Interesting piece Alastair. Personally, I think IDS would have resigned anyway - and would have been accused of trying to cause trouble of Europe in much the same way as actually happened.
Well I'm glad that at least one person on the Remain side recognises that Dave rushed the deal, and in the process got a bad deal and a terrible timeframe. He could and should have been more methodical about it, dumped the migrant stuff and concentrated on economic development and protection for the City from QMV regulations either by securing a veto or a the requirement of a double majority of EMU and non-EMU nations for all regulations. It was achievable, just not on the timescale that Dave wanted.
I can't believe that Cameron's piddling over EU benefits whilst the continent deals with a massive flow of migration did his or our reputation any good.
I not sure the migration crisis is going to be solved any time soon.
Yes, the route has just moved from Turkey/Greece to Libya/Italy it looks like. Hopefully the RN can repel enough migrant boats to stop them coming like they did in Australia.
I can't see any reason to suppose it would have been better to delay. The same fundamentals would apply, both in the UK and in other EU states. And who knows, the migrant crisis might have got worse (indeed it still might).
Better to get the thing over with. In particular, the more time between the civil war and the next GE, the better, from the Conservatives' point of view.
FPT Thanks David H..I must try and catch up with the news..I did ask "when" the USA is planning to annex its neighbours..I was aware of the historic events ..I was also aware that the USA along with a large number of Allies are engaged in wiping out a group known as ISIS, this group are responsible for a great many atrocities, both in the ME and globally ..I was not aware the USA were acting on their own..I am also told that Russia is also involved in the process. please feel free to correct me if I am wrong..
I can't see any reason to suppose it would have been better to delay. The same fundamentals would apply, both in the UK and in other EU states. And who knows, the migrant crisis might have got worse (indeed it still might).
Better to get the thing over with. In particular, the more time between the civil war and the next GE, the better, from the Conservatives' point of view.
And keeping HMS Corbyn moderately buoyant is a victory in itself.
Ooooh, just seen that the Greens have reversed their pre-eletion position and would vote for IndyRef2 in the case of Brexit + Scotland voting Remain.
They don't think Yes would win but they would vote for it to happen.
Looks like they’re fishing for a coalition partnership with Nicola.
No chance of a coalition - would result in massive vote leakage for the SNP. The Greens are looking to keep hold of the very pro-Indy membership surge they got post IndyRef.
Signalling they will put no obstacles in path but trying to temper enthusiasm by saying they can't win now.
I can't see any reason to suppose it would have been better to delay. The same fundamentals would apply, both in the UK and in other EU states. And who knows, the migrant crisis might have got worse (indeed it still might).
Better to get the thing over with. In particular, the more time between the civil war and the next GE, the better, from the Conservatives' point of view.
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
I can't believe that Cameron's piddling over EU benefits whilst the continent deals with a massive flow of migration did his or our reputation any good.
I can't believe he's jumped from piddling benefits changes to WAR!!!! in two months.
A touch surprising that WH can't use Betfair or check their competitors. For all that, I think they're leaning the right way.
Is Tooting natural Corbyn territory or more aghast Guardianista?
It's gentrifying, so a real mixture of both.
NB The % majority is 5.3% - so I think the 7/2 no is better value than the 11/2 Con, if you're looking to get on that side of the market. (Hills are implicitly about 14/1 that Labour hold with a reduced majority, which sounds too big).
Can't disagree with much that Alastair has written other than to note that the whole process has been rushed by Cameron. Never mind the March meeting, he could have given himself a whole year more to get a decent deal. It is true that the migrant crisis might have made Remain's job harder (and still may do so) but then that would have given Cameron additional leverage to get a better deal (not that anyone would be tactless enough to say so but "I need to be able to sell this to my sceptical public" amounts to the same thing).
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
There was no better deal available. The idea that somehow Cameron messed it up, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't ask for enough, is laughable. There were very few levers, thanks to Blair and Brown. The time to get things right was before Lisbon, but alas that wasn't done.
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Additionally, Richard, the problem with the current deal is that it is so weak that the Remain side can't campaign on it and have had to resort to mega fear mongering, which on the whole looks to have backfired. With a better deal the remain side could campaign on that basis and say our relationship with the EU has fundamentally changed so it is now worth staying in.
An ideal version of the deal would be:
Double majority for FinReg Opt-out of ever closer union for the UK (and other permanent non-EMU nations) Veto on introduction of any kind of military engagement by Brussels or military co-operation between any EU nations that involves using EU structures.
27 signatures on the dotted line as an amendment to the Treaty of Lisbon or a new Treaty of London, go to the public, get the Yes/Remain vote in September 2017, Dave signs it and it is ratified.
If Dave hadn't rushed it, he could have achieved everything on the list with treaty change, but he rushed it and now he has a bad deal which will leave us in as weak a position if we remain and looking at some level of economic uncertainty if we leave.
The other angle to this is that as Cameron and his government become less popular they lose voters to Leave. Governments become unpopular in mid-term and lame-duck leaders have a tough couple of years, so it made sense to go early.
You can argue that he'd have got more if he'd waited, but as anyone who follows European politics has been saying since forever he was never going to get much of any substance in the first place in a single term, not least because there are too many veto points. We're talking about the difference between virtually sod all and barely-discernably-more-than-nothing, and I doubt that would swing a lot of votes.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Correct, but the point about Maggie was not her proficiency in handbagging, it was the fact that she had our EU friends by the short'n'curlies - it was the veto on the EC budget which was the key.
I don't blame Dave for being wary of postponement. To the last, many Leavers were saying that the referendum promise was a charade and Dave would find some way of reneging. The subtleties of negotiation tactics would, I suggest, have been a tad lost on them; they're nothing if not keen. No, the tantrums, conspiracy theories and yelps of 'betrayal' would have been too much to bear and would have corrupted the whole process. Best to get it over with.
I don't blame Dave for being wary of postponement. To the last, many Leavers were saying that the referendum promise was a charade and Dave would find some way of reneging. The subtleties of negotiation tactics would, I suggest, have been a tad lost on them; they're nothing if not keen. No, the tantrums, conspiracy theories and yelps of 'betrayal' would have been too much to bear and would have corrupted the whole process. Best to get it over with.
ROFL
The subtleties of negotiation tactics would, I suggest, have been a tad lost on them;
run by me how stating that you really really want to stay even before discussions start strengthens your negotiatng position
The Quinnipiac University Poll tested a Clinton-Trump match-up in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The two were close in every state, with Trump even edging Clinton in Ohio, 43-39 percent.
In Florida, Clinton led Trump 43-42 percent. The Democratic primary front-runner held the same 1-point edge in Pennsylvania as well.
“Six months from Election Day, the presidential races between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the three most crucial states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are too close to call,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll, said in a statement, also noting that Trump at this point is doing better in Pennsylvania than the GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012.
I can't see any reason to suppose it would have been better to delay. The same fundamentals would apply, both in the UK and in other EU states. And who knows, the migrant crisis might have got worse (indeed it still might).
Better to get the thing over with. In particular, the more time between the civil war and the next GE, the better, from the Conservatives' point of view.
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
I can't claim to have my finger on the pulse of Eurosceptic Britain but I'm not convinced there are a lot of unclaimed votes getting a bunch of concessions for bankers while doing nothing about immigration.
This is even if the things you want for the City of London were there for the taking, which they weren't, not least because British bankers are even less popular with voters across the rest of the EU than they are in Britain.
Additionally, Richard, the problem with the current deal is that it is so weak that the Remain side can't campaign on it
Of course they're not going to campaign on it, that was never what it was for. The point of the renegotiation was to give Cameron a way to get through the election without saying whether he supported "in" or "out.
1. How does Hilary compare when you ask the same questions?
2. How does Trump do on economic questions - American's aren't electing someone "nice" to have a beer with they're voting for someone to manage their (economic) affairs and national security.
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
There was no better deal available. The idea that somehow Cameron messed it up, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't ask for enough, is laughable. There were very few levers, thanks to Blair and Brown. The time to get things right was before Lisbon, but alas that wasn't done.
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
There was a better deal available, as the header points out, going to the EU for treaty change or a new treaty while the migrant crisis was ongoing basically made getting it impossible to achieve. I still think Dave is a good PM, but there is no doubt that he achieved anything other than a sub-optimal deal both for the remain argument and for the country. No treaty change, no FinReg/QMV protections and the spectre of enhanced EU military co-operation and the EU trying to force an EU Army down everyone's throats. He could have got action on all three and got his opt-out ratified in a treaty and bound the hands of the EU wrt to ensuring it is respected and adhered to, but he didn't and it is a crap deal. If it was a good deal the remain side would be pitching it to middle ground Tories, they aren't.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Correct, but the point about Maggie was not her proficiency in handbagging, it was the fact that she had our EU friends by the short'n'curlies - it was the veto on the EC budget which was the key.
I feel there have been ample opportunities to gain the upper hand over the past few years. Even in the eventual negotiations, there was no credible threat of withdrawal.
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
There was no better deal available. The idea that somehow Cameron messed it up, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't ask for enough, is laughable. There were very few levers, thanks to Blair and Brown. The time to get things right was before Lisbon, but alas that wasn't done.
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
There was a better deal available, as the header points out, going to the EU for treaty change or a new treaty while the migrant crisis was ongoing basically made getting it impossible to achieve. I still think Dave is a good PM, but there is no doubt that he achieved anything other than a sub-optimal deal both for the remain argument and for the country. No treaty change, no FinReg/QMV protections and the spectre of enhanced EU military co-operation and the EU trying to force an EU Army down everyone's throats. He could have got action on all three and got his opt-out ratified in a treaty and bound the hands of the EU wrt to ensuring it is respected and adhered to, but he didn't and it is a crap deal. If it was a good deal the remain side would be pitching it to middle ground Tories, they aren't.
Indeed. When Cameron said he was going to have a re-negotation" I was convinced he was telling the truth and was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If he'd got a sensible deal I'd have been banging the drum for him and REMAIN.
I think he deluded himself that he could do a Wilson and try to present a non deal as some great reform... Was never going to wash as we live in such a different time.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Correct, but the point about Maggie was not her proficiency in handbagging, it was the fact that she had our EU friends by the short'n'curlies - it was the veto on the EC budget which was the key.
I feel there have been ample opportunities to gain the upper hand over the past few years. Even in the eventual negotiations, there was no credible threat of withdrawal.
Which is, frankly, ridiculous given that the public are presenting that threat right now. Cameron didn't even have to threaten it himself; just point out the electoral pressure he was under.
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Correct, but the point about Maggie was not her proficiency in handbagging, it was the fact that she had our EU friends by the short'n'curlies - it was the veto on the EC budget which was the key.
I feel there have been ample opportunities to gain the upper hand over the past few years. Even in the eventual negotiations, there was no credible threat of withdrawal.
Which is, frankly, ridiculous given that the public are presenting that threat right now. Cameron didn't even have to threaten it himself; just point out the electoral pressure he was under.
But unless it's backed up by a leader with specific demands it's worthless. The other side of the negotiation won't randomly make concessions to appease a phantom menace with no single view of what it wants.
I feel that gratitude is something of a mythical creature in international negotiations. Europe was meant to work much better for us with Tony Blair's more generous approach compared with Thatcher's handbagging, but the evidence suggests the reverse has been true. It is future reward or punishment that motivates, not what has gone before.
Correct, but the point about Maggie was not her proficiency in handbagging, it was the fact that she had our EU friends by the short'n'curlies - it was the veto on the EC budget which was the key.
I feel there have been ample opportunities to gain the upper hand over the past few years. Even in the eventual negotiations, there was no credible threat of withdrawal.
Which is, frankly, ridiculous given that the public are presenting that threat right now. Cameron didn't even have to threaten it himself; just point out the electoral pressure he was under.
Yes, and it speaks volumes about the EU's attitude to democracy and Dave's poor negotiation skills than there was a decent chance of a No/Leave vote.
This is a very interesting piece though I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
With hindsight it be right but I thought Cameron was wise at the time to push the thing through.
He had to take a view on how the migration crisis would develop and it seems that he expected it to worsen for the next year (say). It's hard to conclude that that wasn't the best assessment of probabilities (even though in the event it was wrong). The migration crisis did seem utterly intractable in the short term.
Also, he would have feared that a delay until June would have ended in further delay into next year. A referendum in deep mid-term would have been a very dodgy proposition.
I also think that the referendum would have turned into a Conservative bloodbath whenever it happened.
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
Any day when IDS is in the news can be described as cracking for Remain
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
Any day when IDS is in the news can be described as cracking for Remain
At least he hasn't wanted to shoot anyone or strip them naked this time.
This is a very interesting piece though I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
With hindsight it be right but I thought Cameron was wise at the time to push the thing through.
He had to take a view on how the migration crisis would develop and it seems that he expected it to worsen for the next year (say). It's hard to conclude that that wasn't the best assessment of probabilities (even though in the event it was wrong). The migration crisis did seem utterly intractable in the short term.
Also, he would have feared that a delay until June would have ended in further delay into next year. A referendum in deep mid-term would have been a very dodgy proposition.
I also think that the referendum would have turned into a Conservative bloodbath whenever it happened.
I don't think so, there are enough people who would have backed a reasonable deal and even more who would have backed a good deal. Yes there are definitely 30-40 hardcore outers who would always campaign for Leave whatever the PM came back with, but the reason the recriminations with the party started so early was precisely because it was such a poor deal and Tory MPs and members were being told to back it anyway and that it is being presented to the public as the best thing since sliced bread.
I've given the outline of an achievable deal on this thread, none of that was off the table and for some aspects we would have had support from other nations for treaty change, but on such a rushed timetable it was impossible to achieve. If Dave had got anything like that with treaty change then I would expect a 60/40 In/Remain vote if not higher as the majority of the Tory party would have backed it, including many of us who are in the Leave camp on here.
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
Any day when IDS is in the news can be described as cracking for Remain
Do you think? I honestly think he's done incredibly well. From someone who despaired of him as leader. His interventions I've seen have all been memorable, salient, and media friendly. I can't say the same of Boris, Gove, Fox, or Nigel.
Blatant gobshite. He could have simply put his heart and energy into 'get the fuck out of Dodge'. I'd have been up for staying in a truly deeply reformed EU where 'the project' was open for democratic revision or reversal and a two speed structure to accommodate non-Eurozone countries. But pigs can't fly. Nothing NOTHING was ever going to be achievable, particularly when you consider such a deep change would need treaty change across the board. In this sense the EU machine cannot be negotiated with from within as any 'agreed' position then needs to be out to all the people of the EU. They're stuck on stupid. Leave is the only way to get what the UK wants as the EU is structurally and practically unreformable.
Blatant gobshite. He could have simply put his heart and energy into 'get the fuck out of Dodge'. I'd have been up for staying in a truly deeply reformed EU where 'the project' was open for democratic revision or reversal and a two speed structure to accommodate non-Eurozone countries. But pigs can't fly. Nothing NOTHING was ever going to be achievable, particularly when you consider such a deep change would need treaty change across the board. In this sense the EU machine cannot be negotiated with from within as any 'agreed' position then needs to be out to all the people of the EU. They're stuck on stupid. Leave is the only way to get what the UK wants as the EU is structurally and practically unreformable.
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
There was no better deal available. The idea that somehow Cameron messed it up, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't ask for enough, is laughable. There were very few levers, thanks to Blair and Brown. The time to get things right was before Lisbon, but alas that wasn't done.
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
There was a better deal available, as the header points out, going to the EU for treaty change or a new treaty while the migrant crisis was ongoing basically made getting it impossible to achieve. I still think Dave is a good PM, but there is no doubt that he achieved anything other than a sub-optimal deal both for the remain argument and for the country. No treaty change, no FinReg/QMV protections and the spectre of enhanced EU military co-operation and the EU trying to force an EU Army down everyone's throats. He could have got action on all three and got his opt-out ratified in a treaty and bound the hands of the EU wrt to ensuring it is respected and adhered to, but he didn't and it is a crap deal. If it was a good deal the remain side would be pitching it to middle ground Tories, they aren't.
Indeed. When Cameron said he was going to have a re-negotation" I was convinced he was telling the truth and was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If he'd got a sensible deal I'd have been banging the drum for him and REMAIN.
I think he deluded himself that he could do a Wilson and try to present a non deal as some great reform... Was never going to wash as we live in such a different time.
I feel a complete berk for defending him on here several times - saying we should wait until we saw the final deal, da de da.
And then he produced a top hat, with no rabbit. Not even a gerbil.
Blatant gobshite. He could have simply put his heart and energy into 'get the fuck out of Dodge'. I'd have been up for staying in a truly deeply reformed EU where 'the project' was open for democratic revision or reversal and a two speed structure to accommodate non-Eurozone countries. But pigs can't fly. Nothing NOTHING was ever going to be achievable, particularly when you consider such a deep change would need treaty change across the board. In this sense the EU machine cannot be negotiated with from within as any 'agreed' position then needs to be out to all the people of the EU. They're stuck on stupid. Leave is the only way to get what the UK wants as the EU is structurally and practically unreformable.
I see you agree with me.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Good article - according to numerous reports in the Continental press there was definitely a WTF moment when everyone wanted to talk migration crisis and Cameron insisted on his issue.
But EiT is probably right that a later referendum risked a mid-term malaise. Also, I think Cameron is simply fed up - he wants to get it over with and then call it a day.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
It's incredible that we have to keep explaining this really simple stuff. You might almost think people are being deliberately obtuse.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I certainly don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
There are a lot of risks with leaving. Or opportunities, depending on your perspective.
But I continue to feel that you have an over-optimistic view of what the renegotiation has achieved and the pressures on and risks to Britain if she stays in the EU as it is and is likely to develop.
Johnson has called Britain's USD350m a week contribution a drop in the ocean.
After calling a huge swathe of ordinary people 'extremists'
If I were remain, I would get this guy off quick.
I missed that corker. A million here, a million there - it soon adds up to real money... I noticed when Googling VoteLeave, they've a clocking total of UK contributions to the EU as their url.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
What percentage of the workforce is employed by companies that sell into the EU?
What percentage of Corporation Tax is raised from companies that sell into the EU?
A better deal would have won over enough people for the result to never be in doubt. As I have said, if Dave had secured the double majority to pass financial regulations, I would be minded to vote remain, as it is I don't think it is worth the hassle to stay in. Everything else such as migrant benefits and trouble with the ECHR are problems that can be solved in Westminster with mandatory contributions for receiving benefits applied universally and a better definition of what "family life" constitutes rather than the default wide definition used by Strasbourg. If anything it is our government's failure to make hard decisions at home and to continually use the EU as a scapegoat that has led to the blame of high immigration falling on the EU rather than our own universal benefits policies and very high level of in-working benefits available for low paid workers.
There was no better deal available. The idea that somehow Cameron messed it up, or didn't try hard enough, or didn't ask for enough, is laughable. There were very few levers, thanks to Blair and Brown. The time to get things right was before Lisbon, but alas that wasn't done.
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
There are a lot of risks with leaving. Or opportunities, depending on your perspective.
But I continue to feel that you have an over-optimistic view of what the renegotiation has achieved and the pressures on and risks to Britain if she stays in the EU as it is and is likely to develop.
Maybe I am being over-optimistic, but bear in mind that I've repeatedly made clear that I wouldn't have started from here. As I've said zillions of times, we should have got this right before Lisbon. We are stuck with having to claw back something from a very weak position; it's in the context of that that I am (relatively) more optimistic than I was.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I certainly don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
And yet according to the FT journalist who followed the lead up to the negotiations and who was interviewed for WaO on Radio 4, limits on freedom of movement is exactly the position Cameron was pursuing until perhaps 24 hours before his speech. The journalist effectively backed exactly what IDS claimed this morning.
I clearly agree with your view that Dave had no hope of getting a deal negotiated. I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Well, I don't think that the right thing to do is commit to being part of a United States of Europe. But it is certainly true that some people - over-represented here - had absurdly over-optimistic expectations of the renegotiation. There was never the slightest possibility of the EU abandoning central principles such as freedom of movement.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
Absolutely agree that anything on free movement was unachievable which is why it was maddening to see Dave waste his time on such stupidity, I mean who really cares if we give £50m per year to parents with children overseas, sure it is irksome, but it really doesn't matter that much. As I said before the migrant benefits are something that need to be addressed at Westminster by making 1-2 years worth of contributions mandatory in order to receive any kind of benefits (unemployment, housing, child and any kind of tax credit) for all people, but the government has ducked making the hard decisions and just used the EU as a scapegoat for their weakness on the issue of benefits.
Getting real protection for the City, the same opt-out of ever closer union, and a veto on military co-operation using EU structures and having it all bound by treaty obligations was all well within the realms of possibility. It would have been enough to win my vote given that everything else can be solved at Westminster.
Blatant gobshite. He could have simply put his heart and energy into 'get the fuck out of Dodge'. I'd have been up for staying in a truly deeply reformed EU where 'the project' was open for democratic revision or reversal and a two speed structure to accommodate non-Eurozone countries. But pigs can't fly. Nothing NOTHING was ever going to be achievable, particularly when you consider such a deep change would need treaty change across the board. In this sense the EU machine cannot be negotiated with from within as any 'agreed' position then needs to be out to all the people of the EU. They're stuck on stupid. Leave is the only way to get what the UK wants as the EU is structurally and practically unreformable.
Cameron thought he'd get away with his non-deal.
Using the threat of WAR!!! and the graves of those who gave their lives in WWI & WWII says it all.
He's got the mood of the public entirely wrong. The YouGov polling over his attempts to frightened us using dead soldiers is damning. Hence his awful, hastily rewritten speech yesterday. The damage has been done.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries.
Personally I'm under no illusions. I don;t think there's a crock of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow.
But we'll rub along. And we'll rub along a free country.
Putin? Juncker? Merkel? Erdogan? I don;t see much difference between any of them.
And yet according to the FT journalist who followed the lead up to the negotiations and who was interviewed for WaO on Radio 4, limits on freedom of movement is exactly the position Cameron was pursuing until perhaps 24 hours before his speech. The journalist effectively backed exactly what IDS claimed this morning.
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment. I did say at the time that I was surprised Cameron didn't get more concessions on benefits. But what does that show? It shows that our EU friends - especially those in Eastern Europe - thought that this was a key point for them. That's not going to change if we leave. Therefore, if we want full access to the Single Market, we'll be up against exactly the same problem.
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
As a sole-trading freelancer providing a service to customers across Europe, EU regulations make my life a lot easier. This is because I know that the same rules apply to everyone, so I only have to be familiar with one set of rules. The EU really is a godsend for small niche operators who need the large single market to make their business viable. Leaving the EU would actually benefit larger companies who are more easily able to deal with bureaucratic complexity.
Remain's having another cracking day - Johnson calls those who disagree 'extremists' and other names. And IDS has annoyed Number 10 by having an opinion.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
Any day when IDS is in the news can be described as cracking for Remain
Do you think? I honestly think he's done incredibly well. From someone who despaired of him as leader. His interventions I've seen have all been memorable, salient, and media friendly. I can't say the same of Boris, Gove, Fox, or Nigel.
Really? You think his hysterical resignation or his appearance on Marr showed him in a good light? He just looked like a failed, bitter ex leader and reminded people, probably even those who have some sympathy with his views, what a treacherous, intellectual lightweight he was. And is. He'd have done better to have watched and copied how Gove acted rather than stabbing another PM in the back...
Is Boris saying that outside the single market in, say, widgets, we wouldn't have to accept the one-size-fits-all regulations? We could have our very own widget regulations and not be subject to those very same regulations? But what if we wanted to sell widgets to the EU?
And do you think businesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
Generally big business prefers one-size fits all regulations because that allows them to use regulation as a barrier to entry. They also like a single global standard, if possible, because that benefits volume producers (i.e. large players)
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
What percentage of the workforce is employed by companies that sell into the EU?
What percentage of Corporation Tax is raised from companies that sell into the EU?
I have an annual trade fair (late May) which is the highlight of my year. In 2015 taking the pre-election week off led to huge amounts of work completed in the fortnight before the fair. I only really achieved this through a combination of post-election euphoria and Mumford & Sons new album on repeat.
Now, whenever I hear the album or prepare for the fair I can't stop thinking about last May.
And yet according to the FT journalist who followed the lead up to the negotiations and who was interviewed for WaO on Radio 4, limits on freedom of movement is exactly the position Cameron was pursuing until perhaps 24 hours before his speech. The journalist effectively backed exactly what IDS claimed this morning.
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment. I did say at the time that I was surprised Cameron didn't get more concessions on benefits. But what does that show? It shows that our EU friends - especially those in Eastern Europe - thought that this was a key point for them. That's not going to change if we leave. Therefore, if we want full access to the Single Market, we'll be up against exactly the same problem.
Possibly not the line Remain should be taking at the moment. Effectively confirming that as long as we remain in the EU we cannot control migration.
Won't work with me of course either way but then as people keep pointing out we free movement Leavers are in a tiny minority.
Comments
Miliband for Tooting? That would electrify the by-election.
I not sure the migration crisis is going to be solved any time soon.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ursula-von-der-leyen-will-bundeswehr-vergroessern-14225015.html
Brexit ! Brexit ! It's WAR!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dont-vote-for-brexit-us-defence-chiefs-warn-2nncnhplw
What was it?
Tooting by-election: 1/10 Labour; 11/2 Tories. Lab to increase %age-of-votes cast majority? 1/6 yes; 7/2 no. #LabourParty
A touch surprising that WH can't use Betfair or check their competitors. For all that, I think they're leaning the right way.
They don't think Yes would win but they would vote for it to happen.
Better to get the thing over with. In particular, the more time between the civil war and the next GE, the better, from the Conservatives' point of view.
Signalling they will put no obstacles in path but trying to temper enthusiasm by saying they can't win now.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
NB The % majority is 5.3% - so I think the 7/2 no is better value than the 11/2 Con, if you're looking to get on that side of the market. (Hills are implicitly about 14/1 that Labour hold with a reduced majority, which sounds too big).
Exactly the same considerations will apply if we vote Leave, of course.
An ideal version of the deal would be:
Double majority for FinReg
Opt-out of ever closer union for the UK (and other permanent non-EMU nations)
Veto on introduction of any kind of military engagement by Brussels or military co-operation between any EU nations that involves using EU structures.
27 signatures on the dotted line as an amendment to the Treaty of Lisbon or a new Treaty of London, go to the public, get the Yes/Remain vote in September 2017, Dave signs it and it is ratified.
If Dave hadn't rushed it, he could have achieved everything on the list with treaty change, but he rushed it and now he has a bad deal which will leave us in as weak a position if we remain and looking at some level of economic uncertainty if we leave.
You can argue that he'd have got more if he'd waited, but as anyone who follows European politics has been saying since forever he was never going to get much of any substance in the first place in a single term, not least because there are too many veto points. We're talking about the difference between virtually sod all and barely-discernably-more-than-nothing, and I doubt that would swing a lot of votes.
The subtleties of negotiation tactics would, I suggest, have been a tad lost on them;
run by me how stating that you really really want to stay even before discussions start strengthens your negotiatng position
This is even if the things you want for the City of London were there for the taking, which they weren't, not least because British bankers are even less popular with voters across the rest of the EU than they are in Britain.
https://twitter.com/NKingofDC/status/730007674302156800
2. How does Trump do on economic questions - American's aren't electing someone "nice" to have a beer with they're voting for someone to manage their (economic) affairs and national security.
A thread on this phenomenon would be most interesting.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/730009003439341568
@JamieRoss7: Cabinet fans: there's some chat in Holyrood that John Swinney may be moved from finance to education for this term.
If he'd got a sensible deal I'd have been banging the drum for him and REMAIN.
I think he deluded himself that he could do a Wilson and try to present a non deal as some great reform... Was never going to wash as we live in such a different time.
So whatever message Remain wanted to convey - it's lost in Red on Blue fighting. More please.
Oh, I forgot - Remain's campaign is *near perfect*
PS Comments by those US defence wallahs panned across the board.
With hindsight it be right but I thought Cameron was wise at the time to push the thing through.
He had to take a view on how the migration crisis would develop and it seems that he expected it to worsen for the next year (say). It's hard to conclude that that wasn't the best assessment of probabilities (even though in the event it was wrong). The migration crisis did seem utterly intractable in the short term.
Also, he would have feared that a delay until June would have ended in further delay into next year. A referendum in deep mid-term would have been a very dodgy proposition.
I also think that the referendum would have turned into a Conservative bloodbath whenever it happened.
I've given the outline of an achievable deal on this thread, none of that was off the table and for some aspects we would have had support from other nations for treaty change, but on such a rushed timetable it was impossible to achieve. If Dave had got anything like that with treaty change then I would expect a 60/40 In/Remain vote if not higher as the majority of the Tory party would have backed it, including many of us who are in the Leave camp on here.
Why would you want a referendum in order to vote to stay in - ie, the status quo - surely you only want one to bring on change?
After calling a huge swathe of ordinary people 'extremists'
If I were remain, I would get this guy off quick.
Blatant gobshite. He could have simply put his heart and energy into 'get the fuck out of Dodge'. I'd have been up for staying in a truly deeply reformed EU where 'the project' was open for democratic revision or reversal and a two speed structure to accommodate non-Eurozone countries. But pigs can't fly. Nothing NOTHING was ever going to be achievable, particularly when you consider such a deep change would need treaty change across the board. In this sense the EU machine cannot be negotiated with from within as any 'agreed' position then needs to be out to all the people of the EU. They're stuck on stupid. Leave is the only way to get what the UK wants as the EU is structurally and practically unreformable.
Head start on Hillary for his General campaign !
And then he produced a top hat, with no rabbit. Not even a gerbil.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/730016482944552964
What a superb voice. And some Nickelback lyrics are extremely funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1hgVcNzvzY
He will get 19k£ on top of the Assembly members salary (54k)
I clearly differ from you enormously in thinking the right thing to do now is commit to being part of a United States of Europe.
Vote Leave.
Each English county could have a new hospital in a year.
Labour used to be in favour of things like that.
But EiT is probably right that a later referendum risked a mid-term malaise. Also, I think Cameron is simply fed up - he wants to get it over with and then call it a day.
SMEs prefer flexibility because that enables them to be opportunistic about their strategy.
Of course if we want to sell widgets into the EU market, then we have to comply with widget standards for that market. But the vast majority of UK companies do not sell into the EU. And those that do can choose to produce widgets to specification.
The same people tend to have absurdly over-optimistic views on what we could get in a negotiation with our EU friends post-Brexit, and on what we could get in free trade agreements with other countries. That's why they were so angry at Obama pointing out some basic home truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney
But I continue to feel that you have an over-optimistic view of what the renegotiation has achieved and the pressures on and risks to Britain if she stays in the EU as it is and is likely to develop.
What percentage of Corporation Tax is raised from companies that sell into the EU?
Getting real protection for the City, the same opt-out of ever closer union, and a veto on military co-operation using EU structures and having it all bound by treaty obligations was all well within the realms of possibility. It would have been enough to win my vote given that everything else can be solved at Westminster.
Using the threat of WAR!!! and the graves of those who gave their lives in WWI & WWII says it all.
He's got the mood of the public entirely wrong. The YouGov polling over his attempts to frightened us using dead soldiers is damning. Hence his awful, hastily rewritten speech yesterday. The damage has been done.
Personally I'm under no illusions. I don;t think there's a crock of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow.
But we'll rub along. And we'll rub along a free country.
Putin? Juncker? Merkel? Erdogan? I don;t see much difference between any of them.
"Johnson has called Britain's USD350m a week contribution a drop in the ocean.
After calling a huge swathe of ordinary people 'extremists'
If I were remain, I would get this guy off quick.'
A timely reminder,if one was needed, that it was this guy and his pals that spent 13 years pissing our money away.
He just looked like a failed, bitter ex leader and reminded people, probably even those who have some sympathy with his views, what a treacherous, intellectual lightweight he was. And is.
He'd have done better to have watched and copied how Gove acted rather than stabbing another PM in the back...
I have an annual trade fair (late May) which is the highlight of my year. In 2015 taking the pre-election week off led to huge amounts of work completed in the fortnight before the fair. I only really achieved this through a combination of post-election euphoria and Mumford & Sons new album on repeat.
Now, whenever I hear the album or prepare for the fair I can't stop thinking about last May.
Do I need help?
#pbtoriesanonymous
Won't work with me of course either way but then as people keep pointing out we free movement Leavers are in a tiny minority.