Figured it's time for a thread;
Cameron has shown off a fancy deal he's apparently negotiated to a lot of fanfare on his side and a lot of suspicion from the other side.
In addition Chris Grayling asked for permission to campaign to leave the EU dice he now had a deal but has been told to wait a couple of weeks so the cabinet can agree a position.
So where do we all stand? I'm in the 'Leave' camp currently.
I genuinely have no idea at the moment. I could be swayed (unlike the Scottish one).
If England stay in the EU, is there a chance we might start using Euro's instead of GBP? I wanna use Euro's.
I'm a twit
Cameron's 'deal' is a load of balls. Would businesses fuck off if we left? Would they fuck. We'd probably end up cutting a lot of taxes in order to be competitive, which would be a good thing.
That said, Harold wants to leave. It's a tough call. I'm genuinely undecided.
The news seems happy enough to lol at this shithouse 'deal', which makes you wonder why he even bothered with it in the first place. We all know he wants to stay in regardless, so why didn't he just make the case for what was and save himself the embarrassment?
I'm just waiting for one of those dead cats now for the full party piece. Maybe they will have Ken Clarke stand up and claim that Farage killed his cat, and that Chris Grayling hid the evidence.
Guido.
Guido's been on form since Harry Cole (it took me 30 years...) left. Think he's rediscovered his inner lol.
The deal is bollocks but it will be enough. Remain to win by between 10 and 15 points.
Objective reporting there.
It's a bit daft that such a profound question is being reduced to whether or not very marginal reductions of various benefits are available to a ridiculously insignificant proportion of the population.
I don't really see how this deal helps the stay in lot at all. They should campaign on the merits of being in the EU, not defending such a meaningless and pointless (and fundamentally EU-y in a bad way) thing. How is it going to help for all the major party folk (Corbs and Cameron + associates) to join forces for a cause that neither really believes in? Isn't it all going to seem a bit of an attempted fudge?
Then you see the people of Clacton on Newsnight and realise that matters of national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy aren't going to be where this is won or lost.
That's a cracking front page from The Sun.
If the UK did leave the EU, I'm curious as to whether there would be provisions for people who live in the country to continue doing so. Or would you just summarily round up all the French people and ship them out?
After a few years, all EU immigrants can apply for permanent residency - so I'm guessing most will simply apply for that. For those in the UK for less than 3yrs, you would hope that there would be some sort of amnesty to apply. I wonder whether simply having this referendum will see a big increase to immigrants going to the UK "before it's too late". That will annoy Harold.Originally Posted by ItalAussie
I've had 3 mentions in this thread. Why? Nobody is going to be 'kicked out'.
Farage is on Daily Politics answering about the EU and appears to be on a webcam from 1994.
I don't really give a fuck if the UK leaves or not. While I'd like to draw a distinction between the EU and the Eurozone, a lot of the same people are involved in running them, and have acted disgracefully with regards to the latter. There are probably downsides and upsides, but the shambles of Cameron trying to extract populist concessions from a disinterested bureaucracy is amusing and has more to do with PR than anything of substance.
There are downsides and upsides but, really and truly, the whole democratic angle is enough for me on its own. It's just not right that people make decisions who are then not accountable for them.
And the pro lot bang on about workers rights and all this stuff as if we would suddenly revert to child labour and slavery if we left.
Just to make sure the sponsor gets in:
Who are those people? There's quite a lot of ignorance about the EU, and this is one of the things that keeps getting trotted out.
It's bollocks. It could be more democratic in the form of direct elections to key positions but all of the institutions derive their authority from the elected national governments.
I've generally gone along with the idea that the European Union protects politicians from the plebs, but I'm becoming more convinced that it actually protects them from themselves and their own inadequacies as policy-makers. It's just a colossal extension of the quango state, removing responsibility (and accountability) from people who wouldn't actually know what to do with it if they had it. It can't be a coincidence that the only Prime Minister to have actually given them any grief was the one with the clearest sense of purpose.
Well why don't you tell me how those who make the laws in Europe can be kicked out?
Well, those in the EU parliament can be voted out in elections. And those in the EU commission are chosen by the governments, so they can be changed by changing the government. Who else do you mean?
Are you sure about that? I've never been asked. I'm pretty certain I can't vote out anyone from any other country.
I want control over governments for my country only. Other country's representatives should have no say on what happens in my country.And those in the EU commission are chosen by the governments, so they can be changed by changing the government. Who else do you mean?
The Daily Politics was a disgrace today as well. They had Farage for about 2 mins and the rest of the programme was 2 pro-EU wankers and an echo chamber.
Nor can you vote out anyone from any other part of the country in a national election. Have you got the same problem with those?
Well, that's an entirely different argument, isn't it?
I don't particularly like our voting system either, but at least it's for my country. Various countries will all have vastly different concerns, economies, interests and so on. Why would you want a more undemocratic system than we already have?Nor can you vote out anyone from any other part of the country in a national election. Have you got the same problem with those?
No, not really. It's at the heart of what I'm saying.Well, that's an entirely different argument, isn't it?
Your first argument was that they're "not accountable". It having been explained that they are, you've changed that to "not accountable to Harold/people in the UK".
That qualifier makes it a different argument, your usual obstinacy notwithstanding.
That's right, they're not. You haven't explained how I might cast a vote for someone else other than the people making the laws......
Yes I have. At the European or general elections.
We, the British people, have already voted for an anti-EU representation. Not helping in stopping the EU making laws we can do nothing about, is it? Why don't we just call it as it is - you don't like nation states. I do.
You still voted for someone other than the people making the laws, they just didn't win the election.
Yes, but I had my say. As someone who claims to be all for democracy, why do you want a substantially more unrepresentative selection process?
I didn't say that I wanted that.
Now, I'm finished with this attempt to reason with you.
Talk about an own goal.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...cid=spartandhp
Whichever way you cut it, the press are going to have a field day with that one.
I don't see the issue. It's a referendum, party members have their own vote. she's right; MP should be voting based in their own beliefs.
I'm not saying the message is terribly wrong, but you hardly want the papers to jump on the idea of 'MP's told to ignore their constituents!'.
Didn't seem to hurt the Syria vote.
Hahaha. I can imagine it now.
'I worked hard on this, I sat down with all the leaders of Europe and we came to a mutual solution that everything should continue as it is and we shouldn't get any concessions. I urge you to vote to stay as part of the EU.'
*UKIP lolls itself off the face of the earth*
The renegotiation is, and should be, irrelevant to anyone weighing up how they are going to vote.
My biggest concern regarding the "risk" of remaining in the EU is that you have, and will continue to have, a two-track EU. That is (i) Eurozone countries and (ii) non-Eurozone countries. The former will continue to push towards 'ever closer union' both politically and fiscally to make the single currency work. Their key concerns will be maintaining the stability of the Eurozone and the accompanying Schengen arrangement which supports it. All new EU-entrants are required to adopt the Euro, demonstrating how pivotal they believe the single currency to be to its future.
In that instance, countries outside the Eurozone will become 'second class citizens'. Decisions won't be taken to support "EU28", rather they will focus on strengthening the Euro and decisions will, likely, originate from Paris and Berlin. The caveats and opt-outs we have at present, or which we are in the process of 'negotiating', are vague, and don't offer the necessary protection for us against legislation etc. which may be harmful to our economy but beneficial to the Eurozone.
I also think there has been a catastrophic failure of leadership from the EU over the last year or two in relation to the Greek debt crisis and the migrant / refugee crisis. In the former, they have fiscally waterboarded one of their own members to accept an economic programme which impoverishes the populace and adopt liabilities which they simply cannot pay. To compound it, the Greeks are now being blamed for not doing enough to stop the boats coming in from Turkey with discussion of 'suspending' their Schengen status, effectively using the country as a buffer to protect central Europe.
On the latter, Merkel's policy on migration was illogical and the consequences could be profound. She rode over any number of existing protocols (predominantly the Dublin regulation) and has created a situation of mass chaos. Despite growing criticism in Germany and throughout Europe, her hubris prevents her from admitting that summarily opening Germany's borders may have been a mistake.
Overall, I don't think we have a place in an EU which is going to be so focused on the Eurozone, Schengen and the accompanying infrastructure to support both. We're the sixth largest economy in the world. We're a member of NATO, we're a permanent member of the security council, we have an independent nuclear deterrent. We are not Luxembourg or Belgium, who harbour well-founded historical fears of the Germans marching over the border. The EU has done a remarkable job of maintaining the peace in Europe, and the smaller countries will always feel they "need" the protection this body brings by making it inconceivable that Europe could go to war again. We don't need any of this. If it was solely a single market, I'd be all for it. But it isn't, it's not going to be and the risks of staying outweigh the risks of leaving.
Some interesting polls post the reform package tonight:
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 36% (-2)
Leave: 45% (+3)
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)
The Prime Minister's EU deal...
Goes too far: 4%
Is about right: 17%
Doesn't go far enough: 56%
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)
On the Prime Minister's EU reform package:
A good deal: 22%
A bad deal: 46%
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)
When did Leave amass that sort of lead? That suggests even before now it was leading by four, but I was under the impression Remain had a narrow lead.
No, leave was up in the last one before the deal.
This is a quality debate. Well. It isn't really. But the fucking state of that Labour geezer (they bill him as Conservative for some reason). I wanted to lamp him just watching it, so I expect Daniel Hannan is still screaming into a bin somewhere.
It seems YouGov's results are very different to other pollsters. They must be wording the question differently.
Phone polls suggest a significant "Remain" lead. Given the shambolic performance of polls in the run-up to the election, you can't really place too much stock in them. That said, they will affect the political and media narrative so a "Leave" lead will push the discussion more towards what might happen in those circumstances. If "Leave" is to win, it would need a huge lead now given it will inevitably be whittled away in the months ahead. They need to present "Remain" as being the far riskier option, which is going to be very difficult to do given they can't even get themselves organised properly.
It's quite galling to see senior political figures compromising their principles on an issue of such importance to secure their careers and future advancement. It was ever thus, I suppose.
Jimmy will probably correct me but I think polls for referendum are likely to be more accurate than ones with loads of constituencies and multiple options. Especially if they have the actual question to be asked. The Scottish referendum polls were pretty bang on in the end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
