This is lifted from the comments section on Guido, I have posted it because to me it sums the situation up perfectly;
This is pure and simple a mugging of the dimwits that run the EU. Erdogan can see that Europe is up shit creek and that the paddles were thrown away a long time ago. He holds the trump cards and Europe has well and truly been shown up to be holding a dummy hand. The flow of migrants across to Lesbos and Kos will not stop and very few will ever get sent back. Just imagine the riots that will break out when trying to round them up. Meanwhile Turkey gets to trouser £4.5 billion of which £0.5 billion is ours and gets to shift a whole bunch of undesirables out of their country. Meanwhile the underhand buying and selling of ISIL oil, the destruction of the Kurds and the ability to further infiltrate Europe with a religion based on the destruction of Western civilisation goes on unabated. LEAVE is the only answer to save the UK. The rest of Europe is lost.
It's rubbish. If this was real, he'd have been doing it five years ago when the crisis started.
As for the money: it doesn't cover what Turkey's already spent on housing refugees, yet alone the other costs. It also discounts all the other routes (not involving Turkey) by which migrants are entering the EU, such as the central and western Med and Balkan routes. It's cost Turkey a massive amount, both fiscally and socially.
If Erdogan and Turkey was in it for the money, they'd have done a much better job of it.
Project Leave is really turning into Project Paranoia.
And you've every right to be wary. But you do need to look at it from Turkey's point of view as well, and perhaps, just perhaps, appreciate all that they've done already. Can you imagine how much worse the situation would be if they hadn't housed that two million+ refugees?
In computing terms they've been a buffer. And now that buffer is full and overflowing. As all good programmers know, buffer overflows are rarely good news.
The Broxtowe Candidate calls this a "random rant", but it's an analysis which is pure gold.
This is pure and simple a mugging of the dimwits that run the EU. Erdogan can see that Europe is up shit creek and that the paddles were thrown away a long time ago. He holds the trump cards and Europe has well and truly been shown up to be holding a dummy hand. The flow of migrants across to Lesbos and Kos will not stop and very few will ever get sent back. Just imagine the riots that will break out when trying to round them up. Meanwhile Turkey gets to trouser £4.5 billion of which £0.5 billion is ours and gets to shift a whole bunch of undesirables out of their country. Meanwhile the underhand buying and selling of ISIL oil, the destruction of the Kurds and the ability to further infiltrate Europe with a religion based on the destruction of Western civilisation goes on unabated. LEAVE is the only answer to save the UK. The rest of Europe is lost.
No it's an analysis that is pure bullshit.
The UK has debated ad nauseum whether we take a couple of thousand of these refugees a year. Turkey has taken millions. It is pure short-sightedness and narcissm that refuses to see that the flow of migrants across all of Europe is as nothing compared to what Turkey has been taking.
The price that Turkey, a Muslim majority nation, appears to be demanding in order to help us reduce the flow into Europe of Muslim refugees is to accelerate its own entry into the EU. And we're going along with it! It's like Rotherham, Cologne, Swedish swimming pools all never happened. We are truly governed by pondlife. Here in the UK and in Brussels.
I suspect there is some diplomatic realpolitik going on there. The migrant crisis is a short-term problem that needs a short-term solution. Turkey's EU accession talks have been ongoing for 50 years and more, in one form or another.
Turkey is a very long way off gaining EU membership because its internal policies are incompatible and growing more so - see the recent state takeover of a newspaper, for example. On top of which, Cyprus and Greece would probably veto even without the other issues that have arisen over the last two years.
However, as Britain doesn't have a dog in this fight, it helps to play the good European, particularly as the solution that the EU has finally come round to is that which Cameron advocated about a year ago and which, if implemented at the time, would have done a lot to prevent the problem getting as bad as it has.
The migrant crisis is a short term problem
That assertion is based on what fact?
There are tens of millions in Asia, Africa and the Middle East who are mobile, oppressed, in real poverty and know of the Utopia of Europe.
Because it is politically unsustainable and the EU leaders are recognising that (far too late - Cameron worked it out well before Merkel's idiocy). They know that the migrants pose a threat not just to their governments but potentially to the entire democratic order. They have no choice but to act to stop it.
Kasich has shortened to single figure odds for the first time, with the likes of Bet365 offering him at just 15/2. to gain the GOP nomination. How is he managing to defy gravity, when less than 5 days ago I was able to back him at 100/1? Can anyone seriously see a pathway which would enable him to win? As I suggested last night, if 10/1 is a sensible price for his GOP nomination, then Hills' 40/1 against him becoming POTUS has to be a steal. DYOR
It has to involve a brokered convention, and Cruz and Trump both standing down in favour of a unity candidate i.e. him.
That's the route but it sure as hell ain't a 10/1 shot.
For reference, the latest poll (PPP, March 4-6) in Ohio has Trump three points clear of Kasich, 38-35, with Cruz at 15 and Rubio 5. He should probably be odds against to win his home state and a failure there should be terminal to his prospects (in practice, even if he doesn't withdraw immediately).
I suspect some punters have been reading tweets like this:
Then they should look at the detail. Yes, Kasich has been gaining ground but the three Michigan polls this week that put him in second still give Trump leads of 13, 22 and 18 points. Distant seconds are of little value at this stage to someone who has yet to gain a win.
Perhaps some have been reading Speedy's tip from a couple of days ago that Katich was going to win Michigan
Allowing Speedy to post on a political betting website is like giving the house keys to a teenager and telling him to invite some friends over while you go off for the weekend.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
The first sign of madness is reading the comments on Guido's blog.
Quoting them on here means it's terminal.
I very rarely read them, same as I don't read them in the any newspaper, including the Guardian. To be honest I clicked on these comments because I wanted to see what the nutjobs and frothers (as they are known here) had to say, just to see how extreme they really are.
I read the posted piece and agreed with it as it is perfectly reasonable to me.
How dare a publicly elected REMAIN LEAVE official use his office to stop his staff speaking out on behalf of LEAVE REMAIN...?
I expect we'll never hear the end of it from the LEAVErs REMAINians
Did you even bother to read the story? They are being allowed to speak out openly in a private capacity, which is more than Cameron allowed for months.
Lol - Boris was always more of a liability and the smart 'leavers' knew it.
He hasn't done anything other tha have City Hall's official position be for Leave. In the same way the Govt has an official position for Remain and no one on Leave side has criticised that as being unfair. A claim of hypocrisy is either people not being very bright or being disingenuous.
Hypocrisy would be is Boris forced all Remain members to not speak out for months on end, threatened their careers or denied them official documents. None of that has happened.
Has Boris sacked anyone for espousing their personal opinion?? I've come to conclusion some people on here are just playing dumb is pretending this is equivalent, because I refuse to believe anyone capable of using a computer can be this stupid.
But.....the BCC Chair wasn't sacked - he was suspended, then resigned.....
I've come to conclusion some people on here are just playing dumb is pretending this is equivalent, because I refuse to believe anyone capable of using a computer can be this stupid
In football management they call this "leaving by mutual consent".
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
There is certainly a possibility that the EU might break up in the next ten years. If it does, it will be much more down to the election of populist-nationalist governments / presidents (e.g. Le Pen) than an orderly transition to a different kind of mainstream political order.
Britain leaving would be a serious blow to the EU project, both for the symbolism in itself and for the succour that would give to other anti-EU groups on the continent. However, the idea that the EU could ever again be an EEC is a fantasy as long as the Euro exists.
We came very close to accepting it to and while we'd never accept it now the same could not be said at the height of Blair. At one point Britain joining the Euro genuinely felt a matter of time and the right entry conditions. Thankfully we dodged that bullet.
Probably not. That was the calculation that Blair made after 2001 when Hague won his campaign but got smashed at the election. People didn't vote to Keep the Pound (perhaps because they knew it wouldn't be decided at the election) but enough agreed with him all the same. He also knew that in a referendum, he'd split Labour and unite the Tories.
That said, referendums often go with the most credible and popular side, and Blair, Brown, Cook and co were that at the time, so it's possible.
In the end, Blair decided to spend his political capital on the Iraq War instead. How the gods laugh their cynical tears.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
The chances of a Tory majority or a hung parliament are probably now more dependent on EU ref and the size of any potential increase in the UKIP vote, especially after a narrow Remain, than anything Labour does now
The Ukip vote won't rise under any circumstances.
If it is a narrow Remain it almost certainly will, there are bound to be Leave voters shifting to UKIP especially from the Tories if not to the same extent as Yes voters went to the SNP
Much to my disappointment Ukip is dead, no money, no structure, factions, disarray. In no state whatsoever to fight a national campaign.
If any of the PB hierarchy are interested I'd be happy to write a header about this and the impact of the referendum on Ukip regardless of the outcome.
The first sign of madness is reading the comments on Guido's blog.
Quoting them on here means it's terminal.
Thanks for keeping your garbage short. From my position - which you assert is terminal madness (note, you started the mud-slinging) - I predict that Turkey will be unsuccessful in holding back the flow ...
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
Has Turkey seen the same kind of problems as Germany, Sweden etc integrating the refugees? Sex attacks, random mass gropings and the like?
On democracy, certainly it could be more democratic but objectively, is it any less democratic than, say, the UK government?
Yes, for two reasons.
One, there is no European demos - and there can't be a democracy without a demos.
Two, insofar as the electorates (plural) of the EU get a vote, their parties promptly form EU-level groups in the Parliament in which 90% of MEPs agree with each other on everything.
Your two points are contradictory unless you start at your assertion (there is no European demos) and work backwards.
The very fact that there are EU-wide groups shows that there is a European demos at at least one level.
No, I don't think that follows. There are British socialists who work with French socialists and Spanish socialists but that doesn't mean they are all European socialists all wanting exactly the same thing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the voters voting on the EP election are voting for European parties rather than their national parties and national issues.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Kasich has shortened to single figure odds for the first time, with the likes of Bet365 offering him at just 15/2. to gain the GOP nomination. How is he managing to defy gravity, when less than 5 days ago I was able to back him at 100/1? Can anyone seriously see a pathway which would enable him to win? As I suggested last night, if 10/1 is a sensible price for his GOP nomination, then Hills' 40/1 against him becoming POTUS has to be a steal. DYOR
It has to involve a brokered convention, and Cruz and Trump both standing down in favour of a unity candidate i.e. him.
That's the route but it sure as hell ain't a 10/1 shot.
For reference, the latest poll (PPP, March 4-6) in Ohio has Trump three points clear of Kasich, 38-35, with Cruz at 15 and Rubio 5. He should probably be odds against to win his home state and a failure there should be terminal to his prospects (in practice, even if he doesn't withdraw immediately).
I suspect some punters have been reading tweets like this:
Then they should look at the detail. Yes, Kasich has been gaining ground but the three Michigan polls this week that put him in second still give Trump leads of 13, 22 and 18 points. Distant seconds are of little value at this stage to someone who has yet to gain a win.
Perhaps some have been reading Speedy's tip from a couple of days ago that Katich was going to win Michigan
If Kasich does win Michigan his nomination odds will come in sharply but he will still have only a very slight chance and be even more layable than he is now.
I wonder if there is potential for Kasich to replace Rubio as the candidate who stubbornly sticks at daft odds, at least for a couple of weeks. There are clearly people reasoning that "It can't be Trump or Cruz so who is there?"
I was being sarcastic I really don't think Katich has a hope in hell of winning Michigan
The chances of a Tory majority or a hung parliament are probably now more dependent on EU ref and the size of any potential increase in the UKIP vote, especially after a narrow Remain, than anything Labour does now
The Ukip vote won't rise under any circumstances.
If it is a narrow Remain it almost certainly will, there are bound to be Leave voters shifting to UKIP especially from the Tories if not to the same extent as Yes voters went to the SNP
Much to my disappointment Ukip is dead, no money, no structure, factions, disarray. In no state whatsoever to fight a national campaign.
If any of the PB hierarchy are interested I'd be happy to write a header about this and the impact of the referendum on Ukip regardless of the outcome.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
Has Turkey seen the same kind of problems as Germany, Sweden etc integrating the refugees? Sex attacks, random mass gropings and the like?
I don't know, do you?
Possibly. Or possibly not.
I imagine it's possible that Merkel's "survival of the fittest" policy of letting anyone who makes it there stay but not giving any safe or legal passage has encouraged fit, young, aggressive males to make the journey which have a higher incidence of causing problems; while it's possible that calm family people etc have stopped at the first safe nation available to them. That's pure speculation though.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
Has Turkey seen the same kind of problems as Germany, Sweden etc integrating the refugees? Sex attacks, random mass gropings and the like?
There have been some reported problems, but also problems of different sorts. For one thing, organised crime has allegedly got much more organised in Turkey over the last few years.
But sex crimes, especially in the east of Turkey, may well be less easily reportable for a variety of reasons. Reporting of sex crimes throughout Turkey was certainly improving before the crisis started. I'm not sure that trend has continued.
I have come round to thinking that the only shot LEAVE have of winning is on the anti-immigration ticket. I think it's fundamentally dishonest because they will opt for a trade deal that leaves immigration unaffected. However if they do win on that basis I have to admit to a little schadenfreude in sitting back and watching what happens next.
'will still be the overriding theatre within which Europe's politics is determined.'
You are still dealing in these rather airy concepts. What is meant by 'Europe's politics'? and 'meaningful political institutions'? Meaningful to what end?
I am going to answer the question for you because I think from your previous posts I know what you mean. You are looking for an integrated United States of Europe that can throw its weight around in the world and you want the UK to be part of that.
In fact, you are the closest we have on this board to an old-fashioned Clarke or Gilmour-style Europhile.
Now that point of view is a respectable one and in a way is a refreshing change from the dissembling we get from most Remain supporters.
But most of the British people do not agree with it, and it is quite misleading to claim this is somehow the only possible future for this country.
I didn't claim that it was the only possible future. In answer to one of your earlier posts, I said that Britain could leave - indeed, will leave if that's how the referendum goes. Whether that would be the best choice for the country's future is a different matter but everyone's entitled to their own opinion there.
But the fact remains that the EU, with or without the UK, will still be in place for at least some time to come (and if it does collapse, it will be in acrimony and crisis, not in a genteel wind-down). Britain will still have to deal with it because so many other European countries work in an through it.
By 'Europe's politics', I mean the way in which European governments interact, and where policy is set. Obviously, not all is - the German initiative on migration is the stand-out example - but the response to the crisis is being handled through the EU. Turkey was involved in the latest talks but Macedonia or Serbia? Countries right on the front line and with a direct interest - not so far as I can tell.
One MP told me: “I have never briefed after PLP but that was a fucking disgrace. I feel sorry for Jeremy because he is so clearly struggling and out if his depth. They lined up a load of people to try and pre-emptively brief that if we do badly in May it's because of a divided PLP. But it's so obvious that we are losing because Jeremy is shit, the party is floundering.”
The odd thing is, last year I wasn’t even aware there was a regular Monday evening meeting for the PLP. - They’ve now become essential weekly reading and rather entertaining.
The first sign of madness is reading the comments on Guido's blog.
Quoting them on here means it's terminal.
I very rarely read them, same as I don't read them in the any newspaper, including the Guardian. To be honest I clicked on these comments because I wanted to see what the nutjobs and frothers (as they are known here) had to say, just to see how extreme they really are.
I read the posted piece and agreed with it as it is perfectly reasonable to me.
You can't be serious! A blind man on a galloping horse could see it was garbage. Try this one it's even better.......
Vicci Linnel....Says
"this is the madness of the bitch merkal, turkey is calling all the shots. and getting away with it. shoot the gimmigrants turn them back. out of the eu. camoran should be hung the daft git. no balls no guts, I am ashamed to see camoran smirking along side that skirt chasing hollande . can no -one rid us of this duplicitous c... cameran"
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
The question maybe the culture in Istanbul today compared to the 00s.
It was pretty Westernised back then, headscarves only appeared as you went further East. It may have been only 50 miles, but the contrast in the behaviour of women was pretty striking to me.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
Has Turkey seen the same kind of problems as Germany, Sweden etc integrating the refugees? Sex attacks, random mass gropings and the like?
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Me.
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
Has Turkey seen the same kind of problems as Germany, Sweden etc integrating the refugees? Sex attacks, random mass gropings and the like?
I don't know, do you?
Possibly. Or possibly not.
I imagine it's possible that Merkel's "survival of the fittest" policy of letting anyone who makes it there stay but not giving any safe or legal passage has encouraged fit, young, aggressive males to make the journey which have a higher incidence of causing problems; while it's possible that calm family people etc have stopped at the first safe nation available to them. That's pure speculation though.
I don't know either, no. Would be interesting to see
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
I'm kind of capitivated at the thought of David Herdson as a latterday Sir Ian Gilmour. Of course there are similarities: as is well known the late Sir Ian had a broad Bradford accent which he deployed to great effect in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet. And they are both of a similar height.
The first sign of madness is reading the comments on Guido's blog.
Quoting them on here means it's terminal.
I very rarely read them, same as I don't read them in the any newspaper, including the Guardian. To be honest I clicked on these comments because I wanted to see what the nutjobs and frothers (as they are known here) had to say, just to see how extreme they really are.
I read the posted piece and agreed with it as it is perfectly reasonable to me.
You can't be serious! A blind man on a galloping horse could see it was garbage. Try this one it's even better.......
Vicci Linnel....Says
"this is the madness of the bitch merkal, turkey is calling all the shots. and getting away with it. shoot the gimmigrants turn them back. out of the eu. camoran should be hung the daft git. no balls no guts, I am ashamed to see camoran smirking along side that skirt chasing hollande . can no -one rid us of this duplicitous c... cameran"
NURSE!!!!
I never got that far down and certainly agree with you that it is unreadable garbage, but the piece I posted is not.
The fact we all have different views is one of the best reasons for coming here, something like Guido or Guardian comments are a one way street.
Interesting that you and I have such different backgrounds and such different opinions.
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
The issue of concealing true immigration statistics was nothing to do with illegal immigration, it was to do with the humongous difference between the govt immigration figures (taken from airport surveys) and the amount of foreign NUI numbers given out... opinion poll vs fact.
The government have refused to reveal the data showing the true numbers, firstly because they said it might harm Camerons EU renegotiation, secondly because it cost £2k! And the person asking for the numbers is a pro immigration, pro EU researcher, Jonathan Portes
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Sunni/Shia is a bit like Catholic/Protestant.
If you're a modern moderate who's not too involved with religion then it's not that big a deal, if you're a religious fanatic then heretics are worse than infidels.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
VAT is already harmonised between EU states. I believe we can not now cut it below 20%.
This is from the Deputy Editor of politics.co.uk, and I've heard a similar rumour.
Hearing rumours of new London mayoral poll today. Last one had big Sadiq lead. Apparently Tories’ private polling shows race has narrowed.
Well, we're getting a good response in outer London. I think we will get a solid level of turnout from Enfield and Barnet where I've been at the weekends. More Sadiq = Islamist stuff will definitely damage his standing among the remaining WWC voters and some trendy types who don't mind Zac being a Tory like they didn't mind Boris being a Tory.
This race is far from over, I genuinely think we can win it and win the by-election in Richmond.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Catholics and Protestants may have had similar looking churches with pointy spires, but it didn't stop them having a right old ding-dong for hundreds of years....during which, several people got quite badly hurt.
...a single currency? that was dismissed as a fantasy too. We could have vetoed at as well - but we didn't.
...Europe-wide arrest warrants - who would have foreseen that in the 1980s? And who would have assumed the UK would agree to it?
All of the things I mentioned are most definitely on the radar, if you know where to look.
And don't for one moment think that the various opt-outs that exist are seen as anything other than temporary by the EU. That includes the UK's on the euro.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
VAT is already harmonised between EU states. I believe we can not now cut it below 20%.
No it isn't. While VAT is the one tax most related to the EU it isn't harmonised at all and we can cut it if we choose to just as Brown cut it a few years ago.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
VAT is already harmonised between EU states. I believe we can not now cut it below 20%.
No it hasn't. Unless by harmonized you means 26 different rates all with wildly different thresholds.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Sunni/Shia is a bit like Catholic/Protestant.
If you're a modern moderate who's not too involved with religion then it's not that big a deal, if you're a religious fanatic then heretics are worse than infidels.
It seems similar in intensity and intractability to sectarian hatred in Europe. We do seem, finally, to habe overcome that though so there is hope.
This is from the Deputy Editor of politics.co.uk, and I've heard a similar rumour.
Hearing rumours of new London mayoral poll today. Last one had big Sadiq lead. Apparently Tories’ private polling shows race has narrowed.
Well, we're getting a good response in outer London. I think we will get a solid level of turnout from Enfield and Barnet where I've been at the weekends. More Sadiq = Islamist stuff will definitely damage his standing among the remaining WWC voters and some trendy types who don't mind Zac being a Tory like they didn't mind Boris being a Tory.
This race is far from over, I genuinely think we can win it and win the by-election in Richmond.
Well small anecdote, my Mum has voted every time it is possible to vote since the 60s, and has a 100% record of voting Labour...
But on the mayoralty she says doesn't know what to do/might not vote, which is the equivalent of someone criticising Turkey, and @JosiasJessop not responding
On democracy, certainly it could be more democratic but objectively, is it any less democratic than, say, the UK government?
Yes, for two reasons.
One, there is no European demos - and there can't be a democracy without a demos.
Two, insofar as the electorates (plural) of the EU get a vote, their parties promptly form EU-level groups in the Parliament in which 90% of MEPs agree with each other on everything.
Your two points are contradictory unless you start at your assertion (there is no European demos) and work backwards.
The very fact that there are EU-wide groups shows that there is a European demos at at least one level.
No, I don't think that follows. There are British socialists who work with French socialists and Spanish socialists but that doesn't mean they are all European socialists all wanting exactly the same thing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the voters voting on the EP election are voting for European parties rather than their national parties and national issues.
If you look at how any demos has built from its first days, it invariably starts with a link between the local electorates and their representatives, builds through the links that the representatives form in parliament and only then works back to the voters through a shared sense of commonality. That was the case in Britain and the US, for example, where democracy (of a sort) was embedded very early on. Indeed, I'm not really sure how a demos *can* be built other than through some shared institution that must, by definition, pre-date that demos.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Catholics and Protestants may have had similar looking churches with pointy spires, but it didn't stop them having a right old ding-dong for hundreds of years....during which, several people got quite badly hurt.
...a single currency? that was dismissed as a fantasy too. We could have vetoed at as well - but we didn't.
...Europe-wide arrest warrants - who would have foreseen that in the 1980s? And who would have assumed the UK would agree to it?
All of the things I mentioned are most definitely on the radar, if you know where to look.
And don't for one moment think that the various opt-outs that exist are seen as anything other than temporary by the EU. That includes the UK's on the euro.
We did veto our own membership of the single currency. The idea we should veto other nations from doing what they want without us is a very bizarre one.
Europe-wide arrest warrants we have chosen to enter into with the consent of our Parliament, we didn't have to.
The others most definitely are not on the radar. Harmonised taxes will NEVER happen. Even the USA doesn't have harmonised taxes between its states.
Whether the EU views our opt-out of the Euro etc as temporary or not is moot. They're not temporary.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
One side thinks the other are not real Muslims and wants to wipe the off the face of the planet, they are backed by Saudi money and US diplomatic power. The other side doesn't want to be wiped off the face of the planet and fight back, they are backed by Iranian billions and Russian diplomatic power.
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
All of the first four, for certain.
How will the EU have "A common immigration and asylum policy" "for certain" given that the UK and Ireland at least have and are using an opt out from this?
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
VAT is already harmonised between EU states. I believe we can not now cut it below 20%.
No it hasn't. Unless by harmonized you means 26 different rates all with wildly different thresholds.
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
Funnily enough, I was just about to make a similar point again regarding the migrant crisis, in response to the comments on this thread. (I appreciate this is a slightly different point from the one you are referring to).
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
I'm kind of capitivated at the thought of David Herdson as a latterday Sir Ian Gilmour. Of course there are similarities: as is well known the late Sir Ian had a broad Bradford accent which he deployed to great effect in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet. And they are both of a similar height.
Gilmour did very well considering he went to Balliol
This is from the Deputy Editor of politics.co.uk, and I've heard a similar rumour.
Hearing rumours of new London mayoral poll today. Last one had big Sadiq lead. Apparently Tories’ private polling shows race has narrowed.
Well, we're getting a good response in outer London. I think we will get a solid level of turnout from Enfield and Barnet where I've been at the weekends. More Sadiq = Islamist stuff will definitely damage his standing among the remaining WWC voters and some trendy types who don't mind Zac being a Tory like they didn't mind Boris being a Tory.
This race is far from over, I genuinely think we can win it and win the by-election in Richmond.
Well small anecdote, my Mum has voted every time it is possible to vote since the 60s, and has a 100% record of voting Labour...
But on the mayoralty she says doesn't know what to do/might not vote, which is the equivalent of someone criticising Turkey, and @JosiasJessop not responding
Well another anecdote, a good friend of mine who is a WWC electrician born and raised in East London is ready to vote Tory for the first time ever because "Zac's not so bad, and Sadiq looks dodgy as f***". He voted for Ken in 2004 and 2012 and abstained in 2008.
On democracy, certainly it could be more democratic but objectively, is it any less democratic than, say, the UK government?
Yes, for two reasons.
One, there is no European demos - and there can't be a democracy without a demos.
Two, insofar as the electorates (plural) of the EU get a vote, their parties promptly form EU-level groups in the Parliament in which 90% of MEPs agree with each other on everything.
Your two points are contradictory unless you start at your assertion (there is no European demos) and work backwards.
The very fact that there are EU-wide groups shows that there is a European demos at at least one level.
No, I don't think that follows. There are British socialists who work with French socialists and Spanish socialists but that doesn't mean they are all European socialists all wanting exactly the same thing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the voters voting on the EP election are voting for European parties rather than their national parties and national issues.
If you look at how any demos has built from its first days, it invariably starts with a link between the local electorates and their representatives, builds through the links that the representatives form in parliament and only then works back to the voters through a shared sense of commonality. That was the case in Britain and the US, for example, where democracy (of a sort) was embedded very early on. Indeed, I'm not really sure how a demos *can* be built other than through some shared institution that must, by definition, pre-date that demos.
Agreed with that.
The formation of a political culture happens by and large among political elites.
You can often even extend this as far as a "national culture". The concept of, say, French national identity was something that was largely imposed from the top-down than something built organically from the bottom-up. Even the dominance of French language over local/regional languages and dialects was only really secured by extensive centralisation efforts in the 19th century.
The only implied odds in my view which may be vaguely right are those for Trump and maybe Cruz.
Rubio and Kasich are too short... the only way either of them gets to be the nominee now is a GOP robbery of Trump.
Around 10 million people will have voted in the primaries for Trump. If he is seen as being stitched up, then about half of those 10 million won't head out to vote for the other guy.
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
Funnily enough, I was just about to make a similar point again regarding the migrant crisis, in response to the comments on this thread. (I appreciate this is a slightly different point from the one you are referring to).
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
Well yes it would, no other EU nation would be being forced to pay for Merkel's stupidity. Now we are about to bung Turkey €6bn for basically nothing. With no EU it would be up to Germany to do it alone since it was their policy of "everyone is welcome" that exacerbated the crisis and opened the door to a bunch of chancers and con artists.
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
Funnily enough, I was just about to make a similar point again regarding the migrant crisis, in response to the comments on this thread. (I appreciate this is a slightly different point from the one you are referring to).
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
There would be no chance of the migrants that one country decided to invite over having the same passport as me within a decade
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
Funnily enough, I was just about to make a similar point again regarding the migrant crisis, in response to the comments on this thread. (I appreciate this is a slightly different point from the one you are referring to).
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
The reason I posted it was because I pretty much agree with every word, but point taken in the spirit it was meant.
Fair enough, and apologies - on reflection there's no reason why you shouldn't post something which you absolutely agree with, and it should be judged by the content, rather than the source.
...a single currency? that was dismissed as a fantasy too. We could have vetoed at as well - but we didn't.
...Europe-wide arrest warrants - who would have foreseen that in the 1980s? And who would have assumed the UK would agree to it?
All of the things I mentioned are most definitely on the radar, if you know where to look.
And don't for one moment think that the various opt-outs that exist are seen as anything other than temporary by the EU. That includes the UK's on the euro.
I don't know who dismissed the single currency as a fantasy (citation?) but the EC heads agreed it as an objective as early as 1969 and the Werner Plan put in place the practical steps needed in 1970. US opposition and the oil crisis blew that proposal out of the water but the objective in principle was never dropped.
Shop vendors in Turkey are cashing in on the flood of migrants into the EU by selling life jackets on the street.
Clothes shops are stacking their windows with the nautical safety gear while others are just setting up stalls in pedestrian areas offering them for sale.
The reason I posted it was because I pretty much agree with every word, but point taken in the spirit it was meant.
Fair enough, and apologies - on reflection there's no reason why you shouldn't post something which you absolutely agree with, and it should be judged by the content, rather than the source.
Nick I talk occasionally with an ex-colleague and friend of yours, the ex MP for Gloucester.
As a keen Remainer and former PB thread writer, perhaps you're ideally placed to pen the pro case?
As I've made clear many times, I am not a keen Remainer. I'm a reluctant Remainer because the alternatives, to the very limited extent that anyone has bothered to try to define them, look worse.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Your eagerness to join such rabid scaremongering does you no credit. I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim. Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
Who, I wonder, believes that Turkey will stem the flow of migrants? Roger?
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
The only thing that will stem the flow of migrants (*) is a return to peace and stability in Iraq and Syria. In the absence of that, all we are doing is shoving the problem onto neighbouring countries and saying: "Nowt to do with us, guv."
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
The Shia / Sunni civil war within Islam is not going to resolve itself anytime soon. War, violence, horror and despair are firmly baked into the future of the Middle East for the foreseeable. And we can't do a damn thing to stop it. We should step back, defend our external borders rigorously and leave them to it.
Sunni/Shia is a bit like Catholic/Protestant.
If you're a modern moderate who's not too involved with religion then it's not that big a deal, if you're a religious fanatic then heretics are worse than infidels.
It seems similar in intensity and intractability to sectarian hatred in Europe. We do seem, finally, to habe overcome that though so there is hope.
As a keen Remainer and former PB thread writer, perhaps you're ideally placed to pen the pro case?
As I've made clear many times, I am not a keen Remainer. I'm a reluctant Remainer because the alternatives, to the very limited extent that anyone has bothered to try to define them, look worse.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
As a keen Remainer and former PB thread writer, perhaps you're ideally placed to pen the pro case?
As I've made clear many times, I am not a keen Remainer. I'm a reluctant Remainer because the alternatives, to the very limited extent that anyone has bothered to try to define them, look worse.
Yes, it is extremely significant, and very strong evidence that the UK will not be involved. As I predicted, we are seeing a major change, in that ever-closer union will be concentrated in the Eurozone countries. From your link, page 5:
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
Number Cruncher Happy #InternationalWomensDay from NCP. At the 2015 election, women were more likely to vote than men, for the first time since 2001 (BES)
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Do we really know what we are getting with Remain?
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Your eagerness to join such rabid scaremongering does you no credit. I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim. Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
I may be wrong but I don't recall any Leavers calling the Remainers odius or nutjobs, why do you constantly refer to people who disagree with you childish names?
I still think Boris won't be one of the two going forwards to members.
Which is why he will try and force Dave to make him chancellor in the case of Leave. He needs to show he can handle a top job that requires hard work. Being the Mayor is about having a personality and advertising London, being the PM is an order of magnitude more important so he will have to show he is up to it.
This from @Richard_Nabavi on March 5th caught my eye from my jail cell
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
Funnily enough, I was just about to make a similar point again regarding the migrant crisis, in response to the comments on this thread. (I appreciate this is a slightly different point from the one you are referring to).
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
Well yes it would, no other EU nation would be being forced to pay for Merkel's stupidity. Now we are about to bung Turkey €6bn for basically nothing. With no EU it would be up to Germany to do it alone since it was their policy of "everyone is welcome" that exacerbated the crisis and opened the door to a bunch of chancers and con artists.
Turkey is dealing with what appear to be millions of refugees and I see nothing wrong in helping them help them remain close to the border where they have fled from. It makes eminent sense to help keep them safe and comfortable there. You cannot wish away the fact that all this is happening on our doorstep. A refugee/migrant was asked by the BBC where he and family were heading... he said Norway. Good old EU Norway ... oh err..
So if they've given up on involving the UK then should we not shift to the EFTA where we keep the single market access at a lower membership fee and with less political meddling from the continent.
There's a case for that, but we'd still get much of the meddling with no say in it, no institutional protection from Eurozone hegemony, and no influence over EU strategic direction (in particular protectionism). On the positive side we'd get out of the CFP and CAP, and possibly some of the social/environmental/justice stuff, although I think many Leavers are kidding themselves on the extent to which those would be different. In addition we'd save a few billion in fees. Is that trade-off worth it, especially given the severe dangers of the transition? It's a judgement call, obviously. Personally I don't think so, but I understand that others will give a different weight to the various factors.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
How is being independent and setting our own rules worse? Smaller English-speaking markets than ours like Australia and Canada have a significantly better GDP/capita than we do, is there any reason we must be worse than them?
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
We've gone through the alternatives many times, but specifically in relation to Australia and Canada, they are economics dominated by commodity sales, and have done very well in the long-running commodity boom of the last 20 years, until very recently. We are a very different kind of economy.
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
Our economy is becoming less integrated with the EU over time. Our non-EU exports are growing at a long run rate of 4% per year and our EU exports are shrinking at a long run rate of 2% per year. 7-10 years ago I would have agreed with your position that it is too much of a risk to put single market access in the "maybe" column. Today, we are not in the same position. Goods and services exports to the EU accounts for a total of 12% of a total economic activity, given that it won't disappear overnight the economic downside to leaving is not as large as the remain side are trying to paint it as.
But nevertheless the 'IN' side in 1975 made explicit that one reason for staying in was that a single currency was not now going to happen.
And of course throughout the 70s and 80s we had UK politicians constantly patting us on the head and telling us that we shouldn't take seriously the EU's rhetoric about political union either.
Comments
The world has shifted against Islam and I think it's too risky for a very long time.
The UK has debated ad nauseum whether we take a couple of thousand of these refugees a year. Turkey has taken millions. It is pure short-sightedness and narcissm that refuses to see that the flow of migrants across all of Europe is as nothing compared to what Turkey has been taking.
Well, at least we have some Royal Navy ships in the area who can carry out their important brief of WATCHING!
Turkey for Christmas? Albania for Easter?
A common immigration and asylum policy? Harmonised tax rates? Pooled social security? Larger contributions from the UK taxpayer as the EU expands? Another grab at the Ukraine?
Where is the money coming from to fund the two million extra migrants we will take from the next 85 million new Europeans? And the houses, surgeries, schools....
Because Turkey has stemmed the flow of migrants for years. Most migrants are reaching Turkey and going no further, no other nation in the flow can say that.
I read the posted piece and agreed with it as it is perfectly reasonable to me.
(*) Once that problem's solved, it becomes easier to tackle refugees and migrants from other countries.
That said, referendums often go with the most credible and popular side, and Blair, Brown, Cook and co were that at the time, so it's possible.
In the end, Blair decided to spend his political capital on the Iraq War instead. How the gods laugh their cynical tears.
I'm really rather concerned that many Remainders aren't even thinking about their decision. They're assuming nothing will change.
I suspect they'd be less complacent if they thought about it a bit. I'd expect 80% of the population to be undecided here, it's half that.
I just don't get him.
Those that love him, REALLY, REALLY LURVE him. Not quite seen anything like it. Even in the Blair peak.
If he goes it will be traumatic.
Possibly. Or possibly not.
I imagine it's possible that Merkel's "survival of the fittest" policy of letting anyone who makes it there stay but not giving any safe or legal passage has encouraged fit, young, aggressive males to make the journey which have a higher incidence of causing problems; while it's possible that calm family people etc have stopped at the first safe nation available to them. That's pure speculation though.
But sex crimes, especially in the east of Turkey, may well be less easily reportable for a variety of reasons. Reporting of sex crimes throughout Turkey was certainly improving before the crisis started. I'm not sure that trend has continued.
But the fact remains that the EU, with or without the UK, will still be in place for at least some time to come (and if it does collapse, it will be in acrimony and crisis, not in a genteel wind-down). Britain will still have to deal with it because so many other European countries work in an through it.
By 'Europe's politics', I mean the way in which European governments interact, and where policy is set. Obviously, not all is - the German initiative on migration is the stand-out example - but the response to the crisis is being handled through the EU. Turkey was involved in the latest talks but Macedonia or Serbia? Countries right on the front line and with a direct interest - not so far as I can tell.
The odd thing is, last year I wasn’t even aware there was a regular Monday evening meeting for the PLP. - They’ve now become essential weekly reading and rather entertaining.
Vicci Linnel....Says
"this is the madness of the bitch merkal, turkey is calling all the shots. and getting away with it. shoot the gimmigrants turn them back. out of the eu. camoran should be hung the daft git. no balls no guts, I am ashamed to see camoran smirking along side that skirt chasing hollande . can no -one rid us of this duplicitous c... cameran"
NURSE!!!!
All of the first four, for certain.
The trouble Corbyn has is moving the needle from 30 to 35%.
It was pretty Westernised back then, headscarves only appeared as you went further East. It may have been only 50 miles, but the contrast in the behaviour of women was pretty striking to me.
Hearing rumours of new London mayoral poll today. Last one had big Sadiq lead. Apparently Tories’ private polling shows race has narrowed.
How will the EU "harmonise tax rates" "for certain" when every member of the EU has a veto on tax rates? What will make us agree to waive our veto and accept harmonisation? What will make the Irish agree to shoot themselves in their foot and harmonise corporation tax?
How will the EU have "Pooled social security" "for certain" when this isn't even on the radar and would almost certainly need a treaty change to occur of which all nations have a veto?
Larger contributions will occur as long as we're successfully growing faster than the rest of the EU.
The fact we all have different views is one of the best reasons for coming here, something like Guido or Guardian comments are a one way street.
Interesting that you and I have such different backgrounds and such different opinions.
"The anti-Cameron nonsense here (and, to be fair, in the Mail and Telegraph sometimes) is stark, raving, 100%, fruitcake-rich, bonkers.
I particularly enjoyed the nonsense about the allegedly 'true' immigration figures, which the nutjobs think he is deliberately concealing because of the referendum. No-one seems to ask what conceivable relevance illegal immigration has to the question of whether the UK should stay in the EU or not"
The issue of concealing true immigration statistics was nothing to do with illegal immigration, it was to do with the humongous difference between the govt immigration figures (taken from airport surveys) and the amount of foreign NUI numbers given out... opinion poll vs fact.
The government have refused to reveal the data showing the true numbers, firstly because they said it might harm Camerons EU renegotiation, secondly because it cost £2k! And the person asking for the numbers is a pro immigration, pro EU researcher, Jonathan Portes
It is discussed at length here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0725m33/daily-politics-26022016
What is going on??
I'd be perfectly happy to vote for Jowell in preference to Zac and said so months ago. Labour really screwed this up.
If you're a modern moderate who's not too involved with religion then it's not that big a deal, if you're a religious fanatic then heretics are worse than infidels.
https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/five-presidents-report-completing-europes-economic-and-monetary-union_en
This race is far from over, I genuinely think we can win it and win the by-election in Richmond.
...a single currency? that was dismissed as a fantasy too. We could have vetoed at as well - but we didn't.
...Europe-wide arrest warrants - who would have foreseen that in the 1980s? And who would have assumed the UK would agree to it?
All of the things I mentioned are most definitely on the radar, if you know where to look.
And don't for one moment think that the various opt-outs that exist are seen as anything other than temporary by the EU. That includes the UK's on the euro.
You engaged it dirty tricks, I was the victim of a cock-up...
@PippaCrerar: "It's a cock-up!" says Boris after his chief of staff sends memo to top aides effectively gagging them from speaking out against Brexit.
http://www.vatlive.com/vat-rates/european-vat-rates/eu-vat-rates/
But on the mayoralty she says doesn't know what to do/might not vote, which is the equivalent of someone criticising Turkey, and @JosiasJessop not responding
Europe-wide arrest warrants we have chosen to enter into with the consent of our Parliament, we didn't have to.
The others most definitely are not on the radar. Harmonised taxes will NEVER happen. Even the USA doesn't have harmonised taxes between its states.
Whether the EU views our opt-out of the Euro etc as temporary or not is moot. They're not temporary.
In a nutshell.
Let's imagine a world in which the EU didn't exist, but the main countries of Europe were just as prosperous, democratic, and free from tyranny and war as they are now. Is there any conceivable reason why the 'EU migrant crisis' would be any different in such a world? Those millions of refugees and economic migrants want to get into the EU because it's a very attractive and safe place to live. It's a complete non-sequitur to conclude from this that the UK should leave the EU.
What's more, the main bad decision that has been made in this whole matter was made, not by the EU, but by the democratically-elected government of a nation state in the EU. So you can't even blame the EU political apparatus for handling the matter badly.
In latter day Byzantium, people said "Better the sultan's turban than the cardinal's hat."
For that matter, the renegade and imperial daleks hated one another with a passion.
#InternationalWomensDay
Wealden MP Nus Ghani will vote for the UK to Leave the European Union. https://t.co/rw35w1SDRu
The formation of a political culture happens by and large among political elites.
You can often even extend this as far as a "national culture". The concept of, say, French national identity was something that was largely imposed from the top-down than something built organically from the bottom-up. Even the dominance of French language over local/regional languages and dialects was only really secured by extensive centralisation efforts in the 19th century.
Rubio 2.4
Trump 3.29
Cruz 4.21
Kasich 2.38
The only implied odds in my view which may be vaguely right are those for Trump and maybe Cruz.
Rubio and Kasich are too short... the only way either of them gets to be the nominee now is a GOP robbery of Trump.
Around 10 million people will have voted in the primaries for Trump. If he is seen as being stitched up, then about half of those 10 million won't head out to vote for the other guy.
All ways up, Hillary is looking in great shape.
Every Labour leader has betrayed the party the moment he walked into Downing St. Thank god under @jeremycorbyn this can never happen again.
All four Unions [economic, financial, fiscal, political] depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
Basically, they've given up on involving the UK, and quite rightly so.
I do not think anyone is thinking nothing will change. There is always going to be change in the future. But we do not have to join the euro and if then eurozone integrate further then its up to them. Its agreed we cannot interfere in the eurozone and it cannot interfere with us. We are not required to be part of ever closer union, despite what others might claim.
Now if you want to walk away from the single market then say so - and explain it to our industry, but if you want to leave the EU but retain access to the single market then in effect things remain basically as they are now with free movement. Leave are clearly split on this and those who want an end to EU immigration at any cost need to say so. What about non EU immigration? Having lit the blue touchpaper where do the odious leavers stop?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/ending-new-thirty-years-war
There is some naive assumption that we must only compare ourselves to the rest of Europe. Why that is I don't get.
This is feeling very SLAB. Many voting for it, but not making their case.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/03/boris-powers-into-a-double-digit-lead-in-our-next-party-leader-survey.html
I still think Boris won't be one of the two going forwards to members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_BgnZdwko
Happy #InternationalWomensDay from NCP. At the 2015 election, women were more likely to vote than men, for the first time since 2001 (BES)
Also, I've never said that there wasn't a better option available to us in the past. But we start from where we are now, with large chunks of our economy tightly integrated with the EU.
In any case, I'd also quibble with the suggestion that Canada is much more 'independent' than us. It is dominated by its huge neighbour, as we would be. Indeed, with NAFTA they've explicitly given up a lot of sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating deal to protect City of London after leaving EU would take a long time
Q: So if we did not get full mutual recognition, there would be some degree of loss of business in London.
Without question, says Carney.
Q: And how hard would it be to get mutual recognition arrangements?
Carney says they are possible to achieve, but that they would take a long time to achieve.
And he says Britain would lose influence over the regulations. It would have to cede sovereignty.
Carney says negotiating a deal to protect the City of London after leaving the EU would take a long time.
Where's Brian Paddick when you need him?
Do you have the accurate figures to hand?
Indeed it wasn't.
But nevertheless the 'IN' side in 1975 made explicit that one reason for staying in was that a single currency was not now going to happen.
And of course throughout the 70s and 80s we had UK politicians constantly patting us on the head and telling us that we shouldn't take seriously the EU's rhetoric about political union either.