A couple of questions from this Yank observer:
Will PM Cameron schedule a national vote on UK leaving EU anytime soon?
What are the everyday consequences for you guys if you quit the EU?
Does anyone give a shit?
Printable View
A couple of questions from this Yank observer:
Will PM Cameron schedule a national vote on UK leaving EU anytime soon?
What are the everyday consequences for you guys if you quit the EU?
Does anyone give a shit?
Rumoured to be June but despite a lot of blustery talk from Cameron the crux is in the talks and they're bogged down thereby spoiling his (planned) Friday afternoon announcement of the date.
Cameron's on Twitter bragging about some "deal" he inked today that will keep England in the EU. He's promising so many wonderful things for you guys it's as if the PM has taken a page from Mr Trump.
--June 23rd 2016
--This is a matter of fierce dispute.
An overview of the issues is here:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum
Ten reasons to leave the EU here:
http://www.nakedpolitics.co.uk/home/...d-leave-the-eu
Reasons to remain here:
http://www.proeuropa.org.uk/twelevereasons
--Most people know it is important but tend not to connect domestic issues with the EU, but the debate on the referendum should raise the temperature and the key will be the turn-out on the day of the referendum, given that this is being billed as the most important decision on its future that the UK will make in a generation.
..and now it's all about Boris instead
So Boris will be the face of Vote Leave? (his hair reminds me of Trump's). Odd choice for him given the likely flight of international banking business from the City. Guess it's predictable he'd be the opposition to whichever side the PM took.
Its like that in the States.... If Obama favors A, some politicians Favor B automatically, regardless of the merits. Facts and logic are totally irrelevant.
Talk about facts and logic being irrelevant, Boris and Cameron being on opposite sides doesn't help.
Knowing whichever way i vote helps one of those cnuts gain a victory really chaps my arse!
The excessive publicity given to Boris Johnson has as much to do with internal Conservative Party politics as it does with the EU Referendum. This is because the Party is split with most of the rank and file being opposed to the UK's membership of the EU while the Parliamentary Party, though deeply split as well, is mostly in favour of staying in. Because they believe David Cameron has 'lost' the party, the activists want a 'brand name' to step forward to lead the Exit campaign, but this is also because the other leading Conservatives are either barely known -Priti Patel? John Whittingdale?- or are losers like Ian Duncan Smith who led the Conservative Party after the 2003 election before resigning after losing a vote of No Confidence in his own party. The Exit campaign already suffers from the division caused by the existence of those groups campaigning to leave the UK -Vote Leave, Leave.eu who seem to have merged with Grassroots Out! and the smaller Better Off Out. There is a guide to the latest issues and the players in this BBC link -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887
Boris Johnson reflects the peculiar situation in which he is probably better known in London and New York (where he was born) than in parts of the UK, with the exception of Liverpool and that is because of derogatory comments he made about the city which he then had to apologise for. This complicates the overall argument because London is now so different from other parts of the UK that one can understand why people like Johnson are confident of the UK being able to survive and succeed outside the EU -with no real understanding of what might be happening elsewhere in the UK, or the fact that in some parts of the country there are firms trading with the EU who are desperate not to lose their contracts but fearful that they might.
Boris Johnson believes London is the capital of the world, so leaving the EU for him would merely underline the superior position of this city. Or so he thinks. Evan Davis, a BBC economics and business journalist produced a two-part study of London- Mind the Gap: London Versus the Rest- which is now on YouTube and which in Part 1 contains that remark by Johnson. The link is below, and is worth watching. There is also an overview of the programmes contents in the (London) Evening Standard review.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/...s-9160008.html
Evan Davis programme on London here-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpakXL6F6I
london isn' t top jus tbecause of the City. As if the West End, the museums, the fashion industry, and the top hotels rely on the City alone, eh?
boris has been in the frame for years. Him becoming an MP was on track, Cameron knows this, and most likely wouldn't be bothered.
There's nobody else who is capable....Osborne, no. May, for me, no.
and when/if we leave, i hope we won't see less escorts in central london now...that's meant seriously, not facetiously, since it would be more difficult for any french, german, dutch, polish, swedish, or wherever ts to work.
The Brexit campaign will focus on fear - just like Trump is doing. It distorts the facts on immigration and international rules and laws to paint a picture that Britain will be great again - just like Trump. It presents no evidence of how this greatness can be achieved - just like Trump. But that doesn't matter - we must learn that it is "great" to hate, it is "great" to build walls, it is "great" to turn our backs on the poor, it is great" to dismiss any thought of global problems, it is "great" to be an asshole - just like Trump.
Vote to leave Do not give into fear!
Chloe x
Looks like you guys aren't going anywhere
Latest odds have REMAIN vote winning by almost a 72% probability.
2/5
At this time I would suggest you exercise caution. It is true that the Remain vote held up over the past year, and has yet to be taken over by the Leave, based on a poll of polls, but the latest of these from 4 April shows a narrowing of the gap to within 1 or 2 percentage points. Poll trackers show however, that while the Remain vote has always been ahead, the Don't' Know vote is large enough to change the balance, as indicated in the polls linked to this post.
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions...leave-the-eu/#
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/
There are two rogue factors which may be crucial on the day: events, and the turn-out. Events may work for or against the case to Remain, but I would suggest that, for example, the complications arising out of the Panama Papers may have undermined public confidence in David Cameron and by extension his support for the Remain cause, as may also be the case with the publication of tax returns confirming a popular view that our leading politicians are living in a different world t most people. Other events, probably related to refugees and migrant workers on the continent, acts of terror, or some unknown event that the EU cannot manage, may also undermine the Remain cause. But the greatest impact may be on voter turn-out, with people feeling unable or unwilling to vote Remain, or believing that Remain is strong enough to win and therefore people may stay at home. Because it is an unusual vote I think turn-put will be higher than in a General Election, but with undecided voters holding the balance of the result I think it is still too close to call.
If it's "too close to call" why are the odds for Leave still so long?
Ladbrokes isn't budging from their price and seem perfectly content taking on all the Leave wagers. They must not put too much credence in the polling data
The Brexit crowd are playing on what’s wrong with the EU and the fear of immigration but they have no plans on what to do if we do leave. Boris Johnson (the UK’s answer in deep thinking Trump with a few Latin phrases thrown in) has absolutely no idea. Cameron and all the big commercial and banking interests want us to stay. Well, they are not in favour at present – some papers from Central America got published. So the scare is we vote out for all the wrong reasons. Cameron resigns (before he is pushed and goes back to supporting himself from off-shore funds) and Johnson gets to lead. The Labour Party is too busy fighting itself with a leader who cannot only fail to find his tax returns but has no stand on Europe. Scotland declares UDI. Rest of Europe goes into meltdown. Putin increases his dominance. Meanwhile back in the US, Trump tries to expel Muslins – resulting in the biggest recruiting drive for ISIS, demands the Mexicans build a bloody great wall (then who will do your laundry?)
Enjoy the future
On the one hand you make a fair point because the bookies are not usually very wrong, but on the other hand if they noted the narrowing of the opinion polls and changed their odds accordingly, this in itself would give the Leave campaign a degree of hope and publicity. Although I think the public will vote in favour of Remain, there are still a worrying number of Don't Know voters, so it all depends on how the government handles events in case a random factor sways opinion.
The campaigns, such as they are, are on both sides the worst managed political campaigns I can recall on such a major issue. Last night, BBC-2's Newsnight programme presented the first of a series of discussions based around a theme, last night's being 'Sovereignty'. The programme was made up of poor thematic presentations which did not define sovereignty for a modern state, wasted time with a visit to the 'Principality of Sealand' in the North Sea (pop. approx 26), added 'contextual' music and film for a snippet about France and de Gaulle in the 1960s, and at one point had a reporter walking a British Bulldog on the Embankment near Parliament, for no reason I can think of. In the studio discussion, Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy made some important points on the benefits of the UK being in the EU but made them as a rebuttal to Tory Chris Grayling, delivered with Mandelson's typical condescending sneer that for me cancelled out the core of his argument.
Just one point, to avoid doubt, bookie's odds depend solely on the money placed. Especially true in a two horse race.
In their weekly presentation of the major issues last night's BBC-2 Newsnight programme looked at trade, and was better than last week's programme on sovereignty. Advocates of an Exit from the EU argued that in an age of globalization UK companies should be free to trade across the world, not least because in their view the EU is a 'stagnant' low-growth market and there are better opportunities outside it. A problem with trade deals between states is that they not only take years to negotiate, they often do not result in a deal at all. The Remain argue that as we already have trade deals within the EU and a single market that is still being developed, it does not make sense to leave the EU only for companies to then re-negotiate what they already have.
There is another argument here, and one that has been exposed by the Panama Papers, and by the crisis in Brazil over the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. Just as the Panama Papers barely skim the surface of money laundering, tax avoidance, tax evasion and other financial instruments (some of which are legal in the UK), what the crisis in Brazil exposes is the extent of corruption in an economy that is currently not doing well. Indeed, of the Parliamentarians in Brasilia who voted to impeach the President because of allegations of corruption related to the state oil company, Petrobras, many are themselves fighting investigations into their behaviour over bribery, embezzlement and other corruption allegations -here is a stunning profile of the problem:
Of 65 members on the impeachment commission, 37 face charges of corruption or other serious crimes, according to data prepared for the Los Angeles Times by the local organization Transparencia Brasil.Elsewhere in the BRICS who were leading the 'emerging economies' ten years ago, few believe Russia is 'open for business' in terms of free trade owing to the interference of the state in business; China is in recession, while it is still not possible to do business in India without handing cash to a 'Babu' -there is probably more grease on the palms of Indian politicians than there is in a mutton curry.
Of the 513 members of the lower house in Congress, 303 face charges or are being investigated for serious crimes. In the Senate, the same goes for 49 of 81 members.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/1145022...ment-statistic
At least in the EU there are regulations and bodies that monitor them. This doesn't make the EU free of corruption, and there is a lack of transparency in a wide range of areas, but the idea that there is a world of free trade waiting to boost the economy of the UK that is otherwise being held back by the EU seems romantic to me, and willfully ignorant of the perils of trading in corrupt states. But what was also shown in last night's programme was that the members of the public invited on to their panel mostly thought that in terms of trade, an Exit from the EU was a gamble the UK should go for. A case of 'be careful what you wish for', and while it was argued that the potential economic decline following an Exit would not be catastrophic, and that decline might only last for ten years while the UK adjusts for the longer term success, for a certain age group -my own- the prospect of spending the last best ten years of my life in poverty is not something I wish for. To take a risk, or not to take a risk? The irony is, that in a way this Referendum is a vote about fear -the fear that by leaving the EU we might lose something we already have, or the fear that we will lose more or what we used to have if we remain.
Does Obama sound a bit condescending by saying he knows what's good for the British people much better than you know yourself? Are you surprised how a Yank president who's steered his own nation away from decades old foreign alliances visits your soil to advise you to do the opposite?
The whole scene is surreal. The crazy thing is that he might just help sway Leave sentiment with his perceived arrogance.
On another note, I wonder what they're serving at lunch with the Queen.
Is Obama condescending? No. He offered his views on independence for Scotland during that campaign in 2014, and has offered them on what is, after all, an unusual political event of great long term significance for both the UK and the EU -and thus by extension world trade, at a time when the USA is negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I would have been surprised if Obama was not asked his opinion, and in doing so he joins a list of foreign leaders who have commented on it, not just from the EU. As to whether it will make a difference, I doubt it, even though Obama according to some polls is more popular in the UK than he is in the USA -I think in general the British have a positive view of him as a man and as a President. Michelle may even get higher ratings than him.
This is set against the predictable hysteria of the Exit campaign, whether it is tired and emotional UKIP leader Nigel Farage claiming Obama is the most 'anti-British' President since the Revolution, a man whose first act as President was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and whose father of course was an anti-British Kenyan radical, etc etc; or Boris Johnson, who renounced his US citizenship to enter UK politics (Johnson was born in Manhattan). He has ranted in the way only Boris can rant, which is what he does most of the time with semi-coherent bluster.
Johnson and others have also claimed the USA would never accept the terms of EU membership that the UK has, with no regard for the history of the USA which began as 13 colonies in rebellion against the Crown, and developed into a union of 50 states each with their own rights to make laws separate from the others states but who agreed to concede their sovereignty to Congress and the Supreme Court in Washington DC. and engage in free trade with the free movement of labour, goods, services and capital. 'Ever closer union', that scourge of anti-EU campaigners, turned out rather well for the USA, notwithstanding the Civil War and the independence movements in Hawaii, probably Texas and, ever the romantics, California.
As for the lunch, Our Gracious, and Most Noble Majesty does not eat rice, pasta or potatoes. She likes soup, then fish -Dover Sole- with green vegetables, and Scottish beef from her Balmoral estate. She also likes chocolate, does not drink much in the way of wine, but is known to like Dubonnet or Gin in the evening. What the Obama's like I am not sure, though I think I read somewhere that Obama if he is going to eat a tasty burger likes Five Guys -not sure if he drinks it with Sprite.
I think that 960 years after the Battle of Hastings, we can take some advice from anyone without getting too upset about it.
When referencing new trade deals Obama said Britain goes to the "back of the queue" in the event of an EU exit. The Leave folks will have a field day with the vindictive tone of that comment.
On the other hand the President's charm and utter magnitude of intelligence have confounded his opponents for years. Both qualities were on full display at the joint press conference. He came clean on removing the Churchill bust from his inner office and I loved the story of his aide almost fainting at the sight of Her Majesty. I thought he and the PM came off really well at the end when they spoke of the passing of Prince.
Thx for the menu update. We don't get that type of intel on the US news.
There was a suggestion on the news this evening that Obama had been coached by Cameron's team, the giveaway being the use of the word queue where an American would normally use the word line. Interestingly, in the panel of undecided voters the Newsnight programme has assembled, three were swayed by Obama's argument.
Boris Johnson's response to that was to argue that the UK has not signed a trade deal with the US for the 43 years it has been in the EU and there does seem to be a parallel argument here, as UK firms can trade in the US and vice versa, but not on everything -he said the US will not allow imports of British beef, but why would the US want British beef anyway? Trade deals have become packages that states negotiate which contain a broad range of products and services with reciprocal arrangements, special dispensations and so on, that one-on-one contracts do not contain.
Whether or not we need TTIP and other trade deals I am not sure, as in the past the US would grant 'most favoured nation' status to ease the access for trade between states. The issue now would be whether or not firms inside a trade deal would have a competitive advantage over those going it alone, as Obama implies-if the US thus were to favour firms operating within a trade deal package, individual firms outside the deal would be at a disadvantage, but they would not be failing to get contracts in a free market, and the Exit campaign see the exit from the EU as the beginning of a retreat from globalisation and a return to more market oriented trade on the basis of competition alone.
It seems to me that while the Exit campaign has supporters who also want these organised blocs to be replaced by states and firms going it alone, they are still in a minority unless the UK votes to leave the EU and triggers a re-structuring of the world economy consequent on the the dissolution of the EU as currently formed. With Trump in the White House erecting tariff barriers and trying to repatriate production by US based firms to the US, the prospects for upheaval and uncertainty from this one referendum result are either overblown, or something to be afraid of.
The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe, a body established in 1949 before the earliest form of what is now the EU and which is thus quite separate from it. Although the British played a leading role in drafting the text of the Convention and signed it in 1951, there was a view that the rights of UK citizens were already covered by the existing Bill of Rights (1689) and it was not until 1998 that a Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament.
The current proposal by the Conservative Government to repeal the Act is a separate issue from membership of the EU -the subject of this thread- and relates to various objections that the party has to provisions of the Act which it claims makes it impossible to deport criminals or terrorists if they can prove they have a right to family life. One myth, that a burglar had a human right to Kentucky Fried Chicken has been debunked by the Civil Liberties organisation Liberty in this link:
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...act-mythbuster
well here's what, if we repeal the HUman rights act, slavery is coming back!!!
the human rights act is just about shit on our law books for centuries....
That would be my bad.
I was just being pedantic, the real problem is that some EU-specific issues are often conflated or confused with non-EU ones, and the Human Rights Act is one of the most obvious. In this particular case, the real issue in the UK was Theresa May's political choice to support the Remain campaign even though she is believed to think the UK would be better off if it left the EU. She has done so, we are told, to preserve her career and any aspiration she may have to replace Cameron as leader of the Party. She thus plays the 'Human Rights' card to those Tories who want it scrapped, while remaining on Cameron's side as the assumption is that long term careers will be affected by the result of the Referendum -the losers lose, the winners win. Whether or not the Conservative Party is desperate enough to elect this woman as its leader we do not yet know. The quality of leadership in British political parties is at an all-time low as it is, and there is no sign of any improvement in the near future.
Attachment 930894
Latest state of affairs:
Leave slightly ahead. Immigration number one concern
Is it a coincidence that the day Trump becomes the de facto nominee I'm hearing from my Brit friends growing increasing panicky about a Leave victory?
No doubt the scenario of chaotic financial markets and a free falling Pound that would accompany BREXIT are very real. The PM seems to be failing in communicating these risks to the public. Or they simply don't care. Are Brits in some kind of Trump-like "make England great again" trance?
I tried to reassure my friends. We've been through worse. Besides, where can you run for cover? If Sterling denominated assets tank then US markets will follow in lock step.