU and, even more so, of my own government's ability to focus ruthlessly on what is in Britain's best interests.
But one thing which puts me off Leave is Farage with his patronising approach to "the ladies" and his apparent belief that everything in the world is the fault of foreigners.
The Farage who is married to a German lady?
That's why I said "apparent". He does not use his family as a political prop, which speaks well of him. But UKIP do appear to come across as anti-foreigner in a way that is unappealing, to me anyway, as a daughter of foreigners.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
It can't happen without a Conservative leader getting a bill through the Commons which they could only do by relying almost entirely on opposition votes, which would clearly be suicide. What relevance do events in Denmark or Ireland have? Conservative MPs are hardly going to feel bound by "the Danish precedent" are they?
Alan Johnson could well prove pivotal in getting Labour voters out for Remain
It never ceases to amaze me how much this non-entity is talked up on here. I even remember him being predicted to be 'a fine Shadow Chancellor'
He polls well with Labour voters though and does not turn off Tories, if Johnson gets out the Labour vote, Cameron around half of the Tory vote, Farron the LD vote and Sturgeon the SNP vote Remain should win
Quite right. Johnson comes across as affable, reassuring and measured. Leave need their own equivalent, not these beings they keep raising from the crypt. Moreover, I was troubled to see that Remain have launched a 'fact-checker' site http://infacts.org/sin-bin/, which appears to be making monkeys out of star Leavers such as Dan Hannan. I haven't seen any rebuttal from Hannan but it could be a schoolboy blunder on his part. Not good enough if so. Leave need to sharpen up.
Yes Leave desperately need an affable and strong communicator like Boris
It says 90% of those interested in sovereignty but worried about the economy and jobs are female. They don't read BBC news (or go much on blogs too, I assume) but do spend a lot of time on social media.
Food for thought. How many female Leavers are posting here? And how many silent Remainers are not?
I think I will be voting Leave. No ill-will to Europe or Europeans, but ever-closer union does not feel right to me, and it's hard to envisage the EU-crats giving up on their dream destination. Unless, of course, it gives up on them, which I think still may happen.
Edited to add: But of course I don't post very much!
Both your good self and Cyclefree are the honourable exceptions.
Is there any different approach needed, do you think, for Leave to cut through more to females?
Or is that just patronising?
I don't find it a patronising question, but I'm afraid I can't answer it.
Nobody in my circles mentions the EU Referendum at all, unprompted. Simply not on the horizon yet, presumably.
It does seem to me that Leave should be careful not to get portrayed as a "nasty foreigners" camp - that's just stupid.
What I think they should be pushing ad infinitum is that, in this referendum, there simply isn't a way of voting for the status quo. But I doubt that belief is based on me being female.
It says 90% of those interested in sovereignty but worried about the economy and jobs are female. They don't read BBC news (or go much on blogs too, I assume) but do spend a lot of time on social media.
Food for thought. How many female Leavers are posting here? And how many silent Remainers are not?
I think I will be voting Leave. No ill-will to Europe or Europeans, but ever-closer union does not feel right to me, and it's hard to envisage the EU-crats giving up on their dream destination. Unless, of course, it gives up on them, which I think still may happen.
Edited to add: But of course I don't post very much!
Both your good self and Cyclefree are the honourable exceptions.
Is there any different approach needed, do you think, for Leave to cut through more to females?
Or is that just patronising?
I don't want to sound rude but I don't think with my ovaries.
I have had over the years a hell of a lot to do with the EU and EU Directives and also saw a bit of how the game was played with the SEA. And I can smell dishonesty and bullshit a mile away. So I've gradually become more sceptical of the EU and, even more so, of my own government's ability to focus ruthlessly on what is in Britain's best interests.
But one thing which puts me off Leave is Farage with his patronising approach to "the ladies" and his apparent belief that everything in the world is the fault of foreigners.
I thought you might say that ;-)
I'm trying to respond to this polling evidence in the Evening Standard:
"The high priests will be targeting Head v Hearts most avidly. This is a segment who like the idea of British independence but have conerns over the economy and jobs. Ninety per cent are female; they do not use the BBC website and get most of their news from Facebook. "
You have your answer right there: the economy and jobs. Just as I'm concerned at the prospects for the financial sector, so they are on what it means for their jobs. So Leave or Remain need to focus on that, not their sex.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
Me not stupid. I know that Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms. I even know that Ireland had two sets of second referenda: one for Nice, one for Lisbon. But (as I took some pains to explain) that has problems in this case. Did you genuinely not read what I wrote?
I did, hence my response directly referencing yours. As I said, probably option 2, but with the Article 50 process put on hold and then terminated following a second referendum. Where there's a will, there's a way.
' second referendum ' notion... I agree with viewcode's ideas. It seems a silly notion. If we leave and seek to join Efta and the EEA then we have to start talking to them and who knows probably have another referendum. But the loony toons will still not be satisfied then. Leaving will just be the start of even more complaints. We will be forever pandering to their mickey mouse prejudices and posturings.
I'll be honest, I fully expect Dave to appeal to Tories like me to trust him and back him on the referendum.
I may go all ponceyboots gaylord at that time and waver for a bit.
I suspect I won't be the only one. Particularly if Liam For Fox's sake is being spoken as Dave's replacement for Dave straight after a Leave vote.
I understand that. You are a party loyalist, and a big fan of Dave, and I respect that.
I had a similar conversation with a friend over text who's Treasurer for a North London Constituency Association and was at the CCHQ victory celebrations. He had been torn for weeks.
He reluctantly confided to me that he felt had no choice but to back Leave.
What we really need is a Cameroon coming out for Leave, like Gove.
An electable Cameroon would be better.
I'm not convinced Gove is quite the electoral liability he is made out to be, even though the NUT shouted very loudly about him.
Gove has the same net ratings as Corbyn (-29)
IDS who is considered the worst Tory leader in recent memory is at minus 22.
I adore Gove, but those numbers indicate a disastrous night for the Tories in 2020 if Gove is leader and Labour are led by someone like Dan Jarvis
Hmm. Those figures aren't good.
No .... and you hare happy to see the tory party make arses of themselves and usher in a euro friendly labour govt which can renegotiate what it wants with the EU - as could any incoming government at any time.
They would find it a lot more difficult to do so if we have already left.
Like you say, Labour would be a lot more likely to give stuff away to the EU. Only a complete idiot would believe we would never have another Labour government so the best way to stop then giving away more power to the EU is to make sure that by the time they get back into power we are no longer in the EU at all.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
It says 90% of those interested in sovereignty but worried about the economy and jobs are female. They don't read BBC news (or go much on blogs too, I assume) but do spend a lot of time on social media.
Food for thought. How many female Leavers are posting here? And how many silent Remainers are not?
I think I will be voting Leave. No ill-will to Europe or Europeans, but ever-closer union does not feel right to me, and it's hard to envisage the EU-crats giving up on their dream destination. Unless, of course, it gives up on them, which I think still may happen.
Edited to add: But of course I don't post very much!
Both your good self and Cyclefree are the honourable exceptions.
Is there any different approach needed, do you think, for Leave to cut through more to females?
Or is that just patronising?
I don't want to sound rude but I don't think with my ovaries.
I have had over the years a hell of a lot to do with the EU and EU Directives and also saw a bit of how the game was played with the SEA. And I can smell dishonesty and bullshit a mile away. So I've gradually become more sceptical of the EU and, even more so, of my own government's ability to focus ruthlessly on what is in Britain's best interests.
But one thing which puts me off Leave is Farage with his patronising approach to "the ladies" and his apparent belief that everything in the world is the fault of foreigners.
The Farage who is married to a German lady?
That's why I said "apparent". He does not use his family as a political prop, which speaks well of him. But UKIP do appear to come across as anti-foreigner in a way that is unappealing, to me anyway, as a daughter of foreigners.
It must be very tempting for him to use that fact when he is constantly being told he hates foreigners... Quite surprised he doesn't really
It's a major boost for REMAIN to be able to call people who dislike a political structure 'xenophobes' despite incontrovertible evidence (marriage) to the contrary
Elderly should do community work or lose pension, peer says
Older people should lose their pensions if they refuse to do community work to stop them being a “negative burden on society", a former senior Whitehall official has suggested.....
One of the top comments.... "The author of this report can go and stick his head up a dead bears arse!"
It says 90% of those interested in sovereignty but worried about the economy and jobs are female. They don't read BBC news (or go much on blogs too, I assume) but do spend a lot of time on social media.
Food for thought. How many female Leavers are posting here? And how many silent Remainers are not?
I think I will be voting Leave. No ill-will to Europe or Europeans, but ever-closer union does not feel right to me, and it's hard to envisage the EU-crats giving up on their dream destination. Unless, of course, it gives up on them, which I think still may happen.
Edited to add: But of course I don't post very much!
Both your good self and Cyclefree are the honourable exceptions.
Is there any different approach needed, do you think, for Leave to cut through more to females?
Or is that just patronising?
Give me a few mins. Last Autumn I drafted but never finished a thread about how women might view the/vote in the EURef.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
It can't happen without a Conservative leader getting a bill through the Commons which they could only do by relying almost entirely on opposition votes, which would clearly be suicide. What relevance do events in Denmark or Ireland have? Conservative MPs are hardly going to feel bound by "the Danish precedent" are they?
Depends what the terms of the improved offer are.
My basic position is that there are benefits to being members of the EU, but the costs currently outweigh they benefits. And the balance is getting worse.
If we get a significant improvement of the terms and a proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change, then why shouldn't we remain members.
But the current deal doesn't do that, and the net CBA is negative enough that it is better to leave and take the disruption/transition costs than to stay in a worsening position.
But if someone comes up with a better offer that means it's in our interest to stay, we'd be foolish not to take it.
Alan Johnson could well prove pivotal in getting Labour voters out for Remain
It never ceases to amaze me how much this non-entity is talked up on here. I even remember him being predicted to be 'a fine Shadow Chancellor'
He polls well with Labour voters though and does not turn off Tories, if Johnson gets out the Labour vote, Cameron around half of the Tory vote, Farron the LD vote and Sturgeon the SNP vote Remain should win
As far as I remember the SNP vote is pretty eurosceptic by Scotland standards.
I'll be honest, I fully expect Dave to appeal to Tories like me to trust him and back him on the referendum.
I may go all ponceyboots gaylord at that time and waver for a bit.
I suspect I won't be the only one. Particularly if Liam For Fox's sake is being spoken as Dave's replacement for Dave straight after a Leave vote.
I understand that. You are a party loyalist, and a big fan of Dave, and I respect that.
I had a similar conversation with a friend over text who's Treasurer for a North London Constituency Association and was at the CCHQ victory celebrations. He had been torn for weeks.
He reluctantly confided to me that he felt had no choice but to back Leave.
What we really need is a Cameroon coming out for Leave, like Gove.
An electable Cameroon would be better.
I'm not convinced Gove is quite the electoral liability he is made out to be, even though the NUT shouted very loudly about him.
Gove has the same net ratings as Corbyn (-29)
IDS who is considered the worst Tory leader in recent memory is at minus 22.
I adore Gove, but those numbers indicate a disastrous night for the Tories in 2020 if Gove is leader and Labour are led by someone like Dan Jarvis
Hmm. Those figures aren't good.
No .... and you hare happy to see the tory party make arses of themselves and usher in a euro friendly labour govt which can renegotiate what it wants with the EU - as could any incoming government at any time.
They would find it a lot more difficult to do so if we have already left.
Like you say, Labour would be a lot more likely to give stuff away to the EU. Only a complete idiot would believe we would never have another Labour government so the best way to stop then giving away more power to the EU is to make sure that by the time they get back into power we are no longer in the EU at all.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
Try using a spellcheck.
Oh grow up ... I'm typing in a hurry with thick fingers on a mobile from sunny Spain.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
Er they can't. Once again you show your utter lack of understanding of what EEA membership means. EEA involvement with the EU is limited to single market issues and nothing more. Even if they wanted to Labour could not commit us to any of the other areas of EU competancy without us rejoining the EU.
You really are the most willfully ignorant poster on PB.
LOL at PBTories assuming that just because they will ignore Brown's views, that everyone will ignore them.
It seems I again have to point out that Tory voters on their own are not going to be enough to win the Referendum either for Leave OR Remain. Yet neither side seems to be interested in winning over Labour voters so far.
I agree.
The referendum feels like a Conservative event and the debate like one flavour of Conservative talking to (or past) another. (There's a huge danger for the Conservatives in this but I'm not sure they are paying attention to anything outside their own party at present.)
It's hard to see how centre-left voters are going to be engaged by the referendum at all. For the most part they didn't want it and, as you say, both sides seem to have forgotten they exist. Of course, it doesn't help that Labour's current leadership is so inept.
I think you have a point. But if (if!) labour voters do want to stay in the eu (irrespective of what non labour votets think) then they still need to vote Remain.
Indeed they do and (based on polling) the majority of Labour voters who vote in the referendum will back Remain. I think turnout amongst those people is critical though. Turnout amongst Conservative voters will surely be high.
Wilson was not neutral in 1975, the official position of the government was for Yes.
It was, but Wilson did next to no campaigning for a Yes vote. So there wasn't really a clear option in the referendum to give a kick in the nuts to the PM of the day, as there might be with this referendum if Cameron is as vocal in supporting Remain as it seems.
Cameron is hardly a passionate Europhile either but it was Wilson who called the referendum and Wilson who led the Yes campaign
Wilson was quite low profile if I recall. The YES leader was, if anyone, Roy Jenkins.
Wilson was the official head as PM even if Jenkins and Heath were more vocal
Wilson called the referendum, gave a house statement recommending the renegotiation results, organised and won a house vote saying "Her Majesty's Government have decided to recommend to the British people to vote for staying in Europe", organised a Commonwealth statement saying "yep, go ahead", commissioned secret polls from Bob Worcester...he was in the thing up to his armpit
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
Me not stupid. I know that Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms. I even know that Ireland had two sets of second referenda: one for Nice, one for Lisbon. But (as I took some pains to explain) that has problems in this case. Did you genuinely not read what I wrote?
I did, hence my response directly referencing yours. As I said, probably option 2, but with the Article 50 process put on hold and then terminated following a second referendum. Where there's a will, there's a way.
I understand that. You are a party loyalist, and a big fan of Dave, and I respect that.
I had a similar conversation with a friend over text who's Treasurer for a North London Constituency Association and was at the CCHQ victory celebrations. He had been torn for weeks.
He reluctantly confided to me that he felt had no choice but to back Leave.
What we really need is a Cameroon coming out for Leave, like Gove.
An electable Cameroon would be better.
I'm not convinced Gove is quite the electoral liability he is made out to be, even though the NUT shouted very loudly about him.
Gove has the same net ratings as Corbyn (-29)
IDS who is considered the worst Tory leader in recent memory is at minus 22.
I adore Gove, but those numbers indicate a disastrous night for the Tories in 2020 if Gove is leader and Labour are led by someone like Dan Jarvis
Hmm. Those figures aren't good.
No .... and you hare happy to see the tory party make arses of themselves and usher in a euro friendly labour govt which can renegotiate what it wants with the EU - as could any incoming government at any time.
They would find it a lot more difficult to do so if we have already left.
Like you say, Labour would be a lot more likely to give stuff away to the EU. Only a complete idiot would believe we would never have another Labour government so the best way to stop then giving away more power to the EU is to make sure that by the time they get back into power we are no longer in the EU at all.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
Try using a spellcheck.
Oh grow up ... I'm typing in a hurry with thick fingers on a mobile from sunny Spain.
Sounds tough.
Try typing more slowly; you might both think and write better posts.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government refuses to initiate the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum
or
OPTION 2 ====== * UK votes to LEAVE in a referendum * UK government initiates the LEAVE process * UK government seeks better terms and holds a second referendum * Unfortunately, the LEAVE process is automatic and (if memory serves) can only be rescinded by unanimity:all 27 other EU countries have to agree to the abort. Whoops.
In either case, when the Conservative MPs find out that Cameron is plotting to stay via a second referendum, they will flense him and cover his skinless flesh in salt.
I appreciate the "second referendum" scenario appeals to TEH EVUHL EU! meme that is so popular these days. But it really is rubbish.
[edit: fix tags]
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
It can't happen without a Conservative leader getting a bill through the Commons which they could only do by relying almost entirely on opposition votes, which would clearly be suicide. What relevance do events in Denmark or Ireland have? Conservative MPs are hardly going to feel bound by "the Danish precedent" are they?
Depends what the terms of the improved offer are.
My basic position is that there are benefits to being members of the EU, but the costs currently outweigh they benefits. And the balance is getting worse.
If we get a significant improvement of the terms and a proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change, then why shouldn't we remain members.
But the current deal doesn't do that, and the net CBA is negative enough that it is better to leave and take the disruption/transition costs than to stay in a worsening position.
But if someone comes up with a better offer that means it's in our interest to stay, we'd be foolish not to take it.
I agree but I don't think it would be politically possible to hold a second referendum however good the offer (within reason).
If you look at the issues index purely from female perspectivr the top issues generally are The NHS/healthcare and the economy.
Immigration and the EU aren't that high up.
I asked someone at Ipsos Mori about that.
Their other polling shows women as a gender and as mothers use the NHS more than men.
They also see a lot of immigrants in the NHS staff so they form a positive view of immigration.
They see Brexit as bad for the economy.
So as a package they see Brexit bad for their top priorities.
If Leave can assure them Brexit doesn't mean the economy going tits up and every foreign medical staff being kicked out and more can come in they might vote Leave.
Also women are less favourable to Farage than men.
We saw last year men breaking for UKIP more than the ladies.
Alan Johnson could well prove pivotal in getting Labour voters out for Remain
It never ceases to amaze me how much this non-entity is talked up on here. I even remember him being predicted to be 'a fine Shadow Chancellor'
He polls well with Labour voters though and does not turn off Tories, if Johnson gets out the Labour vote, Cameron around half of the Tory vote, Farron the LD vote and Sturgeon the SNP vote Remain should win
As far as I remember the SNP vote is pretty eurosceptic by Scotland standards.
About 25-30% of the SNP back Leave, as does ex-SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars, however the majority are for Remain and on this issue at least Cameron will hope Sturgeon can get them all out
Wilson was not neutral in 1975, the official position of the government was for Yes.
It was, but Wilson did next to no campaigning for a Yes vote. So there wasn't really a clear option in the referendum to give a kick in the nuts to the PM of the day, as there might be with this referendum if Cameron is as vocal in supporting Remain as it seems.
Cameron is hardly a passionate Europhile either but it was Wilson who called the referendum and Wilson who led the Yes campaign
Wilson was quite low profile if I recall. The YES leader was, if anyone, Roy Jenkins.
Wilson was the official head as PM even if Jenkins and Heath were more vocal
Wilson called the referendum, gave a house statement recommending the renegotiation results, organised and won a house vote saying "Her Majesty's Government have decided to recommend to the British people to vote for staying in Europe", organised a Commonwealth statement saying "yep, go ahead", commissioned secret polls from Bob Worcester...he was in the thing up to his armpit
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
Forgive me for interjecting, but this meme of multiple referendums is popular, frequent, pernicious...and bollocks. For this to happen in the UK the sequence of events would look like this:
OPTION 1 ====== (snip)
OPTION 2 ====== (snip)
Probably option 2, but with an abort mechanism that works.
You may be right on the legalities (and the precedents were pre-Lisbon) but both Ireland and Denmark had second referendums on improved terms and reversed their decision
It can't happen without a Conservative leader getting a bill through the Commons which they could only do by relying almost entirely on opposition votes, which would clearly be suicide. What relevance do events in Denmark or Ireland have? Conservative MPs are hardly going to feel bound by "the Danish precedent" are they?
Depends what the terms of the improved offer are.
My basic position is that there are benefits to being members of the EU, but the costs currently outweigh they benefits. And the balance is getting worse.
If we get a significant improvement of the terms and a proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change, then why shouldn't we remain members.
But the current deal doesn't do that, and the net CBA is negative enough that it is better to leave and take the disruption/transition costs than to stay in a worsening position.
But if someone comes up with a better offer that means it's in our interest to stay, we'd be foolish not to take it.
A 'proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change' isn't possible in an organisation where existing agreements can simply be ignored or over-ruled, I'm afraid.
There is no form of agreement or treaty that will ensure members keep to the rules if they don't choose to do so.
Labour just sign up to everything from inside the EEA. Just how dim do you have to be to miss all that. Talk about pissing into the wind! The eu is not going to go away it will still exert sn influence and if it becomes more monolithic it will exert a stronger one. Glorious isolation is not an optipn.
Er they can't. Once again you show your utter lack of understanding of what EEA membership means. EEA involvement with the EU is limited to single market issues and nothing more. Even if they wanted to Labour could not commit us to any of the other areas of EU competancy without us rejoining the EU.
You really are the most willfully ignorant poster on PB.
I think Labour votes would be needed to get a EEA bill through the Commons as there would be some number of Conservative ultras who would see it as a betrayal (EU by the backdoor etc). Labour would presumably exact a price for their support and some mechanism would have to be found. EEA membership plus some protocol that committed us to the social chapter or something? It would be the pro-EEA faction that would have to get creative and find a way to meet Labour's price. Otherwise they just sit on their hands and laugh as the Tories leave one European organisation and fail to agree to join another.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
If you look at the issues index purely from female perspectivr the top issues generally are The NHS/healthcare and the economy.
Immigration and the EU aren't that high up.
I asked someone at Ipsos Mori about that.
Their other polling shows women as a gender and as mothers use the NHS more than men.
They also see a lot of immigrants in the NHS staff so they form a positive view of immigration.
They see Brexit as bad for the economy.
So as a package they see Brexit bad for their top priorities.
If Leave can assure them Brexit doesn't mean the economy going tits up and every foreign medical staff being kicked out and more can come in they might vote Leave.
Also women are less favourable to Farage than men.
We saw last year men breaking for UKIP more than the ladies.
This morning I asked what was in the national interest? I have no doubt at all that being a part of the single market is in our national interest. The Single Passport provisions are probably our greatest success in the EU in the last 30 years and have contributed materially to London's success and the provision of public services in the UK by the huge amount of taxable income generated.
Once the options come down to a choice between the EEA and the EU I am frankly fairly indifferent and I suspect the practical implications will not be huge. There is potentially very little difference between a close relationship with the EU within the EEA and a looser relationship as a second tier non EZ member on the other.
Or so I hoped. But Cameron's negotiation seems to indicate that the possibilities of further opt outs within the EU are very limited indeed. In these circumstances I think the best prospect of us achieving our close but loose relationship with the EU is to Leave and negotiate a bespoke arrangement such as Switzerland have.
There are risks in this option but there are also risks in remaining under the current rules as the EZ becomes more integrated. In an ideal world I would probably have us remain as members of the EU but with more opt outs and a better ability to control developments not to our advantage. But that, unfortunately, is not on the table.
This morning I asked what was in the national interest? I have no doubt at all that being a part of the single market is in our national interest. The Single Passport provisions are probably our greatest success in the EU in the last 30 years and have contributed materially to London's success and the provision of public services in the UK by the huge amount of taxable income generated.
Once the options come down to a choice between the EEA and the EU I am frankly fairly indifferent and I suspect the practical implications will not be huge. There is potentially very little difference between a close relationship with the EU within the EEA and a looser relationship as a second tier non EZ member on the other.
Or so I hoped. But Cameron's negotiation seems to indicate that the possibilities of further opt outs within the EU are very limited indeed. In these circumstances I think the best prospect of us achieving our close but loose relationship with the EU is to Leave and negotiate a bespoke arrangement such as Switzerland have.
There are risks in this option but there are also risks in remaining under the current rules as the EZ becomes more integrated. In an ideal world I would probably have us remain as members of the EU but with more opt outs and a better ability to control developments not to our advantage. But that, unfortunately, is not on the table.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
OPTION 1 ======
OPTION 2 ====== (snip)
Depends what the terms of the improved offer are.
My basic position is that there are benefits to being members of the EU, but the costs currently outweigh they benefits. And the balance is getting worse.
If we get a significant improvement of the terms and a proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change, then why shouldn't we remain members.
But the current deal doesn't do that, and the net CBA is negative enough that it is better to leave and take the disruption/transition costs than to stay in a worsening position.
But if someone comes up with a better offer that means it's in our interest to stay, we'd be foolish not to take it.
A 'proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change' isn't possible in an organisation where existing agreements can simply be ignored or over-ruled, I'm afraid.
There is no form of agreement or treaty that will ensure members keep to the rules if they don't choose to do so.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
Toscafund is good, but not great. Odey has a better (albeit more volatile) record, and will be for Out. Marshall Wace, which also has a tier one record, will be for Remain.
I suspect half of hedge funds will be for Remain, and the rest divided between silence and Leave. Most, simply, like the ability to hire people from all over the EU without restriction. Also, frankly, probably 70% of UK hedge funds are run by non-Brits.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
This morning I asked what was in the national interest? I have no doubt at all that being a part of the single market is in our national interest. The Single Passport provisions are probably our greatest success in the EU in the last 30 years and have contributed materially to London's success and the provision of public services in the UK by the huge amount of taxable income generated.
Once the options come down to a choice between the EEA and the EU I am frankly fairly indifferent and I suspect the practical implications will not be huge. There is potentially very little difference between a close relationship with the EU within the EEA and a looser relationship as a second tier non EZ member on the other.
Or so I hoped. But Cameron's negotiation seems to indicate that the possibilities of further opt outs within the EU are very limited indeed. In these circumstances I think the best prospect of us achieving our close but loose relationship with the EU is to Leave and negotiate a bespoke arrangement such as Switzerland have.
There are risks in this option but there are also risks in remaining under the current rules as the EZ becomes more integrated. In an ideal world I would probably have us remain as members of the EU but with more opt outs and a better ability to control developments not to our advantage. But that, unfortunately, is not on the table.
Yes to a point except the uk is not Switzerland.
Correct. We are a much, much bigger market and have much more to offer the EU.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
O (snip)
(snip).
A 'proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change' isn't possible in an organisation where existing agreements can simply be ignored or over-ruled, I'm afraid.
There is no form of agreement or treaty that will ensure members keep to the rules if they don't choose to do so.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
Indeed. That might start to shift my thinking too.
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
Correct me if I am wrong but are financial services across the EEA not going to be regulated by MifiD II, both inside and outside the EZ? And has London not had a fair degree of involvement in the development of those regulations?
Your first point seems focussed on the fiscal policy of EZ states. If so, I agree. I am less clear what you mean by the second point. If, for example, a decision was made to improve the capital ratios of firms using the single passport (ignoring Basel II for a moment) that would surely have to apply across the whole of the EEA on equal terms?
The third point is the absolute key. We must retain full single market access in or out of the EU.
David Cameron set to call EU referendum on Friday after backing down over Cabinet 'gag'
The Prime Minister has agreed to hold a Cabinet meeting on Friday where he will lift "collective responsibility", allowing eurosceptic ministers to speak out after weeks of being forced to support the Government's position on Europe
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Absolutely, London as a financial centre is as safe as the Birmingham motorcycle industry or the Lancashire cotton trade.
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Oh well, let's stick with the mob who thought the Euro a good idea (now all in the REmain Camp);
An important source of weakness in the world economy is the eurozone, which has still not got back to the pre-crisis level of output. • by contrast, the US and UK are 10pc and 7pc respectively above their pre-crisis levels. Imagine how much better the world would now look if euro-zone GDP had managed the same increase in GDP as the US, or even the UK. Admittedly, it did manage growth of about 1.5pc last year – which was good by its low standards – but it now seems to be slipping back.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
Indeed. That might start to shift my thinking too.
I dreamt that up in about 10 minutes this morning. If I can do it why can't all these apparently clever people in the Cabinet office and the FCO and the Treasury do the same?
Instead of which we have a deal which Cameron thinks is wonderful and where the French have explicitly said that they want no exceptions for UK financial services I.e. they want to be able to impose the same rules on a country which is not part of the eurozone. Now, why would they want to do that, when that is not needed to make the eurozone work? The only answer I can come up with is that they either fear the competition and/ or they want to damage that sector in the UK, possibly in the hope that it will migrate to France.
If true, that is not the action of a "friend" and it does not make me inclined to remain in any sort of union with such countries.
Perhaps there is another explanation. I'm sure someone will put me right, if so.
David Cameron set to call EU referendum on Friday after backing down over Cabinet 'gag'
The Prime Minister has agreed to hold a Cabinet meeting on Friday where he will lift "collective responsibility", allowing eurosceptic ministers to speak out after weeks of being forced to support the Government's position on Europe
I forget how many times I have said this, but "when was the last time the pro-EU side won a victory?" A war is a succession of battles. You can't keep losing battles and hope to win the war. Is David Cameron actually incapable of telling somebody "No"?
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Oh well, let's stick with the mob who thought the Euro a good idea (now all in the REmain Camp);
An important source of weakness in the world economy is the eurozone, which has still not got back to the pre-crisis level of output. • by contrast, the US and UK are 10pc and 7pc respectively above their pre-crisis levels. Imagine how much better the world would now look if euro-zone GDP had managed the same increase in GDP as the US, or even the UK. Admittedly, it did manage growth of about 1.5pc last year – which was good by its low standards – but it now seems to be slipping back.
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Absolutely, London as a financial centre is as safe as the Birmingham motorcycle industry or the Lancashire cotton trade.
Of course it isn't safe and nor does it have a God- given right to exist. The question is whether its chances of surviving and thriving as an honest, well run and well regulated sector are better in the EU under Cameron's new deal and subject to the rules of the ECB and QMV by eurozone states or outside.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. C or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
Indeed. That might start to shift my thinking too.
I dreamt that up in about 10 minutes this morning. If I can do it why can't all these apparently clever people in the Cabinet office and the FCO and the Treasury do the same?
Instead of which we have a deal which Cameron thinks is wonderful and where the French have explicitly said that they want no exceptions for UK financial services I.e. they want to be able to impose the same rules on a country which is not part of the eurozone. Now, why would they want to do that, when that is not needed to make the eurozone work? The only answer I can come up with is that they either fear the competition and/ or they want to damage that sector in the UK, possibly in the hope that it will migrate to France.
If true, that is not the action of a "friend" and it does not make me inclined to remain in any sort of union with such countries.
Perhaps there is another explanation. I'm sure someone will put me right, if so.
The free wheeling City of London has always been a bug bear for the French, going back centuries. It goes against their belief that capitalism must be tamed and now they see their chance to finally do it. Why would they not try if the British government is so supportive of EU membership they will buckle over the City?
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Absolutely, London as a financial centre is as safe as the Birmingham motorcycle industry or the Lancashire cotton trade.
Of course it isn't safe and nor does it have a God- given right to exist. The question is whether its chances of surviving and thriving as an honest, well run and well regulated sector are better in the EU under Cameron's new deal and subject to the rules of the ECB and QMV by eurozone states or outside.
I'm not an expert on the City and am not knowledgable about the City stuff you and others have discussed tonight, so I'll take what you're saying on trust.
However, I do need to point out that I cracked up laughing when I read "honest, well run and well regulated".
Many people worldwide are losing confidence in their governments. Its not quite show time yet, but the moment where a critical mass of people lose confidence is coming, possibly the first half of 2017. And with measures like this, its hardly surprising.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
Given the EU's track record on offering second referendas, I struggle to understand why anyone (except the most intergrationalist) would vote Remain at the first offer.
.
What I posted this morning was this: what might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. [Snipped].
Correct me if I am wrong but are financial services across the EEA not going to be regulated by MifiD II, both inside and outside the EZ? And has London not had a fair degree of involvement in the development of those regulations?
Your first point seems focussed on the fiscal policy of EZ states. If so, I agree. I am less clear what you mean by the second point. If, for example, a decision was made to improve the capital ratios of firms using the single passport (ignoring Basel II for a moment) that would surely have to apply across the whole of the EEA on equal terms?
The third point is the absolute key. We must retain full single market access in or out of the EU.
I did say I dreamt this up in 10 minutes! My second point was trying to address the issue of entities here being subject to ECB rules where we have no say and where the ECB exists to govern the eurozone.
Essentially I would like some form of associate membership if, as full members we cannot stop others seeking to take steps which they know will damage an important industry for the UK.
I do not think that such an important sector for us should be subject to the votes of countries which have no financial sector to speak of. It would be like the UK having the casting vote on rules which might determine whether the French wine industry survives or not.
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Absolutely, London as a financial centre is as safe as the Birmingham motorcycle industry or the Lancashire cotton trade.
Of course it isn't safe and nor does it have a God- given right to exist. The question is whether its chances of surviving and thriving as an honest, well run and well regulated sector are better in the EU under Cameron's new deal and subject to the rules of the ECB and QMV by eurozone states or outside.
David Cameron set to call EU referendum on Friday after backing down over Cabinet 'gag'
The Prime Minister has agreed to hold a Cabinet meeting on Friday where he will lift "collective responsibility", allowing eurosceptic ministers to speak out after weeks of being forced to support the Government's position on Europe
I forget how many times I have said this, but "when was the last time the pro-EU side won a victory?" A war is a succession of battles. You can't keep losing battles and hope to win the war. Is David Cameron actually incapable of telling somebody "No"?
Alternatively, Cameron is ensuring the leave side are getting enough rope. Although, I visited Chatham dockyard a few months back with the young ratas, and I'm not sure they had enough rope for Cameron's apparent requirement.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
Many people worldwide are losing confidence in their governments. Its not quite show time yet, but the moment where a critical mass of people lose confidence is coming, possibly the first half of 2017. And with measures like this, its hardly surprising.
Surely the point of the law was not to raise money but to make Denmark look like a relatively unattractive destination for refugees. It's far too early to say whether it's succeeded. Actually confiscating anything might not be necessary. The threat may be enough.
My sources in the popcorn industry are telling me they are reaching a tipping point (as it were) in global corn supplies.
@OliverCooper: "The student left in Oxford have some kind of problem with Jews." The Chair of Oxford Uni Labour resigns in disgust. https://t.co/lyi5u8dqLP
...said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere"...
I keep forgetting London's status is underwritten by God, and that business cannot possibly go somewhere else because it's still 1650 and we can only travel by mule.
[edt: unfuck tags]
Absolutely, London as a financial centre is as safe as the Birmingham motorcycle industry or the Lancashire cotton trade.
Of course it isn't safe and nor does it have a God- given right to exist. The question is whether its chances of surviving and thriving as an honest, well run and well regulated sector are better in the EU under Cameron's new deal and subject to the rules of the ECB and QMV by eurozone states or outside.
I'm not an expert on the City and am not knowledgable about the City stuff you and others have discussed tonight, so I'll take what you're saying on trust.
However, I do need to point out that I cracked up laughing when I read "honest, well run and well regulated".
It needs to be that - even if it isn't now.
Good luck to you if you think that having Italian politicians and regulators involved in making the rules for the UK will be an improvement. Italy is a country where the securities regulator had to take enforcement action against the governor of the Bank of Italy in relation to his dubious involvement in a highly contested bank takeover.
Large German banks are virtually unregulatable and BaFin, the German regulator, is one of the weakest around. That leaves France: a country once described as being like Italy but without Italian magistrates. See also BNParibas and how it got fined by the US over sanctions busting and money-laundering. Even the French government didn't try hard to defend it.
Many people worldwide are losing confidence in their governments. Its not quite show time yet, but the moment where a critical mass of people lose confidence is coming, possibly the first half of 2017. And with measures like this, its hardly surprising.
Surely the point of the law was not to raise money but to make Denmark look like a relatively unattractive destination for refugees. It's far too early to say whether it's succeeded. Actually confiscating anything might not be necessary. The threat may be enough.
Whatever the intent behind it, a law like that should never have got off the starting blocks. There's always a possibility another government may not have the same scruples about implementing it.
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
I presume this is a top performing hedge fund, with, presumably few bets on the duffers of the CBI:
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds. Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs. "If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report. Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
Ah yes, Toscafund. I know it well. Sharp and ruthless. The only interests they have in mind are their own and no-one else's.
Sharp and ruthless? Well, I would hardly expect hedge-funds to be blunt and philanthropic!
It's known in the trade as 'talking your own book'. And unlike Goldman s*cks they'll be on the right side of the ledger.
Well, for me, I wish Cameron knew how to 'talk the UK's book', but he's achieved nowt and, yet, most other EU countries know they'll miss us if we go. He would have had more chance of greater progress if he hadn't been so transparently Europhile .... how much more, I cannot estimate, given the unwieldy and rigid nature of the EU-project.
Comments
It implies an outward looking participation in world affairs by a European nation with a proud history and strong national values built on tolerance, liberty and democracy. We are the world's 5th largest economy, we have unbelieveable resources of talent, capital and experience and we can flourish inside or outside the EU.
Elderly should do community work or lose pension, peer says
Older people should lose their pensions if they refuse to do community work to stop them being a “negative burden on society", a former senior Whitehall official has suggested.....
One of the top comments....
"The author of this report can go and stick his head up a dead bears arse!"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9630862/Elderly-should-do-community-work-or-lose-pension-peer-says.html
That's why I said "apparent". He does not use his family as a political prop, which speaks well of him. But UKIP do appear to come across as anti-foreigner in a way that is unappealing, to me anyway, as a daughter of foreigners.
I agree with viewcode's ideas. It seems a silly notion.
If we leave and seek to join Efta and the EEA then we have to start talking to them and who knows probably have another referendum.
But the loony toons will still not be satisfied then. Leaving will just be the start of even more complaints. We will be forever pandering to their mickey mouse prejudices and posturings.
It's a major boost for REMAIN to be able to call people who dislike a political structure 'xenophobes' despite incontrovertible evidence (marriage) to the contrary
My basic position is that there are benefits to being members of the EU, but the costs currently outweigh they benefits. And the balance is getting worse.
If we get a significant improvement of the terms and a proper mechanism to prevent future disadvantageous change, then why shouldn't we remain members.
But the current deal doesn't do that, and the net CBA is negative enough that it is better to leave and take the disruption/transition costs than to stay in a worsening position.
But if someone comes up with a better offer that means it's in our interest to stay, we'd be foolish not to take it.
I mean, I was even on the same side as Eddie Izzard then and cheered him (sort of) in Trafalgar Square.
You really are the most willfully ignorant poster on PB.
Try typing more slowly; you might both think and write better posts.
If you look at the issues index purely from female perspectivr the top issues generally are The NHS/healthcare and the economy.
Immigration and the EU aren't that high up.
I asked someone at Ipsos Mori about that.
Their other polling shows women as a gender and as mothers use the NHS more than men.
They also see a lot of immigrants in the NHS staff so they form a positive view of immigration.
They see Brexit as bad for the economy.
So as a package they see Brexit bad for their top priorities.
If Leave can assure them Brexit doesn't mean the economy going tits up and every foreign medical staff being kicked out and more can come in they might vote Leave.
Also women are less favourable to Farage than men.
We saw last year men breaking for UKIP more than the ladies.
So this supposition does work.
I'll try and finish this thread for this weekend.
Photo ID rules could benefit Sanders - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/confusion-over-south-carolina-id-law-could-keep-voters-away
Classic.
There is no form of agreement or treaty that will ensure members keep to the rules if they don't choose to do so.
Britain would be a “better place” if it left the European Union, according to one of London's largest hedge funds.
Toscafund said the UK had nothing to fear if it exited the bloc, as it would free the country from Brussels' repeated power grabs.
"If the EU doesn’t want to reform, we should leave it," the fund said in a report.
Tosca, which manages around $4bn (£2.8bn) of assets and has stakes in a number of UK-listed companies, including housebuilder Redrow and Argos owner Home Retail Group, said London's status as Europe's financial hub would not be threatened by an exit because there was no "plausible alternative in the western hemisphere".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12157846/UK-would-be-a-better-place-if-it-left-the-European-Union-claims-one-of-Londons-biggest-hedge-funds.html
Once the options come down to a choice between the EEA and the EU I am frankly fairly indifferent and I suspect the practical implications will not be huge. There is potentially very little difference between a close relationship with the EU within the EEA and a looser relationship as a second tier non EZ member on the other.
Or so I hoped. But Cameron's negotiation seems to indicate that the possibilities of further opt outs within the EU are very limited indeed. In these circumstances I think the best prospect of us achieving our close but loose relationship with the EU is to Leave and negotiate a bespoke arrangement such as Switzerland have.
There are risks in this option but there are also risks in remaining under the current rules as the EZ becomes more integrated. In an ideal world I would probably have us remain as members of the EU but with more opt outs and a better ability to control developments not to our advantage. But that, unfortunately, is not on the table.
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone.
2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages.
3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
But this is so far from what we have got that it feels pointless debating it.
I suspect half of hedge funds will be for Remain, and the rest divided between silence and Leave. Most, simply, like the ability to hire people from all over the EU without restriction. Also, frankly, probably 70% of UK hedge funds are run by non-Brits.
[edt: unfuck tags]
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/699356498577727489
Your first point seems focussed on the fiscal policy of EZ states. If so, I agree.
I am less clear what you mean by the second point. If, for example, a decision was made to improve the capital ratios of firms using the single passport (ignoring Basel II for a moment) that would surely have to apply across the whole of the EEA on equal terms?
The third point is the absolute key. We must retain full single market access in or out of the EU.
The Prime Minister has agreed to hold a Cabinet meeting on Friday where he will lift "collective responsibility", allowing eurosceptic ministers to speak out after weeks of being forced to support the Government's position on Europe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12158702/David-Cameron-set-to-call-EU-referendum-on-Friday-after-backing-down-over-Cabinet-gag.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-coming-european-revoluition/
An important source of weakness in the world economy is the eurozone, which has still not got back to the pre-crisis level of output.
• by contrast, the US and UK are 10pc and 7pc respectively above their pre-crisis levels. Imagine how much better the world would now look if euro-zone GDP had managed the same increase in GDP as the US, or even the UK.
Admittedly, it did manage growth of about 1.5pc last year – which was good by its low standards – but it now seems to be slipping back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/12156749/Why-Im-not-gripped-by-irrational-despair-over-the-worlds-stock-markets.html
Reckon there's a good chance the "slip back" will cause some ructions this year.
Instead of which we have a deal which Cameron thinks is wonderful and where the French have explicitly said that they want no exceptions for UK financial services I.e. they want to be able to impose the same rules on a country which is not part of the eurozone. Now, why would they want to do that, when that is not needed to make the eurozone work? The only answer I can come up with is that they either fear the competition and/ or they want to damage that sector in the UK, possibly in the hope that it will migrate to France.
If true, that is not the action of a "friend" and it does not make me inclined to remain in any sort of union with such countries.
Perhaps there is another explanation. I'm sure someone will put me right, if so.
However, I do need to point out that I cracked up laughing when I read "honest, well run and well regulated".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447931/Denmark-s-controversial-new-law-forcing-migrants-hand-cash-jewellery-didn-t-raise-single-penny-week.html
Many people worldwide are losing confidence in their governments. Its not quite show time yet, but the moment where a critical mass of people lose confidence is coming, possibly the first half of 2017. And with measures like this, its hardly surprising.
Essentially I would like some form of associate membership if, as full members we cannot stop others seeking to take steps which they know will damage an important industry for the UK.
I do not think that such an important sector for us should be subject to the votes of countries which have no financial sector to speak of. It would be like the UK having the casting vote on rules which might determine whether the French wine industry survives or not.
Cyclefree, you know how to tell a joke...
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=27313624&privcapId=47171817
Good luck to you if you think that having Italian politicians and regulators involved in making the rules for the UK will be an improvement. Italy is a country where the securities regulator had to take enforcement action against the governor of the Bank of Italy in relation to his dubious involvement in a highly contested bank takeover.
Large German banks are virtually unregulatable and BaFin, the German regulator, is one of the weakest around. That leaves France: a country once described as being like Italy but without Italian magistrates. See also BNParibas and how it got fined by the US over sanctions busting and money-laundering. Even the French government didn't try hard to defend it.