You don't have to be in the Leave column to believe we should have an honest debate, and to see the Remain side has been riddled with false claims.
Both sides make false, or debatable, or highly-simplified claims. The most egregious of those is the claim by many on the Leave side that we can have everything we want with zero downside, i.e. that there are no trade-offs at all between (say) free movement of labour and access to the Single Market. They also claim utterly absurd things on the detail, such as the claim that Norway has as much say in EU regulations as full members of the EU have.
I'd rule out all ambitious Conservatives: "He who wields the dagger never wears the crown".
I'd rule out Nigel Farage unless it is intended that the Leave campaign is intended to boost UKIP's electoral chances rather than the other way around. ...
I'd prefer an experienced hasbeen politician to a businessman. Lord Lawson wouldn't be bad and nor would Michael Portillo. While both have an abundance of history to deal with, both have a perfectly sane persona. It would, however, be better to have an old-school Labour politician if at all possible - there isn't an obvious route to Leave without Labour voters coming on board in significant numbers. Kate Hoey isn't quite prominent enough. If Frank Field could be inveigled to do it, he would be better.
I'm not betting on this one. It seems far from clear that the choice is going to be made on a rational basis rather than to appease the clashing egos of the multifarious Leave campaigners.
How can leave have a clear idea when it's a mixed pot of various groups which if left to their own divices would happily disagree on everything. All leave can do is disrupt the country and 'leave' the clearing up of the mess to someone else. The likely result of a leave would be negotiations about how to to leave with some EU body, leading who knows where. No one can tell and no one can know who or what political party would be involved,or whether any resulting agreement could get through parliament. The leading possibility however would be the EEA and thus various politicians and govts over the years effectively following the EU line as being the beat way to sustain our industrial and financial base. Norway's referendums voted not to join but Norwegian governments do their best to be defacto in the EU. I do not see the UK being much different, especially with a labour govt.
Errr, you do know the mechanism for leaving the EU is set out in the Lisbon Treaty don't you? Whilst it is true that no one can know what the result of such negotiations would be who will be conducting them is firmly settled - it will be HMG.
Which HMG would that be? Who would be PM? Who would determine our objectives? What would parliament agree to? We would negotiate with some EU committee. Who or what would be on it? What would the results be? How can anyone possibly know? How can anyone who votes 'leave' be at all sure that following that vote the outcome will be as they imagine or were promised by whichever faction of Leave they were listening to at the time.
I'd rule out all ambitious Conservatives: "He who wields the dagger never wears the crown".
I'd rule out Nigel Farage unless it is intended that the Leave campaign is intended to boost UKIP's electoral chances rather than the other way around. ...
I'd prefer an experienced hasbeen politician to a businessman. Lord Lawson wouldn't be bad and nor would Michael Portillo. While both have an abundance of history to deal with, both have a perfectly sane persona. It would, however, be better to have an old-school Labour politician if at all possible - there isn't an obvious route to Leave without Labour voters coming on board in significant numbers. Kate Hoey isn't quite prominent enough. If Frank Field could be inveigled to do it, he would be better.
I'm not betting on this one. It seems far from clear that the choice is going to be made on a rational basis rather than to appease the clashing egos of the multifarious Leave campaigners.
How can leave have a clear idea when it's a mixed pot of various groups which if left to their own divices would happily disagree on everything. All leave can do is disrupt the country and 'leave' the clearing up of the mess to someone else. The likely result of a leave would be negotiations about how to to leave with some EU body, leading who knows where. No one can tell and no one can know who or what political party would be involved,or whether any resulting agreement could get through parliament. The leading possibility however would be the EEA and thus various politicians and govts over the years effectively following the EU line as being the beat way to sustain our industrial and financial base. Norway's referendums voted not to join but Norwegian governments do their best to be defacto in the EU. I do not see the UK being much different, especially with a labour govt.
Errr, you do know the mechanism for leaving the EU is set out in the Lisbon Treaty don't you? Whilst it is true that no one can know what the result of such negotiations would be who will be conducting them is firmly settled - it will be HMG.
Which HMG would that be? Who would be PM? Who would determine our objectives? What would parliament agree to? We would negotiate with some EU committee. Who or what would be on it? What would the results be? How can anyone possibly know? How can anyone who votes 'leave' be at all sure that following that vote the outcome will be as they imagine or were promised by whichever faction of Leave they were listening to at the time.
What explicitly would Pariament need to consent to? The people will have voted to leave, so there isn't really much to negotiate on. What comes after is another matter, and not part of the leave process.
I'll do my best to make a decision on EU membership with my head rather than heart. But nothing pushes me more instinctively towards Leave than people like antifrank and Richard_Nabavi constantly saying the other side of the debate lack sentience or howl at the moon. The way the pro-membership side loves to call their opponents imbecilic, when often the sceptics have been right, just reminds me how elitist and groupthink-focused the EU and its supporters are. An institution that will not treat criticisms with respect is one that is doomed to fail.
Conversely, exposure to the batshit mental conspiracy theories and wild-eyed accusations of lying that the Leave campaign has started with pushes me instinctively towards Remain. I don't want to throw in my lot with nutters.
Then I encounter the arrogance, the remoteness, the bureaucratic Eurocracy and their take-it-or-leave-it attitude and I'm equally repelled by that.
I'll be doing the opposite of AndyJS. Rather than weighing the evidence, I'll be following my heart. It will probably be on the day itself that I'll make my decision. Right now, both campaigns are being run spectacularly badly.
Just to confirm:
1. Norway pays the EU just as much as the UK per head? 2. Norway accepts three quarters of EU rules? 3. Norway has no influence and is a fax democracy?
I have a day job so I have no interest in wasting endless time analysing Norwegian laws to determine their provenance, nor in poring over Norway's accounts. It's enough to know that Norway pays a lot of money to the EU and has to accept a lot of EU rules. It's all entirely irrelevant to my decision anyway. If it blows your skirt up, keep going. I'm sure you'll make the 100% committed Leavers 101% committed. I doubt, however, whether you'll change a single uncommitted vote.
Given that the Eurosceptic headbangers have spent years telling us that Britain has no influence in the EU, it's a bit rich for them to complain when the same simplification is used against them in a different context.
A Norwegian Prime Minister described Norway as a fax democracy. It is entirely reasonable for the Remain camp to pick up on this phrase. Whether you agree with it is a matter for debate.
But again, I don't regard Norway's circumstances as very relevant to Britain's.
You just get more and more abusive with time, don't you?
I'm not going to pretend to a respect for the wildest Leavers that I don't have. I haven't noticed anyone holding back in expressing their views about me or my views and nor would I ask them to.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
I'd rule out all ambitious Conservatives: "He who wields the dagger never wears the crown".
I'd rule out Nigel Farage unless it is intended that the Leave campaign is intended to boost UKIP's electoral chances rather than the other way around.
Leave need to persuade the public of two things: first, that they have a fairly clear idea what comes next if the public votes Leave or at the very least will be able to work out something sensible should the occasion arise; secondly, that they are not barking mad. So they need someone manifestly sensible. If I'm wrong about the ambitious Conservatives, Theresa May would fit the role better than Boris Johnson for this reason.
I'd prefer an experienced hasbeen politician to a businessman. Lord Lawson wouldn't be bad and nor would Michael Portillo. While both have an abundance of history to deal with, both have a perfectly sane persona. It would, however, be better to have an old-school Labour politician if at all possible - there isn't an obvious route to Leave without Labour voters coming on board in significant numbers. Kate Hoey isn't quite prominent enough. If Frank Field could be inveigled to do it, he would be better.
I'm not betting on this one. It seems far from clear that the choice is going to be made on a rational basis rather than to appease the clashing egos of the multifarious Leave campaigners.
How can leave have a clear idea when it's a mixed pot of various groups which if left to their own divices would happily disagree on everything. All leave can do is disrupt the country and 'leave' the clearing up of the mess to someone else. The likely result of a leave would be negotiations about how to to leave with some EU body, leading who knows where. No one can tell and no one can know who or what political party would be involved,or whether any resulting agreement could get through parliament. The leading possibility however would be the EEA and thus various politicians and govts over the years effectively following the EU line as being the beat way to sustain our industrial and financial base. Norway's referendums voted not to join but Norwegian governments do their best to be defacto in the EU. I do not see the UK being much different, especially with a labour govt.
People from all sorts of political backgrounds can agree that they wish to restore their country's independence.
What explicitly would Pariament need to consent to? The people will have voted to leave, so there isn't really much to negotiate on. What comes after is another matter, and not part of the leave process.
I don't think that's right, we'd start negotiating the new deal as soon as we'd sent the resignation letter in:
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
I'll do my best to make a decision on EU membership with my head rather than heart. ents imbecilic, when often the sceptics have been right, just reminds me how elitist and groupthink-focused the EU and its supporters are. An institution that will not treat criticisms with respect is one that is doomed to fail.
Conversely, exposure to the batshit mental conspiracy theories and wild-eyed accusations of lying that the Leave campaign has started with pushes me instinctively towards Remain. I don't want to throw in my lot with nutters.
Then I encounter the arrogance, the remoteness, the bureaucratic Eurocracy and their take-it-or-leave-it attitude and I'm equally repelled by that.
I'll be doing the opposite of AndyJS. Rather than weighing the evidence, I'll be following my heart. It will probably be on the day itself that I'll make my decision. Right now, both campaigns are being run spectacularly badly.
Just to confirm:
1. Norway pays the EU just as much as the UK per head? 2. Norway accepts three quarters of EU rules? 3. Norway has no influence and is a fax democracy?
I have a day job so I have no interest in wasting endless time analysing Norwegian laws to determine their provenance, nor in poring over Norway's accounts. It's enough to know that Norway pays a lot of money to the EU and has to accept a lot of EU rules. It's all entirely irrelevant to my decision anyway. If it blows your skirt up, keep going. I'm sure you'll make the 100% committed Leavers 101% committed. I doubt, however, whether you'll change a single uncommitted vote.
Given that the Eurosceptic headbangers have spent years telling us that Britain has no influence in the EU, it's a bit rich for them to complain when the same simplification is used against them in a different context.
A Norwegian Prime Minister described Norway as a fax democracy. It is entirely reasonable for the Remain camp to pick up on this phrase. Whether you agree with it is a matter for debate.
But again, I don't regard Norway's circumstances as very relevant to Britain's.
You just get more and more abusive with time, don't you?
I'm not going to pretend to a respect for the wildest Leavers that I don't have. I haven't noticed anyone holding back in expressing their views about me or my views and nor would I ask them to.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
haha "lightly" - not of course not read them at all!
The yellow card you mention (done with the connivance of the TMO), missing the late tackle (or foul, I don't think arms were used) on Hogg late on (and the penalty would've been from a kickable position), and the final penalty which should've been a scrum.
The first got Australia 7 points, the second meant no score for the Scots when they should've had 3, and the last cost Scotland 3 points. Getting any one of those three right would've seen Scotland rightfully win.
I'll do my best to make a decision on EU membership with my head rather than heart. But nothing pushes me more instinctively towards Leave than people like antifrank and Richard_Nabavi constantly saying the other side of the debate lack sentience or howl at the moon. The way the pro-membership side loves to call their opponents imbecilic, when often the sceptics have been right, just reminds me how elitist and groupthink-focused the EU and its supporters are. An institution that will not treat criticisms with respect is one that is doomed to fail.
For many years academics around the world enthusiastically supported communism and the Soviet Union.
Being an expert is not proof that a person has commonsense or moral groundedness. Quite the opposite, in fact, in all too many cases. As your Communism-loving academics have proved.
I'm not going to pretend to a respect for the wildest Leavers that I don't have. I haven't noticed anyone holding back in expressing their views about me or my views and nor would I ask them to.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
I think social norms of being polite to one another are something that should be respected, and for people who are being obnoxious to be called out for bad behaviour. That is all.
It's a bit of a disaster for Remain supporters that polls are showing it neck-and-neck as the YouGov survey did about a week ago. Things were supposed to be much more clear cut in their favour at this stage. I'm probably going to vote to stay in but I'm hoping it's as close as hell so that the bureaucrats in Brussels don't take us for granted.
Especially if remain are going to operate the same playbook as Project Fear did in the IndyRef which turned a 30 point lead into a 10 point win.
What explicitly would Pariament need to consent to? The people will have voted to leave, so there isn't really much to negotiate on. What comes after is another matter, and not part of the leave process.
I don't think that's right, we'd start negotiating the new deal as soon as we'd sent the resignation letter in:
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
You don't have to be in the Leave column to believe we should have an honest debate, and to see the Remain side has been riddled with false claims.
Both sides make false, or debatable, or highly-simplified claims. The most egregious of those is the claim by many on the Leave side that we can have everything we want with zero downside, i.e. that there are no trade-offs at all between (say) free movement of labour and access to the Single Market. They also claim utterly absurd things on the detail, such as the claim that Norway has as much say in EU regulations as full members of the EU have.
Can you cite a false claim made by someone from VoteLeave or a prominent MP connected to them? I haven't seen any, but perhaps I have missed them.
What explicitly would Pariament need to consent to? The people will have voted to leave, so there isn't really much to negotiate on. What comes after is another matter, and not part of the leave process.
I don't think that's right, we'd start negotiating the new deal as soon as we'd sent the resignation letter in:
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Well assuming the referendum takes place before the end of 2017 then the government is likely to a Conservative one. Though of course something may cause a general election between now and then, but that has nothing to do with the issue. Who would be PM? Your guess is as good as mine, who knows when Cameron may resign so again not a factor.
As to the outcome of the negotiations, nobody can know what they will be. The idea that one can vote to leave knowing what the future holds is fanciful. The process of leaving is, as I have said, set down in the Treaty. There will be negotiations, neither side will get everything it wants and some compromise will be reached. What I think we can be fairly certain of is that the EU will not want to give up its easy access to the for them large and profitable British market, tariff barriers are therefore very unlikely.
Of course, if one votes to stay in one cannot be certain of what the future holds either. The EU is changing, the Eurozone is going to get closer and more integrated and the UK will be outside of that. What that will mean in relation to our relationship and our influence we have no idea. However, the idea that a vote to remain is a vote for certainty and the status quo will remain is also fanciful.
My personal view is that one looks at the fundamentals and decides on those.
I'm not going to pretend to a respect for the wildest Leavers that I don't have. I haven't noticed anyone holding back in expressing their views about me or my views and nor would I ask them to.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
I think social norms of being polite to one another are something that should be respected, and for people who are being obnoxious to be called out for bad behaviour. That is all.
I think that you are trying to shut down debate on subjects that you regard as inconvenient for your world view, to inhibit people from expressing alternative views from those you approve of and delegitimising those you regard as political opponents. That to me is far more obnoxious than any words that other posters might choose to select.
The question put to the public isn't "should we leave and do X", it's "should we leave". I fail to see what Parliament has to agree to.
It has to agree the new deal. Strictly speaking I suppose the government could sign a new agreement without consulting parliament, but that seems unlikely.
Partly on topic, I'd expect there to be a considerable overlap between the general election result and the referendum result.
Scotland and Wales will vote Remain, overall. Greater London will vote for Remain, but Bexley, Bromley, Havering, and Hillingdon will vote Leave. Core cities and Merseyside will vote Remain, along with Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Brighton & Hove, Norwich, and Exeter.
Rural England, small cities, medium-sized towns, will vote Leave.
But, I think that some Labour-voting boroughs in South Wales, South Yorkshire, and the North East will vote Leave, while some Conservative-voting parts of the South East will vote Remain.
The question put to the public isn't "should we leave and do X", it's "should we leave". I fail to see what Parliament has to agree to.
It has to agree the new deal. Strictly speaking I suppose the government could sign a new agreement without consulting parliament, but that seems unlikely.
But surely that is seperate from leaving. If we couldn't get a deal are you suggesting we'd simply stay in, despite the vote to the contrary?
The EU's strategic direction is not in our interest. It's grasping ever more sovereignty and the eurozone bloc has a critical mass when it comes to QMV.
I also don't trust the EU to either honour promises it makes to us, or to have our interests at heart, or even to genuinely take our views and interests into account when making decisions.
There's also the ideologically-driven flaws of its most basic ideas (how's a single currency working now? Or freedom of movement?).
Leaving isn't some sort of magic bullet to the Land of Loveliness. But if it's a leap into the dark, it's from the first floor of a building that's on fire. And given the certainty of burning alive or the possibility of breaking my leg (or being fine), I'd far rather leap.
I'm not going to pretend to a respect for the wildest Leavers that I don't have. I haven't noticed anyone holding back in expressing their views about me or my views and nor would I ask them to.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
I think social norms of being polite to one another are something that should be respected, and for people who are being obnoxious to be called out for bad behaviour. That is all.
I think that you are trying to shut down debate on subjects that you regard as inconvenient for your world view, to inhibit people from expressing alternative views from those you approve of and delegitimising those you regard as political opponents. That to me is far more obnoxious than any words that other posters might choose to select.
The only things I am trying to shut down are insults and falsehoods. You seem to be unable to understand this distinction. I have criticised people like Richard_Tyndall, a eurosceptic, when he has been insulting too.
Can you cite a false claim made by someone from VoteLeave or a prominent MP connected to them? I haven't seen any, but perhaps I have missed them.
In that case you haven't been looking very hard. In a few minutes I found these:
From the VoteLeave official website: The European Commission is now planning the next EU Treaty to fix the euro’s problems. Every Treaty since the 1950s has given Brussels more power. The new Treaty is planned to take more power from EU members including power over taxes. An obvious 'lie' as you would put it, because of course the UK has a veto on any new treaty.
From Nigel Farage: “He’s [the US Trade Representative] clearly been paid to say that, hasn’t he? This is the big political club gathering around the Prime Minister who clearly is in desperate trouble with the referendum,”.
The question put to the public isn't "should we leave and do X", it's "should we leave". I fail to see what Parliament has to agree to.
It has to agree the new deal. Strictly speaking I suppose the government could sign a new agreement without consulting parliament, but that seems unlikely.
I maybe missing something here but isn't the point that the decision to leave comes first and that is what the referendum is about.
Partly on topic, I'd expect there to be a considerable overlap between the general election result and the referendum result.
Scotland and Wales will vote Remain, overall. Greater London will vote for Remain, but Bexley, Bromley, Havering, and Hillingdon will vote Leave. Core cities and Merseyside will vote Remain, along with Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Brighton & Hove, Norwich, and Exeter.
Rural England, small cities, medium-sized towns, will vote Leave.
But, I think that some Labour-voting boroughs in South Wales, South Yorkshire, and the North East will vote Leave, while some Conservative-voting parts of the South East will vote Remain.
Agree with all of that - I'm still thinking 55:45 to Remain. It will be based on politics of the GE plus economics.
It could be closer: the risk for Remain is that they "feel" a thumping win because they mix primarily with well-off ABs in London and the South-East but that this is not representative of the whole UK.
There are also two factors working against each other here: older voters for Leave against affluent professionals in AB for Remain.
I think that if the UK voted to Leave, there would be astonishment, closely followed by panic, in the government offices of various European and non-European capitals.
Watching the political bourgeoise being epate'ed would be quite fun........
It would be nice to think that our government might at least have some contingency plans in place and some plans for next steps e.g. what to do under the Lisbon Treaty, ideas for what to ask for etc., etc.,.
But surely that is seperate from leaving. If we couldn't get a deal are you suggesting we'd simply stay in, despite the vote to the contrary?
Presumably in that case the Lisbon Treaty provisions kick in, and after 2 years we are no longer in the EU and have no trade agreement with them at all, so no access to the Single Market other than that protected under the WTO. Pretty unthinkable in practice, of course.
The yellow card you mention (done with the connivance of the TMO), missing the late tackle (or foul, I don't think arms were used) on Hogg late on (and the penalty would've been from a kickable position), and the final penalty which should've been a scrum.
The first got Australia 7 points, the second meant no score for the Scots when they should've had 3, and the last cost Scotland 3 points. Getting any one of those three right would've seen Scotland rightfully win.
Oh dear lord - let it go or the gNats will be back on!
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
I think Farscape's coming back [as a film, and if it does well, perhaps a TV series], and there might are rumours Stargate may get rebooted [or, perhaps, carry on from the original film].
Mr. Pulpstar, her idiotic decision was obvious the moment she uttered it. It was the policy decision of slapping a crocodile in the face. Yes, there's a moment where you feel victorious, and then, a very short time later, you feel quite otherwise.
Mr. Royale, that's towards the lower end of my expectations. I'd be unsurprised if it were a fair bit more than that.
Differential turnout will be critical, and I agree with you on the social circles of media and politicians (cf the broadcast media going gooey over the migrant crisis, whilst most people think the Conservatives are being too soft).
Mr. Taffys, must disagree. That'll sway a lot of neutral, floating sorts who dislike the EU but are a bit wary of leaving.
Partly on topic, I'd expect there to be a considerable overlap between the general election result and the referendum result.
Scotland and Wales will vote Remain, overall. Greater London will vote for Remain, but Bexley, Bromley, Havering, and Hillingdon will vote Leave. Core cities and Merseyside will vote Remain, along with Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Brighton & Hove, Norwich, and Exeter.
Rural England, small cities, medium-sized towns, will vote Leave.
But, I think that some Labour-voting boroughs in South Wales, South Yorkshire, and the North East will vote Leave, while some Conservative-voting parts of the South East will vote Remain.
It all depends on turnout. I'd expect it to be low in Labour heartlands outside London - lower even than in the GE. And those who do vote in those areas are more likely to be Outers than Inners.
''I think that if the UK voted to Leave, there would be astonishment, closely followed by panic, in the government offices of various European and non-European capitals. Watching the political bourgeoise being epate'ed would be quite fun........ ''
This is why leave has a chance. Leave need to make this about the establishment in the UK and the EU.
They also could suggest that a leave vote could lead to a better offer for Britain down the line.
Well assuming the referendum takes place before the end of 2017 then the government is likely to a Conservative one. Though of course something may cause a general election between now and then, but that has nothing to do with the issue. Who would be PM? Your guess is as good as mine, who knows when Cameron may resign so again not a factor.
As to the outcome of the negotiations, nobody can know what they will be. The idea that one can vote to leave knowing what the future holds is fanciful. The process of leaving is, as I have said, set down in the Treaty. There will be negotiations, neither side will get everything it wants and some compromise will be reached. What I think we can be fairly certain of is that the EU will not want to give up its easy access to the for them large and profitable British market, tariff barriers are therefore very unlikely.
Of course, if one votes to stay in one cannot be certain of what the future holds either. The EU is changing, the Eurozone is going to get closer and more integrated and the UK will be outside of that. What that will mean in relation to our relationship and our influence we have no idea. However, the idea that a vote to remain is a vote for certainty and the status quo will remain is also fanciful.
My personal view is that one looks at the fundamentals and decides on those.
Mr Llama, we do not know what the outcome of any leave result would be. Some may well vote more with an anti Cameron anti Tory motive ... Who knows? Many predict all sorts of tpry splits over the referendum. How could anyone realistically expect a Remain PM or party to sensibly negotiate to leave anyway? The fact is no one can possibly know what the world would be like if we voted to leave. Correct that the EU is changing and that's why we need to negotiate and put the results to a referendum. I entirely agree with that. It's complicated by this being an IN/OUT referendum. According to what the results of that negotiation is then it may indeed be that we leave. But in leaving then at best we must not expect anything to be much different, other than being outside the politics of the EU.
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
Curiously, I find myself in agreement with most of that. I see the case for helping to resettle those who have arrived, *provided* we aren't giving an open-ended commitment to take an unlimited number of people in the future.
Can you cite a false claim made by someone from VoteLeave or a prominent MP connected to them? I haven't seen any, but perhaps I have missed them.
In that case you haven't been looking very hard. In a few minutes I found these:
From the VoteLeave official website: The European Commission is now planning the next EU Treaty to fix the euro’s problems. Every Treaty since the 1950s has given Brussels more power. The new Treaty is planned to take more power from EU members including power over taxes. An obvious 'lie' as you would put it, because of course the UK has a veto on any new treaty.
From Nigel Farage: “He’s [the US Trade Representative] clearly been paid to say that, hasn’t he? This is the big political club gathering around the Prime Minister who clearly is in desperate trouble with the referendum,”.
The ECJ has the power to meddle in the tax affairs of member states if it goes against the principle of the single market.
Associate membership will be included in the new treaty so we will not be vetoing it.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
Since my posts about the EU referendum have addressed to the Leave faithful, I'm naturally focussing on pointing out the Leave idiocies.
Since you want to hear some criticisms of Remain, here are mine. Remain's campaign to date has been completely irrelevant. I mean, Norway, I ask you. It's a completely different country - much smaller population, much richer, a completely different economy, a very different political landscape and with close neighbours that it is culturally far closer to than Britain is even with Ireland. That's just for starters.
Whatever relationship Britain would have with the EU hypothetically post-exit from the EU would look very different from Norway's, whatever that ultimate relationship would be.
What Remain need to talk about to get my attention is what the EU is going to stand for in future in British life. Right now they're making the exact same mistakes as Better Together; worse, in fact, because what they're saying isn't even particularly relevant.
The ECJ has the power to meddle in the tax affairs of member states if it goes against the principle of the single market.
Well, VoteLeave can't have it both ways. If the Commission are plotting a new treaty to fix the euro’s problems, which is what VoteLeave say (I agree, as it happens), then by definition we have a veto on it. That's good news, not bad news, as it gives us a lever, and we also have the referendum lock as an additional protection. If the argument is that they don't need a new treaty because the ECJ already have power to meddle, that is the diametrically opposite argument, implicitly contradicting what VoteLeave claim.
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
That's fair. I would be open to a conversation on that *provided* we fix the flow first.
Fixating on whether the other side is lying and using campaign time to try to prove it is probably not the best way to make your case. It will make your base happy, but leave the rest cold. I am undecided, but veering Remain having veered Leave. To veer back again I really want to know what happens should we vote to leave. That's what I want to know. I reckon I am pretty up on what the EU does and does not deliver.
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
Curiously, I find myself in agreement with most of that. I see the case for helping to resettle those who have arrived, *provided* we aren't giving an open-ended commitment to take an unlimited number of people in the future.
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
Curiously, I find myself in agreement with most of that. I see the case for helping to resettle those who have arrived, *provided* we aren't giving an open-ended commitment to take an unlimited number of people in the future.
Resettle those who arrive, and that's exactly what we'll be doing.
Where does one draw the line? Those who reach the UK before a certain date, or who have already made it?
Great. I love the new movies, but one criticism of them of lacking as much character of the previous movies is because they did not have the benefit of various seasons of tv show leading into them. I don't think that is entirely fair, but a new series, even though obviously not going to star the present lot, would give that to people who don't like the new movies.
I want them to cast an alternate Jean-Luc Picard as John-Luke Picard, a British guy with a french accent.
Though I must say, I've still not actually seen any original series episodes, so I'm the most loyal of Trek fans.
Mr. Flightpath, a while ago I wrote a guest blog for someone else about why Farscape is better than New Who, and most of it was because Who suffers from having so much lore. Likewise, Metal Gear Solid (not played 5, as yet) has so much backstory that even for people who've played preceding titles, it can feel like wading through treacle.
Would new Trek be in the alternate film universe, or the old one? When would it be set?
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
Since my posts about the EU referendum have addressed to the Leave faithful, I'm naturally focussing on pointing out the Leave idiocies.
Since you want to hear some criticisms of Remain, here are mine. Remain's campaign to date has been completely irrelevant. I mean, Norway, I ask you. It's a completely different country - much smaller population, much richer, a completely different economy, a very different political landscape and with close neighbours that it is culturally far closer to than Britain is even with Ireland. That's just for starters.
Whatever relationship Britain would have with the EU hypothetically post-exit from the EU would look very different from Norway's, whatever that ultimate relationship would be.
What Remain need to talk about to get my attention is what the EU is going to stand for in future in British life. Right now they're making the exact same mistakes as Better Together; worse, in fact, because what they're saying isn't even particularly relevant.
The problem for REMAIN is that, in order to convince you, they need to fess up that they want to remain... at the moment they are pretending to be open minded about it pending "renegotiation"
I think Farscape's coming back [as a film, and if it does well, perhaps a TV series], and there might are rumours Stargate may get rebooted [or, perhaps, carry on from the original film].
I can't say I'm optimistic about a Farscape revival/reboot doing well. It was variously quirky, weird and at times dark (and with Muppets of course), and feels like something with cult appeal, but not enough fans to sustain it further. It's not like Firefly, which people still bang on about even though it aired a lot less episodes.
I'd like them to redo the final two seasons of Babylon5 - knowing they had the time, they wouldn't have had to cut short the overall mytharc in S4 as they ended up doing.
I have for a long time, longer than most people on pb, advocated majoring on keeping the refugees in their current locales and supporting them there. Where I differ from most on pb is that I think that the UK should also do more supporting the migrants who have arrived.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
Curiously, I find myself in agreement with most of that. I see the case for helping to resettle those who have arrived, *provided* we aren't giving an open-ended commitment to take an unlimited number of people in the future.
Resettle those who arrive, and that's exactly what we'll be doing.
Where does one draw the line? Those who reach the UK before a certain date, or who have already made it?
I think one would have to go about it very carefully. If other European nations are to help out those nations that are bearing the brunt, and take asylum seekers, it would have to be on the basis that (a) there is a cut-off date (b) there's no question of family reunion (c) there's no question of enjoying any right to free movement to the EU member state of your choice (d) if your asylum claim is rejected you get repatriated forthwith.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Did anyone here watch "Freaks and Geeks"? Probably in my top 3 fav shows of all time, and I am sure many here will identify with the characters as they struggle through school as matheletes, star wars fans and dungeons and dragons players
Unfortunately it is stated as being a Kurtzman production which means it will be total shit. The only thing that will make it worse would be Orci involved as well.
Fixating on whether the other side is lying and using campaign time to try to prove it is probably not the best way to make your case. It will make your base happy, but leave the rest cold. I am undecided, but veering Remain having veered Leave. To veer back again I really want to know what happens should we vote to leave. That's what I want to know. I reckon I am pretty up on what the EU does and does not deliver.
I can report from Expat Spain that to a person the residents are very nervous about Brexit. they are mostly as you might expect unhappy with the EU [as indeed are many locals to be fair]. however, they fear about healthcare, pensions, rights to stay etc, etc. They are a large block of voters and in a close race could even impact on the result. The Leave campaign seems to be largely deaf to their concerns.
Personally, I prefer new stuff. There are a lot of reboots and remakes, but lots of it seems like cashing in on nostalgia rather than creating new stuff.
@lindayueh: New #StarTrek Series Premieres Jan 2017 but only via CBS digital subscription video on demand+live streaming service https://t.co/qXMXhbF3od
Fixating on whether the other side is lying and using campaign time to try to prove it is probably not the best way to make your case. It will make your base happy, but leave the rest cold. I am undecided, but veering Remain having veered Leave. To veer back again I really want to know what happens should we vote to leave. That's what I want to know. I reckon I am pretty up on what the EU does and does not deliver.
I can report from Expat Spain that to a person the residents are very nervous about Brexit. they are mostly as you might expect unhappy with the EU [as indeed are many locals to be fair]. however, they fear about healthcare, pensions, rights to stay etc, etc. They are a large block of voters and in a close race could even impact on the result. The Leave campaign seems to be largely deaf to their concerns.
I'm genuinely surprised by that, I'd have thought Spain would be bending over backwards to keep hold of the Brits on the Costas.
[Considering writing a one-off novel on that, actually. May have to wait a little while as I'm on book 2 of a trilogy and already have Sir Edric's fourth outing planned].
But who wouldn't want a series with the morality of Game of Thrones and the adventure of Star Wars, with a lead character who's a bounty huntress pirate cyborg in space?
Edited extra bit: originally, to explain, it was going to much harder than the serial in Kraxon, but I had to tone it down because the magazine's more or less family friendly.
Unfortunately it is stated as being a Kurtzman production which means it will be total shit. The only thing that will make it worse would be Orci involved as well.
Looking at his IMDB page, Fringe and Alias were pretty good for 3-4 seasons, Hawaii Five-0 is bog standard, Sleepy Hollow had a good first season (not seen the second), Scorpion is hilarious only in how terrible it is, and I haven't seen Limitless (think it's based off a movie?).
Not the greatest CV, but as a fan of the reboot, if someone else with talent gets involved day to day and he's more supervisory, I'm cautiously hopeful. To be frank, taken together, there's probably as much bad Trek as there is good Trek already.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
Since my posts about the EU referendum have addressed to the Leave faithful, I'm naturally focussing on pointing out the Leave idiocies.
Since you want to hear some criticisms of Remain, here are mine. Remain's campaign to date has been completely irrelevant. I mean, Norway, I ask you. It's a completely different country - much smaller population, much richer, a completely different economy, a very different political landscape and with close neighbours that it is culturally far closer to than Britain is even with Ireland. That's just for starters.
Whatever relationship Britain would have with the EU hypothetically post-exit from the EU would look very different from Norway's, whatever that ultimate relationship would be.
What Remain need to talk about to get my attention is what the EU is going to stand for in future in British life. Right now they're making the exact same mistakes as Better Together; worse, in fact, because what they're saying isn't even particularly relevant.
The problem for REMAIN is that, in order to convince you, they need to fess up that they want to remain... at the moment they are pretending to be open minded about it pending "renegotiation"
That is a major presentational problem for them for now.
If I were David Cameron, I'd be looking to line up a couple of notable Eurocrats to tearfully beg Britain to stay, promising that they'd changed and that they understood the different path that Britain was going to walk on. You know, a bit like a disgraced tele-evangelist.
It's more likely we'll get said Eurocrats complacently telling us that *this* is a good deal for Britain and the EU and that we can now get on with the important business.
Fixating on whether the other side is lying and using campaign time to try to prove it is probably not the best way to make your case. It will make your base happy, but leave the rest cold. I am undecided, but veering Remain having veered Leave. To veer back again I really want to know what happens should we vote to leave. That's what I want to know. I reckon I am pretty up on what the EU does and does not deliver.
I can report from Expat Spain that to a person the residents are very nervous about Brexit. they are mostly as you might expect unhappy with the EU [as indeed are many locals to be fair]. however, they fear about healthcare, pensions, rights to stay etc, etc. They are a large block of voters and in a close race could even impact on the result. The Leave campaign seems to be largely deaf to their concerns.
I'm genuinely surprised by that, I'd have thought Spain would be bending over backwards to keep hold of the Brits on the Costas.
They probably will but expats want re-assurance from Britain and the vast majority are still UK citizens. That is what is singularly lacking - only uncertainty and when people are unsure they don't vote to change.
Mr. Flightpath, a while ago I wrote a guest blog for someone else about why Farscape is better than New Who, and most of it was because Who suffers from having so much lore. Likewise, Metal Gear Solid (not played 5, as yet) has so much backstory that even for people who've played preceding titles, it can feel like wading through treacle.
Would new Trek be in the alternate film universe, or the old one? When would it be set?
New Trek seems to be in the new universe. Who knows what it will be about. The 'new universe' is a jumping shark too many for me even if the films might be entertaining enough in themselves. It's all like trying to recreate say Dads Army. You can't. It's what it was when it was. Settled for it. Above all you cannot recreate the the actors and their interactions. The chemistry. I never really got into Farscape or the Stargate spin offs. All the acting seemed wooden to me. New Dr Who has good production values, but is steadily drifting into too much self regard. I have seen little of it lately. I'm getting a but fed up of the number of times the earth has been invaded by aliens without any seeming noticeable effect from one invasion to the next. Grand guignol can only take you so far.
@lindayueh: New #StarTrek Series Premieres Jan 2017 but only via CBS digital subscription video on demand+live streaming service https://t.co/qXMXhbF3od
"We are out of ideas, I know lets make a sequel to the remake of the sequel of x" The original fans would be in their 60's.
Mr. Flightpath, agree on the self-regard. Sometimes it seems written by fanboys, for fanboys. And that makes it even more perplexing how they buggered up Davros' character.
I can't help thinking it's time to wind up the James Bond franchise.
It's like getting The Return of Frodo, or Mockingjay's Daughter.
Casino Royale and Skyfall were right up there, Goldenye was also good.
Every Bond has a duff movie - Connery had Never Say Never Again, Roger Moore had Moonraker, Bronsan had Die Another Day, Niven, Lazenby and Dalton had all of theirs..
Instead of faffing about rebooting Star Trek, Farscape, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica...
...just make the other 5 seasons of Firefly
I've deliberately not started Firefly because I don't want the disappointment.
It made little sense, was ok, but had a great wrap up movie. Given the level of praise it gets, it would likely disappoint you at this point if it didn't cure someone's terminal disease
Personally, I prefer new stuff. There are a lot of reboots and remakes, but lots of it seems like cashing in on nostalgia rather than creating new stuff.
Well sure, but I'm in general not opposed to remakes and reboots, particularly where something has become outdated. Keeps modern day myths and settings alive for new generations (I felt like this was what they are trying with the new Star Wars, as it seems the new characters will get the canon reexplained to them '[the stories of the previous movies], they're all true' as Han put it, because some youngsters don't have the love for the non-animated movies older people do, due to the prequels not being beloved), and if you are just taking the broad strokes of a setting and doing whatever you want with it (I don't actually want a new Picard), it can feel new again.
New stuff, new concepts, are certainly to be welcomed, but that stuff will still get made amid all the nostalgia bait stuff, and find an audience if it is good.
There are limits though. As much as I like Sherlock Holmes stories, a few years back it seemed Holmes or pastiches of him had tv shows and movies being done all the bloody time.
On topic, I know they have defined it, but the idea of a single person 'leading' the Out campaign just doesn't sound right, I cannot imagine the various players harmonising to that extent.
Comments
Mr. Flightpath, he's a successful British businessman, though I'm sure those criticisms would be levelled if he stuck his head above the parapet.
Leave = Northern Hemisphere team ?
Remain = Australia
Whoever wins we lose.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34700104
Trigger for a second referendum for sure.
No one is obliging you to engage with me. If alternative viewpoints upset you too much, you can always skip lightly over my posts.
The worse decision was the Yellow Card for the knock on earlier on in the match, which was scandalously poor.
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union
In practice it would be complete chaos to do things any other way.
The yellow card you mention (done with the connivance of the TMO), missing the late tackle (or foul, I don't think arms were used) on Hogg late on (and the penalty would've been from a kickable position), and the final penalty which should've been a scrum.
The first got Australia 7 points, the second meant no score for the Scots when they should've had 3, and the last cost Scotland 3 points. Getting any one of those three right would've seen Scotland rightfully win.
Who would have backed Sir Stuart Rose?
Well assuming the referendum takes place before the end of 2017 then the government is likely to a Conservative one. Though of course something may cause a general election between now and then, but that has nothing to do with the issue. Who would be PM? Your guess is as good as mine, who knows when Cameron may resign so again not a factor.
As to the outcome of the negotiations, nobody can know what they will be. The idea that one can vote to leave knowing what the future holds is fanciful. The process of leaving is, as I have said, set down in the Treaty. There will be negotiations, neither side will get everything it wants and some compromise will be reached. What I think we can be fairly certain of is that the EU will not want to give up its easy access to the for them large and profitable British market, tariff barriers are therefore very unlikely.
Of course, if one votes to stay in one cannot be certain of what the future holds either. The EU is changing, the Eurozone is going to get closer and more integrated and the UK will be outside of that. What that will mean in relation to our relationship and our influence we have no idea. However, the idea that a vote to remain is a vote for certainty and the status quo will remain is also fanciful.
My personal view is that one looks at the fundamentals and decides on those.
Scotland and Wales will vote Remain, overall. Greater London will vote for Remain, but Bexley, Bromley, Havering, and Hillingdon will vote Leave. Core cities and Merseyside will vote Remain, along with Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Brighton & Hove, Norwich, and Exeter.
Rural England, small cities, medium-sized towns, will vote Leave.
But, I think that some Labour-voting boroughs in South Wales, South Yorkshire, and the North East will vote Leave, while some Conservative-voting parts of the South East will vote Remain.
The EU's strategic direction is not in our interest. It's grasping ever more sovereignty and the eurozone bloc has a critical mass when it comes to QMV.
I also don't trust the EU to either honour promises it makes to us, or to have our interests at heart, or even to genuinely take our views and interests into account when making decisions.
There's also the ideologically-driven flaws of its most basic ideas (how's a single currency working now? Or freedom of movement?).
Leaving isn't some sort of magic bullet to the Land of Loveliness. But if it's a leap into the dark, it's from the first floor of a building that's on fire. And given the certainty of burning alive or the possibility of breaking my leg (or being fine), I'd far rather leap.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-moral-case-for-a-tough-line-on-migration/
From the VoteLeave official website: The European Commission is now planning the next EU Treaty to fix the euro’s problems. Every Treaty since the 1950s has given Brussels more power. The new Treaty is planned to take more power from EU members including power over taxes. An obvious 'lie' as you would put it, because of course the UK has a veto on any new treaty.
From Nigel Farage: “He’s [the US Trade Representative] clearly been paid to say that, hasn’t he? This is the big political club gathering around the Prime Minister who clearly is in desperate trouble with the referendum,”.
Plus of course many leave voters do not think we will leave, even if they win. We would simply be offered another deal.
It could be closer: the risk for Remain is that they "feel" a thumping win because they mix primarily with well-off ABs in London and the South-East but that this is not representative of the whole UK.
There are also two factors working against each other here: older voters for Leave against affluent professionals in AB for Remain.
Both are high-turnout groups.
4/6 yes
11/10 no
New Star Trek TV Series Planned
http://bit.ly/1KTGB7F
Watching the political bourgeoise being epate'ed would be quite fun........
It would be nice to think that our government might at least have some contingency plans in place and some plans for next steps e.g. what to do under the Lisbon Treaty, ideas for what to ask for etc., etc.,.
We need an AND strategy. We need to deter new migrants (or more precisely, incentivise them to stay put) AND accommodate those who have already got to Europe. It is possible to close migrant routes: the former popularity of the Italian route has been entirely superseded. The Spanish are much less troubled than they were a few years ago. But new routes can open up. For example, travelling through Georgia and Ukraine sounds grim to us but might look more attractive to the desperate.
It would be good to hear less about how to stop migrants in transit (I'm not automatically opposed to turning back boats, though the politics with Turkey would need very careful handling if we were not to hack off a country that could cause us a world of pain with migrants) and more about how we can help them build a new life where they currently are. That is where the EU has failed most comprehensively and where, to be fair, Britain has done as well as any nation. Much more needs to be done.
Wasn't a fan of the last series, though.
I think Farscape's coming back [as a film, and if it does well, perhaps a TV series], and there might are rumours Stargate may get rebooted [or, perhaps, carry on from the original film].
Mr. Pulpstar, her idiotic decision was obvious the moment she uttered it. It was the policy decision of slapping a crocodile in the face. Yes, there's a moment where you feel victorious, and then, a very short time later, you feel quite otherwise.
Mr. Royale, that's towards the lower end of my expectations. I'd be unsurprised if it were a fair bit more than that.
Differential turnout will be critical, and I agree with you on the social circles of media and politicians (cf the broadcast media going gooey over the migrant crisis, whilst most people think the Conservatives are being too soft).
Mr. Taffys, must disagree. That'll sway a lot of neutral, floating sorts who dislike the EU but are a bit wary of leaving.
Watching the political bourgeoise being epate'ed would be quite fun........ ''
This is why leave has a chance. Leave need to make this about the establishment in the UK and the EU.
They also could suggest that a leave vote could lead to a better offer for Britain down the line.
The fact is no one can possibly know what the world would be like if we voted to leave.
Correct that the EU is changing and that's why we need to negotiate and put the results to a referendum. I entirely agree with that. It's complicated by this being an IN/OUT referendum. According to what the results of that negotiation is then it may indeed be that we leave.
But in leaving then at best we must not expect anything to be much different, other than being outside the politics of the EU.
Associate membership will be included in the new treaty so we will not be vetoing it.
Since you want to hear some criticisms of Remain, here are mine. Remain's campaign to date has been completely irrelevant. I mean, Norway, I ask you. It's a completely different country - much smaller population, much richer, a completely different economy, a very different political landscape and with close neighbours that it is culturally far closer to than Britain is even with Ireland. That's just for starters.
Whatever relationship Britain would have with the EU hypothetically post-exit from the EU would look very different from Norway's, whatever that ultimate relationship would be.
What Remain need to talk about to get my attention is what the EU is going to stand for in future in British life. Right now they're making the exact same mistakes as Better Together; worse, in fact, because what they're saying isn't even particularly relevant.
Otherwise there will be no end to it.
Where does one draw the line? Those who reach the UK before a certain date, or who have already made it?
Jim McMahon
Mohammed Azam
Chris Williamson
Jane East
https://t.co/pALGzUZ3kQ
I want them to cast an alternate Jean-Luc Picard as John-Luke Picard, a British guy with a french accent.
Though I must say, I've still not actually seen any original series episodes, so I'm the most loyal of Trek fans.
Would new Trek be in the alternate film universe, or the old one? When would it be set?
I'd like them to redo the final two seasons of Babylon5 - knowing they had the time, they wouldn't have had to cut short the overall mytharc in S4 as they ended up doing.
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Great show
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0193676/
Personally, I prefer new stuff. There are a lot of reboots and remakes, but lots of it seems like cashing in on nostalgia rather than creating new stuff.
...just make the other 5 seasons of Firefly
But.. on the whole.. it'll fill a few dark evenings
[Considering writing a one-off novel on that, actually. May have to wait a little while as I'm on book 2 of a trilogy and already have Sir Edric's fourth outing planned].
But who wouldn't want a series with the morality of Game of Thrones and the adventure of Star Wars, with a lead character who's a bounty huntress pirate cyborg in space?
Edited extra bit: originally, to explain, it was going to much harder than the serial in Kraxon, but I had to tone it down because the magazine's more or less family friendly.
Not the greatest CV, but as a fan of the reboot, if someone else with talent gets involved day to day and he's more supervisory, I'm cautiously hopeful. To be frank, taken together, there's probably as much bad Trek as there is good Trek already.
If I were David Cameron, I'd be looking to line up a couple of notable Eurocrats to tearfully beg Britain to stay, promising that they'd changed and that they understood the different path that Britain was going to walk on. You know, a bit like a disgraced tele-evangelist.
It's more likely we'll get said Eurocrats complacently telling us that *this* is a good deal for Britain and the EU and that we can now get on with the important business.
I didn't know there was a spin off, so I have avoided it by luck thus far. I will do so with intent from now on.
It's all like trying to recreate say Dads Army. You can't. It's what it was when it was. Settled for it. Above all you cannot recreate the the actors and their interactions. The chemistry.
I never really got into Farscape or the Stargate spin offs. All the acting seemed wooden to me.
New Dr Who has good production values, but is steadily drifting into too much self regard. I have seen little of it lately. I'm getting a but fed up of the number of times the earth has been invaded by aliens without any seeming noticeable effect from one invasion to the next. Grand guignol can only take you so far.
The original fans would be in their 60's.
I can't help thinking it's time to wind up the James Bond franchise.
It's like getting The Return of Frodo, or Mockingjay's Daughter.
Apparently the new Pan is execrable
Every Bond has a duff movie - Connery had Never Say Never Again, Roger Moore had Moonraker, Bronsan had Die Another Day, Niven, Lazenby and Dalton had all of theirs..
New stuff, new concepts, are certainly to be welcomed, but that stuff will still get made amid all the nostalgia bait stuff, and find an audience if it is good.
There are limits though. As much as I like Sherlock Holmes stories, a few years back it seemed Holmes or pastiches of him had tv shows and movies being done all the bloody time.
On topic, I know they have defined it, but the idea of a single person 'leading' the Out campaign just doesn't sound right, I cannot imagine the various players harmonising to that extent.