politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remain’s long term problems

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remain’s long term problems

One of the most interesting aspects of this referendum campaign is David Cameron ignoring Harold Wilson’s precedent of sitting out an In/Out EC/EU referendum. The reason for the breaking this precedent might be that Remain doesn’t have anyone of the stature or relative popularity of David Cameron to front them.

Read the full story here

JackW

No Comment ....

JackW

There are now two comments ,,,,,

Tim_B

Make that three....

JackW

Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

50 hours 50 minutes 50 seconds

tlg86

"I suspect some of the more passionate Tory Leavers’ frustration and anger is in part based on the regret David Cameron isn’t fronting the Leave side, deep down they know he would be using similar strategy and tactics for Leave."

Does this mean you think that Obama's comments are insincere? I'm trying to imagine the President of USA telling Britain to vote to leave the EU...and then the reaction from other EU leaders!

Pulpstar

Tim_B said:

Remember the attention given to Hillary's $230k speeches to Goldman Sachs et al? Bernie's still doing it.

Its just come out what her speech demands are in addition to the fee -

she must travel to/from the event in a private jet, preferably a Gulfstream 450
First class air tickets for her staff
a personal stenographer to record her remarks verbatim
Presidential suite (up to 3 rooms)

The AP has done an analysis of her paid speeches, and it shows lamentable judgment, but nothing illegal.

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton went round giving paid speeches all over the world while she was S of S, which coupled with all the contributions to the murky Clinton Foundation is equally troubling.

Charity Navigator will not rate the Foundation, as it doesn't function like a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vxv9IzArLIU

Only today did Hillary say in an interview that she is a normal person just like you -even though she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

Remain - bought and paid for, just like Hillary.

CarlottaVance

Interesting thread TSE- but it's a bit more "Mystic Meg" than Prof Curtice! Or have you written it to cheer up our grumpy and irascible LEAVErs?

Bagehot in the Economist:

Because as defeatist, paranoid and neuralgic as the hard-line Brexiteers are, their resolve seems strong and sincere. They have their excuses at the ready in the event of a Remain win. They will fight on, perhaps as part of a swollen UKIP, perhaps within a newly Eurosceptic Conservative Party, or perhaps as some new political force outside the existing party landscape altogether. Britain’s referendum throws many political realities up in the air. But one thing is for sure: whatever the outcome the Brexiteers will still be with us.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21697259-diehard-eurosceptics-leave-campaign-national-liberation-movement-b-brexit?force=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/bforbrexit

Sandpit

Good article. I think the dissatisfaction with Cameron is that he has gone so hard and early in the campaign, and appears not to care if he leaves behind a massive split in his own party as his legacy so long as the referendum is won.

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

Tim_B said:

Remember the attention given to Hillary's $230k speeches to Goldman Sachs et al? Bernie's still doing it.

Its just come out what her speech demands are in addition to the fee -

she must travel to/from the event in a private jet, preferably a Gulfstream 450
First class air tickets for her staff
a personal stenographer to record her remarks verbatim
Presidential suite (up to 3 rooms)

The AP has done an analysis of her paid speeches, and it shows lamentable judgment, but nothing illegal.

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton went round giving paid speeches all over the world while she was S of S, which coupled with all the contributions to the murky Clinton Foundation is equally troubling.

Charity Navigator will not rate the Foundation, as it doesn't function like a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vxv9IzArLIU

Only today did Hillary say in an interview that she is a normal person just like you -even though she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

Remain - bought and paid for, just like Hillary.

The Democrats really need to find a way of putting Sanders up against Trump, as Hillary isn't going to last five minutes against him.

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

old_labour

Corbyn said he spoke very briefly on the subject of Europe with Obama. Decent of him not to intrude on the private grief of others.

Innocent_Abroad

A prominent Peebie Leaver compares his team to the IRA?

CarlottaVance

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Trump knows how it works, seeing as he's done the corrupting himself too

Tim_B

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Tim_B said:

Remember the attention given to Hillary's $230k speeches to Goldman Sachs et al? Bernie's still doing it.

Its just come out what her speech demands are in addition to the fee -

she must travel to/from the event in a private jet, preferably a Gulfstream 450
First class air tickets for her staff
a personal stenographer to record her remarks verbatim
Presidential suite (up to 3 rooms)

The AP has done an analysis of her paid speeches, and it shows lamentable judgment, but nothing illegal.

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton went round giving paid speeches all over the world while she was S of S, which coupled with all the contributions to the murky Clinton Foundation is equally troubling.

Charity Navigator will not rate the Foundation, as it doesn't function like a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vxv9IzArLIU

Only today did Hillary say in an interview that she is a normal person just like you -even though she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Prevailing view right now is that Hillary beats Trump in the general. Polls support this. It's early days. Clinton will have plenty of oppo research to unleash. Of course, so will Trump, who has made it clear that if Hillary pulls the woman act, (which is pretty much all she has), her husband and his philandering are fair game. Bill is not the slam dunk she hoped for - he looks old, his voice has gone, and he wanders off message. He appears not to be the vote magnet Hillary expected.

With 7 months to go the candidates and pacs have raised $1.1 billion. With firepower like that who knows what effect it may have.

Tim_B

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Trump knows how it works, seeing as he's done the corrupting himself too

Really? Do tell.

TCPoliticalBetting

An interesting article without rancour TSE.

Robert_Of_Sheffield

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

TCPoliticalBetting

But, will the Labour, SNP, Lib dem and Green voters turn out and vote for a campaign fronted by Cameron? If June 23rd is against a backdrop of an unpopular Govt, then Cameron and Osborne will be a negative.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Tim_B said:

Remember the attention given to Hillary's $230k speeches to Goldman Sachs et al? Bernie's still doing it.

Its just come out what her speech demands are in addition to the fee -

she must travel to/from the event in a private jet, preferably a Gulfstream 450
First class air tickets for her staff
a personal stenographer to record her remarks verbatim
Presidential suite (up to 3 rooms)

The AP has done an analysis of her paid speeches, and it shows lamentable judgment, but nothing illegal.

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton went round giving paid speeches all over the world while she was S of S, which coupled with all the contributions to the murky Clinton Foundation is equally troubling.

Charity Navigator will not rate the Foundation, as it doesn't function like a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vxv9IzArLIU

Only today did Hillary say in an interview that she is a normal person just like you -even though she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

Remain - bought and paid for, just like Hillary.

Domestic first class in the US is barely tolerable. Fair enough to ask for it for her staff

Sandpit

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

edmundintokyo

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

What are you suggesting the (hypothetically victorious) remainers do specifically?

Most of this stuff is really not possible to triangulate. The main goal of leave people is to stop foreigners from other parts of the EU from moving around freely. This is a core goal of the EU. The EU isn't going to change it.

AlastairMeeks

Never mind the Tory civil war, what on earth is going on at the Mail group? The Mail on Sunday seems to be taking a diametrically opposed approach to the referendum from the Daily Mail.

TCPoliticalBetting

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

Agreed.

JackW

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting article without rancour TSE.

Is that an "R" in the month Woy Jenkins comment?

TCPoliticalBetting

AlastairMeeks said:

Never mind the Tory civil war, what on earth is going on at the Mail group? The Mail on Sunday seems to be taking a diametrically opposed approach to the referendum from the Daily Mail.

It has been more leftie than the DM for sometime. Geordie Greig is the MOS Editor.

CD13

Portillo raised an interesting point last week, expressing surprise that Cameron had so obviously lied about being open to supporting leave if negotiations didn't go well. It gave Livingstone a chance to laugh at Port-a-loo's naivety.

I don't vote Tory, but I did give Cameron some grudging respect as a man who believed in some of his more liberal policies and indeed, in the NHS (as far as politicians can be honest).

I suspect Livingstone has this right, though.

Cameron - the man of many faces (as in GoT)? He certainly believes in the EU, which means he lied to the voters last year when raising the possibility of being open to persuasion. Unfortunately, when part of your shtick is being honest, the fall is deeper. Just another lying politician, who says anything to get your vote.

Jezza may be a loon, but he's honest (ish).

Oh, and I've no doubt Remain will win. By hook or by crook. Just like 1975.

Sandpit

Tim_B said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Tim_B said:

Remember the attention given to Hillary's $230k speeches to Goldman Sachs et al? Bernie's still doing it.

Its just come out what her speech demands are in addition to the fee -


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton went round giving paid speeches all over the world while she was S of S, which coupled with all the contributions to the murky Clinton Foundation is equally troubling.

Charity Navigator will not rate the Foundation, as it doesn't function like a charity.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vxv9IzArLIU

Only today did Hillary say in an interview that she is a normal person just like you -even though she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Prevailing view right now is that Hillary beats Trump in the general. Polls support this. It's early days. Clinton will have plenty of oppo research to unleash. Of course, so will Trump, who has made it clear that if Hillary pulls the woman act, (which is pretty much all she has), her husband and his philandering are fair game. Bill is not the slam dunk she hoped for - he looks old, his voice has gone, and he wanders off message. He appears not to be the vote magnet Hillary expected.

With 7 months to go the candidates and pacs have raised $1.1 billion. With firepower like that who knows what effect it may have.

Agree with you on the current position of the two candidates, but as you say there's a long long way to go until November.

Trump is clearly intelligent, and will change/tone down the rhetoric as his focus changes. He's also now hired some political advisers rather than being a one man band.

Hilary is the ultimate machine politician, who has been able to shrug off a lot of the stories so far, but I wonder how that machine will get on against such an unconventional and unpredictable opponent?

AFAIK neither Trump nor Sanders have gone down the "Super Pac" route of raising money in the hundreds of millions, I wonder how many Sanders supports Trump will be able to attract based on them sharing the desire to get the money out of politics? Are the Amercian people as fed up with conventional politicians as someone watching from the outside half a world away seems to think they are..?

edmundintokyo

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

The right would have to be epically mad to no-confidence someone who was about to go anyway. What if he wins the vote? He might as well say, "Sod it, I'll stay." Then if they vote him down in Parliament they get deselected, and he wins a new term against Corbyn.

Cameron's real problem is just going to be his general lame-duck status. He can stay in office but it's going to be hard to get anything done and everyone's going to be busy maneuvring for the succession.

felix

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

I see zero chance that the EU will push for further integration anytime soon, beyond the countries in the eurozone and precious little even then. I'm equally sure that Cameron will be magnanimous in victory if he wins and that most in the party will back him. I'm 100% sure that this and similar posts will be howled down on here.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

More polling on Obama's condescension would be of use.

CarlottaVance

AlastairMeeks said:

Never mind the Tory civil war, what on earth is going on at the Mail group? The Mail on Sunday seems to be taking a diametrically opposed approach to the referendum from the Daily Mail.

Or the Sunday Telegraph- radio silence on the front page but the Business section has "BREXIT fears hit investment and slow economy"

Pulpstar

Tim_B said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Trump knows how it works, seeing as he's done the corrupting himself too

Really? Do tell.

He's made plenty of payments to Hillary and others down the years... a necessary move if you run a big business

JackW

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

Which Conservative MP's will vote against their own government in a confidence measure, little more than a year after securing an unexpected majority. Even Peter Bone has said if REMAIN wins then that's it warts and all.

Rebelling against the Paint Drying On The Wall (Bored To Death) Scotland Bill is one thing but bringing down your own government in a nuclear toys out of the pram moment is so far off the scale as to be considered in the same breath as SeanT saying he wants to be front of the queue to lick David Cameron's arse from here to eternity and pay good money to do so.

edmundintokyo

felix said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

I see zero chance that the EU will push for further integration anytime soon, beyond the countries in the eurozone and precious little even then. I'm equally sure that Cameron will be magnanimous in victory if he wins and that most in the party will back him. I'm 100% sure that this and similar posts will be howled down on here.

The EU will continue to integrate but it'll mostly be at the Schengen and Eurozone level, not the full EU. The exceptions will be gradual bedding in of existing systems, like people getting more used to the EU Parliament elections being de-facto EU Commision President elections.

Sandpit

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

The right would have to be epically mad to no-confidence someone who was about to go anyway. What if he wins the vote? He might as well say, "Sod it, I'll stay." Then if they vote him down in Parliament they get deselected, and he wins a new term against Corbyn.

Cameron's real problem is just going to be his general lame-duck status. He can stay in office but it's going to be hard to get anything done and everyone's going to be busy maneuvring for the succession.

I agree that the sensible course of action would be for the disaffected MPs to abstain from votes or resign the whip with constituency support, but given the level of dissatisfaction and the ease with which the party allows Regicide he will have some serious reuniting to do in July.

OldKingCole

felix said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

I see zero chance that the EU will push for further integration anytime soon, beyond the countries in the eurozone and precious little even then. I'm equally sure that Cameron will be magnanimous in victory if he wins and that most in the party will back him. I'm 100% sure that this and similar posts will be howled down on here.

Agree with your first sentence, Mr F. As for the second, I doubt it very much. He'll only be magnamimous if he sees advantage in it; equally likely in my view that he'll but the boot in hard. He's a bully after all.

Morris_Dancer

Speaking of polling [/seamlesssegue], just put up a little ramble about timing a trilogy, with a Twitter poll link:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/timing-trilogy.html

Not an academic exercise, as I'm writing a trilogy and self-publishing remains the likeliest option, so a moment to vote (whether on Twitter or in the comments) would be hugely appreciated.

Sandpit

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

Which Conservative MP's will vote against their own government in a confidence measure, little more than a year after securing an unexpected majority. Even Peter Bone has said if REMAIN wins then that's it warts and all.

Rebelling against the Paint Drying On The Wall (Bored To Death) Scotland Bill is one thing but bringing down your own government in a nuclear toys out of the pram moment is so far off the scale as to be considered in the same breath as SeanT saying he wants to be front of the queue to lick David Cameron's arse from here to eternity and pay good money to do so.

Mr W, my reference to a vote of confidence was to the mechanism of a vote on the confidence the Party has in the leader, rather than to a vote of confidence in the Government on the floor of the House.

I don't think the latest set of Bastards would go so far as to allow Mr Corbyn an audience with Her Majesty (long may she reign).

Tim_B

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

More polling on Obama's condescension would be of use.

It might be new to you but we've had over 7 years of it.

Obnoxious, isn't he?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B, he's got the unwarranted arrogance of an elf.

daodao

The result is likely to be 60/40 in favour of Remain and DC will be able to stay as PM until resigning (as he said he would) at a time of his own choosing by 2020. DC is a ruthless politician and the Tory leavers will be dead in the water.

If Remain win by his margin as now seems likely (and as I have always expected), there will never be another referendum about leaving the EU. The irreversible trend to ever closer union means that it will gradually become a United States of Europe (or EUSSR - take your pick) from which it will be impossible to resign, unless by some chance the organisation itself collapses, as the former USSR did in 1991. However, if the UK wishes to have a proportional influence in the running of the EU, then it has to participate fully and eventually join the Eurozone. Being a half-member is the worst of both worlds.

Talking to a younger relative last night, it is clear that the economic/co-operation arguments are particularly persuasive for Remain. I don't dispute the economic forecast that GO/The Treasury came up with last Monday - the economy will be larger in terms of total GDP in 2030 if Remain win, but only due to an additional 3 million immigrants - the GDP per capita won't be significantly different. Leave can't win the economic arguments or issues about trade agreements - they need to emphasise that a Remain win will lead to ever more dilution of Britain's character and increasing continental domination by Britain's traditional rivals (France and Germany) and ask people to consider these points when making their decision.

However, it is probably all over now bar the shouting and the actual vote.

MarqueeMark

Tim_B said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

More polling on Obama's condescension would be of use.

It might be new to you but we've had over 7 years of it.

Obnoxious, isn't he?

I wonder how the population of the nascent United States of America would have regarded advice from George III on the framing of their Constitution? Or perhaps the residents of Boston being "advised" that any arrangements for shipping of tea would be permanently at the bottom of his Government's in-tray?

CarlottaVance

Looks like we can add "woeful ignorance " to Obama's failings courtesy of LEAVE:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/barack-obamas-views-betray-a-woeful-ignorance-on-the-impact-of-t/

Scott_P

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

Except that's nonsense.

They expected Cameron to roll over, but they had no intention of fighting fair themselves. IDS resignation was a pure act of spite, designed to inflict maximum damage on Cameron. Not the act of an honourable man.

Leavers claim Cameron is weak and supine, but really they are just pissed he refuses to follow an agenda set by Bill Cash.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Daodao, I agree 60/40 remains (ahem) eminently plausible. However, that's the country. The Conservative split may well be similar, but in favour of Leaving, and Cameron's not made the party enamoured with his antics.

Scott_P

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Plato_Says

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

The right would have to be epically mad to no-confidence someone who was about to go anyway. What if he wins the vote? He might as well say, "Sod it, I'll stay." Then if they vote him down in Parliament they get deselected, and he wins a new term against Corbyn.

Cameron's real problem is just going to be his general lame-duck status. He can stay in office but it's going to be hard to get anything done and everyone's going to be busy maneuvring for the succession.

I see many parallels with Blairs demise accelerated by Watson et al - once it's known you're going, authority drains away remarkably quickly.

Never expected this to happen myself and wanted Cameron to stay on post referendum. Not now. Like many others, I don't trust him anymore.

Tim_B

Pulpstar said:

Tim_B said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Trump will have her on the ropes from Day 1 of the campaign portraying her as utterly corrupt, only interested in big money donors rather than the American people she claims to want to represent.

Trump knows how it works, seeing as he's done the corrupting himself too

Really? Do tell.

He's made plenty of payments to Hillary and others down the years... a necessary move if you run a big business

By 'payments' I think you mean 'political contributions', and that is deliberately misleading on your part. Businessmen typically contribute to multiple candidates of both parties. It's expected, accepted, perfectly legal and is NOT corruption.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. P, sure we do.

MarkHopkins

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

LOL. Yes of course that's going to happen.

/sarc

Sandpit

Scott_P said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

Except that's nonsense.

They expected Cameron to roll over, but they had no intention of fighting fair themselves. IDS resignation was a pure act of spite, designed to inflict maximum damage on Cameron. Not the act of an honourable man.

Leavers claim Cameron is weak and supine, but really they are just pissed he refuses to follow an agenda set by Bill Cash.

On the contrary, the resignation of IDS was the reaction of an honest and principled man at having his department taken over by the Treasury. It was a leading indicator of what was to come in the referendum campaign.

Scott_P

This is not a debate between two competing but mature visions of Britain's place in the world. It is a debate between adults and children.

On Monday, when presented with the £4,300 cost per household of Brexit, leading Out campaigner Arron Banks claimed it represented 'a bargain'.

On Tuesday, Michael Gove was asked to provide a vision for Britain outside the EU. He cited Albania.

On Wednesday, Nigel Farage raged that Barack Obama was the most 'anti-British' president in history.

On Thursday, Boris Johnson accused Obama of being a 'hypocrite'. Then followed up on Friday by branding him the 'part-Kenyan' president.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3555819/DAN-HODGES-Air-Force-One-landed-right-Brexiteers.html#ixzz46j4Zp4Q9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

daodao

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Daodao, I agree 60/40 remains (ahem) eminently plausible. However, that's the country. The Conservative split may well be similar, but in favour of Leaving, and Cameron's not made the party enamoured with his antics.

More Tory MPs support Remain than Leave. The Spectator on 16/2/16 reported that 163 were for Remain, 131 for Leave and 36 Don't Know.

Plato_Says

Tim_B said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

More polling on Obama's condescension would be of use.

It might be new to you but we've had over 7 years of it.

Obnoxious, isn't he?

I switch off or mute him, just awful as you say. He makes windbag Neil Kinnock look like a man of few words.

CD13

Mr Daoao,

Well put.

The other argument is that what the establishment want, the Establishment get, so there's no point in another referendum. A political union is inevitable as surely as night follows day.

As for the Tory party ... I see problems ahead. Cameron's "I'm a Tony Blair kinda guy" has taken a knock. I can't pretend I was likely to vote Tory, but having my prejudices solidified makes it even more unlikely. Jezza isn't forever, he's just for Christmas and maybe the next one.

The LDs, despite having their tongues firmly up the EU's bum are picking up slowly, and the Remain vote can only help Ukip.

Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide?

[Deleted User]

If a Remain vote does indeed show itself over time to have been a choice to join a one-way ratchet towards a Eurozone dominated superstate then we will have another referendum at some point - even if this one is 60/40.

Plato_Says

felix said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

I see zero chance that the EU will push for further integration anytime soon, beyond the countries in the eurozone and precious little even then. I'm equally sure that Cameron will be magnanimous in victory if he wins and that most in the party will back him. I'm 100% sure that this and similar posts will be howled down on here.

I must disagree, we already know of several bits of new integration that are parked until after the referendum.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. CD13, the advantage the Lib Dems have is that they've never been other than overtly EU-federalist. Obviously that's anathema to me, but it does have the advantage of being more honest than Cameron's "I might campaign for Leave if the deal isn't good enough" lie.

Mr. Daodao, that's under pressure from the leadership, not a free expression. Besides, 131 is more than enough to do for Cameron, if they wish it.

Mr. Sandpit, that said, IDS' language was stupid and harmful to his own party. Not unlike a man who remembered to remove the pin from a grenade but forgot to actually throw it at the enemy.

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

What happens in any future referendum after a Remain win will depend on how gracious the Remainers are in victory.

If they say 'a significant majority of people are clearly unhappy with the EU. We will listen to their concerns', and make a convincing effort to address those concerns, they should be able to reconcile many of the Leavers to staying - not all of them, of course, but enough to relegate Leave to the fringes.

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

So, can we expect the leading Remain politicians to be magnanimous in victory or triumphalist? Conversely, will leading Leave politicians accept defeat graciously, or descend into a decades-long sulk?

I see zero chance that the EU will push for further integration anytime soon, beyond the countries in the eurozone and precious little even then. I'm equally sure that Cameron will be magnanimous in victory if he wins and that most in the party will back him. I'm 100% sure that this and similar posts will be howled down on here.

The EU cannot afford not to push for further integration. Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue. The need for political union to match economic union is unquestionable if the EU wants to survive. A vote to Remain removes one of the last obstacles to that process.

JackW

Sandpit said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

Which Conservative MP's will vote against their own government in a confidence measure, little more than a year after securing an unexpected majority. Even Peter Bone has said if REMAIN wins then that's it warts and all.

Mr W, my reference to a vote of confidence was to the mechanism of a vote on the confidence the Party has in the leader, rather than to a vote of confidence in the Government on the floor of the House.

I don't think the latest set of Bastards would go so far as to allow Mr Corbyn an audience with Her Majesty (long may she reign).

It's a dog that isn't going to bark. All the contenders and the "New Bastards" know Cameron is going at the end of the parliament. There is no need to rock the boat especially as the Jezza insurance policy is in place.

They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, the government will wend its merry way, Jezza will continue the Labour suicide mission and OGH will further his takeover of the Belgravia Hair Century .... As night follows day.

But PB also holds these truths to be self-evident: that all PBers are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator - Mike Smithson with certain unalienable rights that among these are life with 50/1 tips, liberty to mock UKIP and the pursuit of ARSE happiness.

edmundintokyo

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue.

Why not?

timetrompette

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Assuming we even did, it would be decided in exactly the same way as this, anyone objecting branded a 'snivelling little Englander' in a media onslaught, the method already tested and honed to perfection. But you know that already.

Scott_P

Sandpit said:

On the contrary, the resignation of IDS was the reaction of an honest and principled man at having his department taken over by the Treasury.

If that was true (it isn't) he would have resigned on the day of the cabinet meeting when the deal was inked (he didn't) instead of waiting for the point of maximum damage.

It was Brexit posturing, designed solely to wound Cameron. Luckily for Cameron, IDS was so inept he managed to injure himself in the process

Plato_Says

FPT this piece is worth a looksee

David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times who has said he would never support Trump, offered perhaps the most startling confession.

The media "expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough," he wrote at the Times in March. "For me, it's a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I'm going to report accurately on this country."

Brooks' words shook his peers and offered a flicker of remorse for what the media has become — arrogant and isolated from a large portion of the country.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-out-of-touch-media-missed-donald-trumps-rise/article/2589050

timetrompette

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

Which Conservative MP's will vote against their own government in a confidence measure, little more than a year after securing an unexpected majority. Even Peter Bone has said if REMAIN wins then that's it warts and all.

Mr W, my reference to a vote of confidence was to the mechanism of a vote on the confidence the Party has in the leader, rather than to a vote of confidence in the Government on the floor of the House.

I don't think the latest set of Bastards would go so far as to allow Mr Corbyn an audience with Her Majesty (long may she reign).

It's a dog that isn't going to bark. All the contenders and the "New Bastards" know Cameron is going at the end of the parliament. There is no need to rock the boat especially as the Jezza insurance policy is in place.

They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, the government will wend its merry way, Jezza will continue the Labour suicide mission and OGH will further his takeover of the Belgravia Hair Century .... As night follows day.

But PB also holds these truths to be self-evident: that all PBers are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator - Mike Smithson with certain unalienable rights that among these are life with 50/1 tips, liberty to mock UKIP and the pursuit of ARSE happiness.

'They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, '

Really Jack? LEAVE? Ha Ha.

(The problem with the Jezza insurance, is that he holds the cards not the Tories. Fingers crossed eh).

Richard_Tyndall

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue.

Why not?

Because of the impact the City can have on the stability of the Eurozone.

timetrompette

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue.

Why not?

You must have missed Remain telling Leave that the City can't survive outside the EU. The same arguments will apply.

JackW

timetrompette said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

Mr W, my reference to a vote of confidence was to the mechanism of a vote on the confidence the Party has in the leader, rather than to a vote of confidence in the Government on the floor of the House.

I don't think the latest set of Bastards would go so far as to allow Mr Corbyn an audience with Her Majesty (long may she reign).

It's a dog that isn't going to bark. All the contenders and the "New Bastards" know Cameron is going at the end of the parliament. There is no need to rock the boat especially as the Jezza insurance policy is in place.

They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, the government will wend its merry way, Jezza will continue the Labour suicide mission and OGH will further his takeover of the Belgravia Hair Century .... As night follows day.

But PB also holds these truths to be self-evident: that all PBers are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator - Mike Smithson with certain unalienable rights that among these are life with 50/1 tips, liberty to mock UKIP and the pursuit of ARSE happiness.

'They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, '

Really Jack?

No ....

But I thought I'd give LEAVE hope ....

CarlottaVance

Scott_P said:

This is not a debate between two competing but mature visions of Britain's place in the world. It is a debate between adults and children.

On Monday, when presented with the £4,300 cost per household of Brexit, leading Out campaigner Arron Banks claimed it represented 'a bargain'.

On Tuesday, Michael Gove was asked to provide a vision for Britain outside the EU. He cited Albania.

On Wednesday, Nigel Farage raged that Barack Obama was the most 'anti-British' president in history.

On Thursday, Boris Johnson accused Obama of being a 'hypocrite'. Then followed up on Friday by branding him the 'part-Kenyan' president.

And so a day that began with Eurosceptic demands that the 44th President of the United States 'butt out' of UK policy ended with them angrily demanding he butt out of US policy too.

As their splenetic over-reaction to Obama's intervention graphically illustrated, they cannot believe anyone would have the temerity to disagree. Certainly not a foreigner. And, what's more, a part-Kenyan foreigner.

edmundintokyo

timetrompette said:

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Assuming we even did, it would be decided in exactly the same way as this, anyone objecting branded a 'snivelling little Englander' in a media onslaught, the method already tested and honed to perfection. But you know that already.

Disagree, the pro-EU side would have a very hard time winning a "change" referendum. They'd be much more likely not to hold one. Parliament has to pass a law if they want to ratify a treaty, so there's nothing to stop them putting a thing in it saying, "This change doesn't need a referendum, the old law suggesting it does is hereby amended".

But like I say there probably won't be much EU-level treaty action for a while. These things take a decade at the best of times, and it's Schengen and the Eurozone that look like they need attention.

SquareRoot

The very idea of more referendums on our membership of the EU, is enough to make one emigrate. The debate in the media has been appalling and its been reflected in the comments on here, especially by LEAVE

edmundintokyo

Richard_Tyndall said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue.

Why not?

Because of the impact the City can have on the stability of the Eurozone.

Meaning?

timetrompette

edmundintokyo said:

timetrompette said:

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Assuming we even did, it would be decided in exactly the same way as this, anyone objecting branded a 'snivelling little Englander' in a media onslaught, the method already tested and honed to perfection. But you know that already.

Disagree, the pro-EU side would have a very hard time winning a "change" referendum. They'd be much more likely not to hold one. Parliament has to pass a law if they want to ratify a treaty, so there's nothing to stop them putting a thing in it saying, "This change doesn't need a referendum, the old law suggesting it does is hereby amended".

And there we have it. This voting and democracy business is largely a sham. But we knew that already.

EPG

I don't see the thesis of the article. As long as most voters think Remain is better than Leave, Remain will win. People just don't vote for shiny utopias any more; perhaps they did in 1945.

The interesting rhetorical departure is the Great Man theory of politics which is expounded too uncritically. David Cameron is not a God-given supergenius of politics nor is, er, Jim Messina. The prime minister is about as popular as most prime ministers, just lucky to win office twice with the support of one-third of voters - precisely because he was the least-worst option. For example, if Corbyn becomes prime minister, it will tell us that he is actually more popular than we think he is today, and if he wins after the next boundary changes, he will surely have been at least as popular if not more so than David Cameron. In particular, to spin the Scottish referendum as a victory for David Cameron is bogus: who would have predicted four-in-nine votes for departure given the recent record of the SNP?

I know Cameron is beloved by the author and many readers here, but the narrative of this post about storing up long-term problems and unsustainable hubris might be better applied to the problems building up for dry-economic, socially-tolerant Conservatives. Eventually, someone with a bit more of a total-dry Thatcher profile will be less worse than Cameron, and then their party and its current guiding ideology will be led into the wilderness once again. Or maybe the total-dries will triumph.

Alanbrooke

meanwhile back in the real world Austrians are choosing their next president.
The lead runners are a radical green and a far-right gun fan.

The two established parties candidates aren''t even close

Not surprisingly Mrs Merkel's immigration policy is the hot issue.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html

JackW

JackW said:

timetrompette said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

JackW said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

Palpable nonsense.

I don't think the latest set of Bastards would go so far as to allow Mr Corbyn an audience with Her Majesty (long may she reign).

It's a dog that isn't going to bark. All the contenders and the "New Bastards" know Cameron is going at the end of the parliament. There is no need to rock the boat especially as the Jezza insurance policy is in place.

'They'll be much piss and wind over the coming months, and much of it on PB, but in the final analysis LEAVE will win, '

Really Jack?

No ....

But I thought I'd give LEAVE hope ....

Hope ....

Indeed yes. it's reason why LEAVE are so angry. Having secured a referendum that they thought would probably never happen, they genuinely believed they had a chance.

The truth is they never did. Cameron is a ruthless politician and just as with AV and SINDY he was prepared to use all the tools available to a PM to secure his objective. As I indicated years back - whilst Cameron was PM the UK would never leave the EU.

Cameron necessarily dangled the referendum carrot and then made a stew of LEAVE, who let's be frank have willingly put themselves in the pot, turned on the cooker, taken in the heady smell of a fine meal and suddenly realised they were the main course on the menu.

Hope is a wonderful thing until it's lost and LEAVE have lost.

timetrompette

Alanbrooke said:

meanwhile back in the real world Austrians are choosing their next president.
The lead runners are a radical green and a far-right gun fan.

The two established parties candidates aren''t even close

Not surprisingly Mrs Merkel's immigration policy is the hot issue.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html

Is Obama flying to Vienna to intervene?

Innocent_Abroad

daodao said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Daodao, I agree 60/40 remains (ahem) eminently plausible. However, that's the country. The Conservative split may well be similar, but in favour of Leaving, and Cameron's not made the party enamoured with his antics.

More Tory MPs support Remain than Leave. The Spectator on 16/2/16 reported that 163 were for Remain, 131 for Leave and 36 Don't Know.

Tory MPs and activists differ.

More generally, if the Remainders do indeed win it will be through the votes of women, Celts and Londoners. Quite why white males in the English shires should want to be told what to do by those groups is beyond me.

CarlottaVance

Has Obama busted Boris? After THAT stinging clampdown, Johnson's biographer on how the President exposed the Brexit leader as a bogus... and an unlikely PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3555698/Has-Obama-busted-Boris-stinging-clampdown-Johnson-s-biographer-President-exposed-Brexit-leader-bogus-unlikely-PM.html

edmundintokyo

timetrompette said:

edmundintokyo said:

timetrompette said:

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Assuming we even did, it would be decided in exactly the same way as this, anyone objecting branded a 'snivelling little Englander' in a media onslaught, the method already tested and honed to perfection. But you know that already.

Disagree, the pro-EU side would have a very hard time winning a "change" referendum. They'd be much more likely not to hold one. Parliament has to pass a law if they want to ratify a treaty, so there's nothing to stop them putting a thing in it saying, "This change doesn't need a referendum, the old law suggesting it does is hereby amended".

And there we have it. This voting and democracy business is largely a sham. But we knew that already.

That's not true. But laws passed about things that can't going to happen until somebody passes another law which could then easily change the original law are largely a sham.

Sandpit

timetrompette said:

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not least the existence of the main European financial centre inside the EU but outside of the Eurozone cannot continue.

Why not?

You must have missed Remain telling Leave that the City can't survive outside the EU. The same arguments will apply.

The same people who 15 years ago said the City couldn't survive outside the Eurozone?

Alanbrooke

timetrompette said:

Alanbrooke said:

meanwhile back in the real world Austrians are choosing their next president.
The lead runners are a radical green and a far-right gun fan.

The two established parties candidates aren''t even close

Not surprisingly Mrs Merkel's immigration policy is the hot issue.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html

Is Obama flying to Vienna to intervene?

No I believe today he's in Germany telling Germans how to vote and about his special relationship with Frau Merkel.

I sense a theme here.

timetrompette

Alanbrooke said:

timetrompette said:

Alanbrooke said:

meanwhile back in the real world Austrians are choosing their next president.
The lead runners are a radical green and a far-right gun fan.

The two established parties candidates aren''t even close

Not surprisingly Mrs Merkel's immigration policy is the hot issue.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html

Is Obama flying to Vienna to intervene?

No I believe today he's in Germany telling Germans how to vote and about his special relationship with Frau Merkel.

I sense a theme here.

It get's him out of doing nothing at home.

I'm guessing he's pre-recorded a message for Hollande to use in 2017.

Tim_B

timetrompette said:

edmundintokyo said:

timetrompette said:

Scott_P said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

However, if the Remainers wax triumphalist, and the EU makes an immediate push for further integration, this will alienate those Remainers who believed they were voting for the status quo. Support for the EU would fall, and there'd be calls for another referendum pretty soon.

If there is any move to "transfer powers" we get another referendum anyway by law

Assuming we even did, it would be decided in exactly the same way as this, anyone objecting branded a 'snivelling little Englander' in a media onslaught, the method already tested and honed to perfection. But you know that already.

Disagree, the pro-EU side would have a very hard time winning a "change" referendum. They'd be much more likely not to hold one. Parliament has to pass a law if they want to ratify a treaty, so there's nothing to stop them putting a thing in it saying, "This change doesn't need a referendum, the old law suggesting it does is hereby amended".

And there we have it. This voting and democracy business is largely a sham. But we knew that already.

Folks here are realizing for the first time that the process by which both Republicans and Democrats select their presidential candidate is utterly undemocratic. It's not going down well.

Like the immigration issue, it was raised by Donald Trump, who paradoxically has a greater percentage of delegates than votes.

TCPoliticalBetting

del

Alistair

AlastairMeeks said:

Never mind the Tory civil war, what on earth is going on at the Mail group? The Mail on Sunday seems to be taking a diametrically opposed approach to the referendum from the Daily Mail.

See The Herald/Sunday Herald split during IndyRef.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. W, Flavius Phocas was a ruthless leader too.

Alas, the Conservatives appear in want of a Heraclius.

chestnut

30,000 Germans protest against EU/US TTIP deal fearing an assault on workers' rights, wages etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560

EPG

The PB LeVes have decided that Obama is a nasty man for launching his Exocets at the HMS Anglosphere and making clear and devastating contact with their bridge.

Did Leave want a foreign leader to stay silent so that they could continue to offer a non-option?

Or is he just too arrogant... loquacious... though none dare call him "uppity"?

What a sham is "sovereignty" when the associated promised policies are contingent on the will of the United States!

Tim_B

timetrompette said:

Alanbrooke said:

timetrompette said:

Alanbrooke said:

meanwhile back in the real world Austrians are choosing their next president.
The lead runners are a radical green and a far-right gun fan.

The two established parties candidates aren''t even close

Not surprisingly Mrs Merkel's immigration policy is the hot issue.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html

Is Obama flying to Vienna to intervene?

No I believe today he's in Germany telling Germans how to vote and about his special relationship with Frau Merkel.

I sense a theme here.

It get's him out of doing nothing at home.

If only he was doing nothing at home....the regulations and executive orders just keep on coming.

timetrompette

Alistair said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Never mind the Tory civil war, what on earth is going on at the Mail group? The Mail on Sunday seems to be taking a diametrically opposed approach to the referendum from the Daily Mail.

See The Herald/Sunday Herald split during IndyRef.

Over at The Mail, the Sunday editor Greig is sparring off with the Dacre, the editor of the Daily. The two have never liked each other, and the former is angling for the latters job when he retires.

JackW

Innocent_Abroad said:

daodao said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Daodao, I agree 60/40 remains (ahem) eminently plausible. However, that's the country. The Conservative split may well be similar, but in favour of Leaving, and Cameron's not made the party enamoured with his antics.

More Tory MPs support Remain than Leave. The Spectator on 16/2/16 reported that 163 were for Remain, 131 for Leave and 36 Don't Know.

Tory MPs and activists differ.

More generally, if the Remainders do indeed win it will be through the votes of women, Celts and Londoners. Quite why white males in the English shires should want to be told what to do by those groups is beyond me.

The REMAIN lead will widen as many men realize they enjoy the discipline instilled by women .... apparently it's been trailed in the media recently.

Alanbrooke

Farcical -Merkel flies to Turkey and tells Syrian refugees they must stay in Turkey and not come to Europe .

Turks tell Merkel that if Turks don't get visa free access to the EU the refugees will be moving on.

And just to help the visa issues it is revealed the Turkish government has sponsored 1000 imams to go to Germany saying what a good guy Mr Erdogan is.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/besuch-im-fluechtlingslager-merkel-macht-syrern-kaum-noch-hoffnung-auf-deutschland-14196132.html

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/kritik-an-regierungsnaehe-tuerkei-hat-970-prediger-nach-deutschland-geschickt-14196192.html

Tim_B

Morris_Dancer said:

Speaking of polling [/seamlesssegue], just put up a little ramble about timing a trilogy, with a Twitter poll link:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/timing-trilogy.html

Not an academic exercise, as I'm writing a trilogy and self-publishing remains the likeliest option, so a moment to vote (whether on Twitter or in the comments) would be hugely appreciated.

Will this be a trilogy of three, or more like the Hitchhiker's Guide?

JackW

TCPoliticalBetting said:

del

Boy and Rodney ??

You plonker ....

JackW

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, Flavius Phocas was a ruthless leader too

Did he originate the Phocas Group ??

I'll get my worm ....

foxinsoxuk

A good header.

I was interested to see that within a couple of years of the last Brexit referendum in 75 (won 2:1 by Remain) that opinion polls showed support for exit in almost exact reverse 2:1. Significant support for the EU only returned in the eighties. As a nation we are certainly fickle.

It would not surprise me at all that within months of a Remain win polls show a massive lead for Leave; or if Leave win then a massive lead for Remain.

Certainly if Remain win then I expect a nineties style blood feud in the Tories. The unspeakable in pursuit of unelectability, and the seppuko of the tories complete.

Yorkcity

To be fare to Cameron unlike the rest of conservative PM`S he at least gave the people a referendum.
Thatcher rammed the Single European Act through parliament in very quick time.
The blueprint for both the single market and an evermore integrated political system.

They say she later regretted it, obviously there are no regrets from the current PM, and why should they be if he believes , what he negotiated is the best deal for Britain.
I hope he is magnaminous in victory, and does not rush out the morning after to announce new reforms, as he did after the Independence for Scotland referendum.

felix

Plato_Says said:

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

I think most of those on the Leave side of the Tories expected the debate to be fought under the Queesbury Rules, which clearly hasn't happened. Oh to be Graham Brady's postman on 24th June.

I think they have been too used to having it all their own way and weren't expecting Cameron to come out swinging- though if they'd paid the slightest attention to history they'd have known what to expect. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think the Leavers expected at least lip service to party unity, with a polite and civilised debate among Tories and the attack dogs turned on Farage and UKIP. What they have got looks like a Tory civil war happening in public, which may well have the unintended consequence of a low turnout among soft Remainers of the centre left.

With a tiny Commons majority and an easy route for MPs to call a vote of confidence, I can't see DC lasting past the summer unless the result is 70/30.

One assumes that Labour and UKIP are more interested in the locals for the next couple of weeks and will decode more engaged afterwards. Farage looks to have been completely invisible so far.

The right would have to be epically mad to no-confidence someone who was about to go anyway. What if he wins the vote? He might as well say, "Sod it, I'll stay." Then if they vote him down in Parliament they get deselected, and he wins a new term against Corbyn.

Cameron's real problem is just going to be his general lame-duck status. He can stay in office but it's going to be hard to get anything done and everyone's going to be busy maneuvring for the succession.

I see many parallels with Blairs demise accelerated by Watson et al - once it's known you're going, authority drains away remarkably quickly.

Never expected this to happen myself and wanted Cameron to stay on post referendum. Not now. Like many others, I don't trust him anymore.

And back you go to 1997. Of course you were a Blair supporter then. IDS for leader?

Tim_B

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, Flavius Phocas was a ruthless leader too

Did he originate the Phocas Group ??

I'll get my worm ....

No, that was the Spanish and the Car industry, hence -

Manuel Phocas

Auto Phocas