Yep, see above. I can't see us even coming close to voting out of Europe, given that only 30% backed it at the last EU election. Dave only wants a few tidbits to feed his extreme backbenchers, though, which will absolutely guarantee we stay in. They'll probably give that to him. It won't really be much.
They won't settle for whatever he gets. The Euro Septics are a bunch of swivel eyed loons and would opt out even if it meant ruin. It's a political thing with them. Personally I hope they don't give him the steam of their pish. I will vote to stay in just to spite the ham faced top lip free upper class ******.
True, but if he comes back with something he can always say "ah, but I came back with something". Even if that something is pretty empty. That's politics. The swivel-eyed frothy-mouthed fringe might hate it, but they'll have to chew it because he will have trumped them.
I think your take on it underestimates the philosophical objections of the anti EU brigade. You only have to look at posters on here. It's the old "Wogs begin at Calais" mentality where a true Englishman ,and I do stress ENGLISHman is some sort of super species of the Ripping Yarns type. They won't settle for a pat on the back from Brussels. I predict a UKIP resugance.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. There will definitely be a UKIP resurgence, as the referendum is their raison d'être. But their peak is 30%, as seen in the Euro elections. Unless a lot of people are ambivalent, that's serious ground to make up in order for us to vote out of Europe. From Call Me Dave's point of view, this is a very delicate political game. I think we can be virtually certain he does not want an EU exit, but politically he cannot afford to alienate the backbenchers (i.e. the Eurosceptics) in his party. He therefore has been obliged to open negotiations and put a brave face of attempting to get "a better deal" for the UK (whatever the hell that means). I think we can agree that there are broadly three outcomes: (i) the EU tell him where to go and he comes back empty handed; (ii) the EU offer him minor cosmetic concessions which allow him to legitimately argue that he's gained a better deal, but really really doesn't change much; or (iii) the EU offer big concessions as demanded. The thing is, if the result is (i), the Eurosceptics will rage, if the result is (ii), the Eurosceptics claim they will rage and if the result is (iii), to be honest the question will be "how much?" and I think the Eurosceptics will probably still rage because it's in their nature - they will always want more than offered. As the consummate politician, Call Me Dave has to decide which of these outcomes is the most palatable as well as achievable. Coming back with (i) would be a political disaster for him and he will probably need to call another election. He also knows full well that anything like a (iii) will be incredibly unlikely and damaging to our relationship with the EU and, in any event, won't make any difference to the hard line Eurosceptics, who will always say "not enough". With (ii), on the other hand, he clearly has a chance of getting something cosmetic, because I think the EU will be prepared to do so. Of course, he'll have to face the wrath of the "not good enough" brigade, but at least he then has a chance of swaying some of those in the middle ground and he is able to argue the toss "oh, but I got something". I think that's the key in politics - you just need to be able to argue the toss. He's treading a very fine line with this one and I don't see how any other alternative than (ii) can work for him. So that's why I think we're talking at cross-purposes - I agree with you he's on very, very thin ice. I don't know whether (ii) will be enough for him to keep control. But while I dislike the Tories strongly, I have to admit politically he's very astute and I can see him manipulating (ii) carefully to defuse the Eurosceptics because something is always better than nothing.
I don't think that we are at cross purpose at all I just think that (iii) is the only one that will quell the Eurosceptics and also the one that is unachievable. I'm not suggesting UKIP will reach a point where they can do real electoral damage but they will milk what they see as Dave's failure for all that it's worth.
Ah, ok, then we're disagreeing. I don't think (iii) will quell the Eurosceptics at all. I think it will make very little difference to them, because they will always want more than what is offered. So the Eurosceptics plus UKIP will try to milk him for all he's worth whatever happens. The question for Call Me Dave, though, as I mentioned, is simply what is the most politically expedient thing to do. He knows he's between a rock and a hard place (and I can't help but wonder if he wishes he didn't have that majority...) The only plausible result is (ii). He's going to have play that one hard. I'm just saying that I've seen enough of him to know that he's very good at dealing with these sorts of problems and has a lot of backing (financially, etc). I think he'll just about pull through and persuade enough of the waverers that the cosmetic enhancements are a good deal. But equally I accept there's a high likelihood of it all coming crashing down on him because he's almost in a no-win situation.
I will show my colours and that is to stay in Europe. Why? Well I know it is not perfect, indeed the un-elected official aspect is totally wrong and needs reforming badly and in doing so the whole project becomes a hell of a lot cheaper. As I have said previously (teasing KIO to a degree) I feel that the UK cannot survive in the macro-economic World on its own and if we left Europe we would need to ally ourselves even closer to the USA and that prospect does nothing for me whatsoever as they would use us even more than they do now, purely for their own interests. Already one or two of the larger multi-nationals have started the threat of leaving the UK should we vote against and that campaign will continue throughout most of the business community as staying represents stability and that is what the markets need to have the confidence to invest, without it we end up going down the Grecian path and that is too shocking to contemplate. However, despite any fillibustering from Cameron on extra concessions that he has won, Pro-Europe has to step up and campaign hard to get the vote won, it will not just happen on its own. It is simple things that need to be trumpeted, for example, I was walking through Leicester last week and there was a digging machine working away and some construction going on around near to the Richard 3rd area. Being a nosy bugger I walked over to see the board on the fence read ' Funded by the European Community'. Now that was just one example in one City but I bet there are hundreds going on around the country and you sure aren't going to read about them in the Mail or The Sun are you? I recall that that when Mrs T closed some of the pits in South Yorkshire the towns virtually died overnoght. Who funded some investment to help to re-build those areas? Correct, Europe. And finally for now, where would we be without the Europeans in the Ryder Cup? I say that tongue in cheek but like it or not we are intrinsically tied with our neighbours, let us embrace them but on an improved basis.
I more or less concur. The Eurosceptics will argue though that as we put more in than we take out we could just fund these schemes ourselves. You can't alter the fact that they are philosophically opposed to the whole Euro project because it's run by Johnny Foreigner. And here I do agree with Rob because whatever they are offered thet will still want out because they are not being honest about the reasons for their objections. Ultimately though the vote to stay in will win because people will be scared of the unknown consequences of leaving.
My honest feeling Cruyff is that if there was a vote now the No vote would win, this is a campaign that needs action as soon as possible. The thing is apart from the Ukippers, the two main parties are both split and we have this unholy alliance like we did in the seventies between the nutters on the righ of the Tory party and the nutters on the left of the Labour Party. Before it was Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph. Not sure of the personalities today but they would be modern day replicas of those people, jeez, what a prosect! Also the newer intake of Tories (from 2010 particularly) are certainly on the right of the3 party and it is this rump that has forced Cameron to talk tough in the election here. Now the chickens have come home to roost and he has got to perform for them. It is like one big bloody circus, I only hope he is up to it.
I think that by the time 2017 is here, the cuts (both those already made & those to come) will really start hitting people. If Cameron & Co campaign strongly to stay in a lot of people will vote out as a protest vote against the government. I think the stay in campaign will really have to push the fear factor of us leaving if they are to win the day and their whole campaign will be negative. Thats assuming of course that the referendum is fair in the fist place.
It's funny you should say that. I am seriously considering a no vote just to see Dave get out of that one. IMO Labour supporters should vote No tactically it would bring Dave down.
Whichever way that result goes the Tory party will implode, the eurosceptic right wing back bench bellends if we yes to stay in will probably do a full on strop that they didn't get their way. If we vote to leave Cameron etc will all get ****ed up. Win/win for the rest of us, I recommend buying shares in Butterkist....
Or in RBS, Georgie Porgie is selling them off cheap to his pals. Funny how they moan about Brown selling off gold reserves too cheaply.
The **** lost our economy a BILLION POUNDS overnight, and then has the sheet gall to continue to rip the arse out of public sector funding and support for the most vulnerable in our society. But yet Jeremy Corbyn and his vision for a fairer society is supposedly 'unelectable'. The sad thing is that I agree, he doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of getting into power or making the slightly bit of difference. Our society is truly ****ed.
Yes, a lot on here took umbrage when I said as much. It was as if I had said I didn't like his policies, which with the exception of his support for Islamic groups and unlimited immigration I do. Those two policies are enough on their own to shed a third of the Labour vote.
Tbh I remain to be convinced on his unelectability or not there does seem to be a little too of ill will towards the red tories, the real Tories & previous libdem voters who have jumped on the Corbyn bandwagon. Let's not forget 10 unions are backing him for what it's worth (not much but who knows) anyway even as leader not all of his ideas would be launched because just as sCameron has to pander to elements of his party Corbyn would have to also. I'd see Labour just left of centre in the end so guess we'll see if it happens. As for immigration we can't have a proper sensible debate about it until the ****wit media (and sCameron) stop using words like Swarm Invasion Horde Etc If we let those 5000 in assuming all on welfare that would cost every tax payer 57p, if we gave them visa's to work the net profit could be around £100m Fact is if that 5000 were brought over it'd be 0.000058% increase to the UK population. Obviously this ignores a potential trend to bring more people over BUT I'd let them all in if they were anti-tory voters (slight lol). Has anyone seen that despicable comic in that rag The Mail? Cilla Black & Q in heaven with "illegals" trying to get in? I really don't understand why so many people think they cross the med running the risk of drowning, abused by traffickers, treated like **** in every country for a few £'s welfare. They're only running from the **** in their country which has historically been caused or at least not helped by our actions. Look at Libya we ****ed around with that, did a half arsed job to get rid of Gaddafi then we sat back & watched the whole state fail & fall to lawlessness & then we wonder where all the refugees come from? I'm not saying we should invade all these countries but it's time the rest of the world wakes up & realises that there are only asylum seekers etc because there's so much **** in the world & despite what many say we actually have it pretty bloody good here & they want to come, work & live here. Only reason refugees, asylum seekers are a "burden" is ****ing stupid rules that mean they AREN'T ALLOWED TO WORK HERE Sorry for ott long winded rant, off for a long hot soak in bath now to unwind....
Whats wrong with swarm? You need to understand context of English and stop applying your own spin on other peoples thoughts. Try the 2nd verb below swarm swɔːm/ noun 1. a large or dense group of flying insects. "a swarm of locusts" verb 1. (of flying insects) move in or form a swarm. "swarming locusts" 2. move somewhere in large numbers. "protesters were swarming into the building" synonyms: flock, crowd, throng, stream, surge, flood, seethe, pack, crush "reporters and photographers were swarming all over the place"
My English is perfectly fine thank you very much without having to copy & paste from a Google search. The problem is which you have gloriously missed is that using words like that are dehumanising AND emotional. Until we take the stupid irrational, emotional viewpoints from the conversation we cannot have a proper sensible debate about immigration & emigration in the political environment in this country. Where you have papers trawling the gutter with headlines like swarm etc it makes it sound like the media during WW2 when they were talking about potential invasion from Europe. This is around 5,000 displaced human beings with little to nothing left of their possessions nor lives from which they have fled it is not an invasion it is horrific that these people have been put through this (yes there will be others who are "dodgy") and it's adding insult to injury that then OUR media use ****ing sickening headlines like that stirring up all kinds of **** that makes it near as dammit impossible to have a sensible discussion about how to deal with it which is amazingly exemplified by comments like yours in reply to my previous comment!
Oh and just for perspective http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...tually-seeking-asylum-in-britain--W1QNbG0_ZVe
