Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Britain’s EU hokey-cokey: what would ‘in again’ look like a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Britain’s EU hokey-cokey: what would ‘in again’ look like and why isn’t Remain talking about it?
If there was one thing that won the Scottish Independence referendum for No (or Remain in current parlance), it was the currency question.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If Cameron's credibility is shot, nows the time the EU would actually start to negotiate.
He has been stupid and refused the outer core offer which would keep 80+% of Britons happy to stay in.
being fair to my continental friends we're just safer out of the way and let them get on with whatever they want to do
On Thursday.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21700637-vote-leave-european-union-would-diminish-both-britain-and-europe-divided-we-fall
Can I say how glad I am to see a Mr Herdson article again, it's the quality of the articles that are a large part of why many of us loaf about here.
I agree that I thought Tusk was the sensible one. Which begs the question why he pumped up the rhetoric to the max with "the end of Western Civilisation" last week, and made himself look rather silly.
https://youtu.be/wYg6ytOjgIo
Can't keep a good man down etc..
Both major UK parties are to blame for failing to ensure that the impact of mass migration did not damage the working poor (or however you want to classify them).
They've had years to do so, and did not. Further (and this has continued right through the campaign), a large section of those who have prospered continue to just shriek 'racist' at every conceivable opportunity.
This is not post-truth politics. It's this-is-what-happens-when-you-ignore-half-your-voters politics.
In conclusion, I'd like to say: this is not rocket science, for fuck's sake.
Both the headline and the first two sentences cut straight to the Economist's chase.
I believe such a criticism was used about Baltic independence from the Soviet Union.
You might think reform is a necessity for the EU but that doesn't mean its going to happen. It doesn't even mean that the leaders of the EU agree that reform is a necessity.
Now if you think that reform of the EU is a necessity what happens to a Britain within an EU which doesn't reform ?
Low I expect.
It will either get a new and serious deal before it leaves or leave permananetly
well be out in the world and taking our chances
We should wish them well and help them achieve that.
(1) You think the EU will continue to represent the future
(2) You think it can and will reform
I think neither.
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem
of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
At present, Britain can to an extent have cake and eat it (albeit someone else's recipe that it's paid quite a bit for).
That genuinely has just made me laugh. I love it!
Mr Tusk is only interested in one thing being Polish and we all know what that is, and I can say I can't blame him.
I appreciate that that economic clout isn't the sole determinant of power projection capabilities.
I've been hearing 'the Russians are coming' my entire life. However, as we learned post Cold War, the USSR was very much a paper tiger. Perhaps I'm in danger of leaning too far the other way now.
Putin needs bogeymen for his own purposes, but then, so do we.
You can't do that and evade criticism. You might decide that paddling in that pool is worth it in the pursuit of a more important cause. That, however, speaks volumes about your priorities.
Still living in cloud cuckoo land here David.
Yes reform is absolutely necessary. But it is not the reform that Britain is looking for and we would have no control over it either. The Eurozone needs political union and it will get political union and there is nothing we can do to stop that.
Thinking we can reform the EU to suit the British is the height of arrogance and the last 40 years have shown us it is neither possible nor desirable as far as the rest of the Eu are concerned.
Someone has to be the sensible and sober one when working with Junker anyhow.
I just had this wild idea that they will put a "no rebate" price on access to the single market. It would be funny if we actually ended up paying £350 million a week if we left the EU.
‘Why is it so dangerous? Because no one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be. As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety.’
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/76108/donald-tusk-brexit-could-bring-about-end-western
I don't agree with him, but Remain would, IMHO, be in a much better position if they had more people like him in charge.
. Migrants do the jobs that the indigenous Brits won't.
London-centric politicians have tried ignoring them for at least a decade, and that's worked so well.
Wasn't it Anthony Eden who dreamily talked about Britain as being in the intersection of three overlapping circles? What a pair of pillocks he and Harold Macmillan were. Go Christine and Mandy!
The idea of a union of Britain and France, remooted in 1956, should have been put into practice. Then Britain might have turned into something other than an outpost of the US, a sorry state that is nowadays rationalised - when anyone cares to try - as an almost natural product of the role of the English language. But it's not that. It's the product of bad decisions going back several decades, renewed and updated in secret.
And guess what! Nowadays at Chatham House they're still talking about three circles. They call them "concentric". But look what the circles are: 1) the EU, 2) Britain-US, and 3) "an ‘outer circle’ (comprising) the UK’s other key bilateral and institutional relationships". Concentric circles share a centre, so if you want to call them circles then they aren't possibly concentric, because parts of the EU are outside Britain-US while the whole of the US is outside the EU. But never mind about these twits using words they don't know the meaning of. The basic idea is that Britain is at the centre of the world. It's the same idiocy 60 years later. Frankly you might as well talk about the British Way and Purpose.
Mustn't ask why NATO still exists. I'm reading a novel by the recently retired NATO deputy supreme commander in Europe (DSACEUR), British general Richard Shirreff. It's appallingly badly written, but that isn't its most frightening feature. The Oundle-educated creep is basically calling for war with Russia next year.
If the strategic position really were as he paints it (it isn't), it would make sense to meet with Russia and discuss security guarantees for BOTH the Baltic states AND Kaliningrad. But no. This guy and the men at RUSI who are promoting his book want nuclear war. And soon. You have been warned.
Assuming we do leave and in a decade or so wish to return, it would make sense to
a) wait until the EU project has reached completion and we can see what we're aiming to join;
b) become a member state, join in whole-heartedly and assimilate.
If we asked the USA to let us become another state of theirs, we'd expect to change our way of life to theirs. How is the USE any different?
Migrants do the jobs for lower pay and under worse conditions and in a more servile manner is what you should have said.
The ignorance is astonishing.
If things are going to be as bad as some claim, surely no other member would even dream of following us into our post-Brexit economic wasteland, anyway?
There was a very interesting, if partial, article in Der Spiegel which gave me some hope that David's argument is actually gaining ground in Brussels.
I've criticized Remain for insisting that we face Armageddon if we leave, but we mustn't lapse into the same error. If we Remain, it won't be the end of the world, Juncker doesn't represent every strand of thought in the council, and we can fight to make our voice heard.
We're going to continue to be wealthy and better yet, once the referendum is over, we can get back to just dismissing all the people with concerns over mass immigration as racists, thank you FPTP, what a great system!
If we leave and Remain's economic warnings materialise, there is not much we can do. We can't rejoin the EU on the current terms.
However, if Leave's warnings materialise we can always vote to leave then.
Emily Thornberry's neighbours have gone all out to piss her off! #VoteLeave #Brexit #EUref @LouiseMensch
View image on Twitter
Leave is full of lies, but so are Remain. The difference is that Leave are xenophobic in many of the things they say. Go and talk to some leavers on the street and all they say is that they want to stop immigration/ kick migrants out.. That's it.. its a one subject agenda.
There is no appetite, desire or need for it to join it as a state.
I think Britain's problem is that we want to be a very big global hitter but lack the confidence that we will be able to do it ourselves. So, instead, our elites are attracted to power blocs they hope to influence from the inside and don't mind the political price because they think they can control it.
I don't understand why people are talking about another referendum. There isn't going to be one. The only reason I can come up with for why they are talking about it is because they are enjoying talking about this one so much.
It seems possible that they'll take fright at the passions seething away and decide it would be better to dispose of us before we infect the whole project.
(It was the train being deliberately derailed at Paddington that made me think of it. SPAD & a controlled crash rather than much greater damage further on.
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-passengers-face-massive-delays-after-great-western-train-derails/story-29412710-detail/story.html
)
once my subscription was up I refused to renew it. They kept trying to sell it to me but I pointed out anything praising Blair just wasnt going to persuade me to buy it.
Our biggest "human" threat - to me at least - is that the world becomes more like China, and less like Hong Kong.
Do we want just a bit more cash in the short-term, and a quiet life? Or do we want to make a stand for free speech, democracy, sovereignty and liberty, even if we get knocked about a bit first?
For me, that's what this Thursday is about.
It's becoming fashionable at the moment, isn't it? Homophobic. Transphobic. Xenophobic. Makes you sound clever. Also, if you're using it, it means that you aren't whatever it is. I am tolerant, you are somethingphobic.
Whether we like it or not, there's a good chunk of people who have every reason to be fearful about mass immigration. Moreover, they would be stupid not to be.
Naturally, you'll keep using the term, because, as noted in passing, it makes you sound clever and virtuous. It also means you don't have to actually think about the issues. A lovely mixture of self regard and laziness. Thinkophobic, even.
I suppose the Norfolk working class would now be classified as wicked layabouts for wanting enough wages to pay the rent on a proper house instead of living a dozen to a wooden hut.
RACIST REMAINERS!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gillian-duffy-changed-course-election-8232751
Nobody can say for sure JP but it's very unusual to get polls on a Sunday evening so I think not.
Wednesday will be a big polling day as all the copanies produce their final polls before the vote.
There might be polls at any point though, so watch this space...
It wasn't that I disagreed with them (actually, I'm ok with that) I just felt the quality of journalism was poor, particularly on politics.
I managed to prove a few of the Economist's facts "wrong", just by googling them. Then I lost confidence in them and stopped buying.
I also noticed the are you for in or out quiz came out 70/30 leave when I voted.
I know it is Voodoo with a capital V but wasnt expecting that at the Mirror.
If all we had was seasonal agricultural workers I dont think we would really be in this state. We have around three million people living in the UK born in another EU state. 1.6 million of those arrived in the last six years.
They're not seasonal and theyre not all picking fruit and veg.
Gillian Duffy hasn't met anyone in Rochdale who is voting to remain
@guardian: Nobel prize-winning economists warn of long-term damage after Brexit https://t.co/X5pXwshbyl
Lets face it the only real difference between PB and Spectator/Economist is that they publish all their articles once a week while Mike drip feeds four or five per day - and gets more comments!