I thought these arguments included fallacies and decided to introduce Three Eurosceptic Fallacies. They are given below.
#FALLACY1: The Telepod Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal" * Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID * Long form: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal". Each option (EEA, EFTA, own deal) has its advantages and disadvantages, and some of them are contradictory. You can have one option, or the other, or another, but you cannot combine options and expect the combination to make sense: it will have contradictory elements. You can desire the strength of the gorilla, the cunning of the wolf, the smile of the dolphin, but if you put all three into a telepod and press "send" you're not going to get a smiley strong cunning thing, you're going to get a red mess that screams wetly and dies.
#FALLACY2: The Angelina Jolie Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But we can have our own tailored deal". * Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" * Long form: People who want to get divorced fixate on an idealised partner: the unhappy husband dreams of an infinitely sympathetic Angelina Jolie at his beck and call. Similarly, the dreams of a tailored deal in which each country provides a new deal with none of the disadvantages and all the advantages of the old deal. But the other country's interests have not changed, they will not want to change the deal, and will have other commitments: the divorced male is still middle-aged (and now poor) and Angelina Jolie is still rich and married to Brad Pitt. A tailored deal will not eventuate because from the other country's POV nothing has changed: a key still has to fit a lock, even if the key believes otherwise. Options are not chosen in isolation and there are other interests that act against it. * See also "we can have controlled migration", "we can have a Commonwealth free trade area"
#FALLACY3: The Rincewind fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But Europe is full of rapist/crooks/thugs/etc". * Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER * Some of you may recall the Pratchett wizard Rincewind who was firmly convinced that it's not where you run *to*, it's what you run *from*. This was useful when evading monsters, but it only works in fiction. Running from a problem does not cure a problem. You may desire to reduce migration or evade militant religionists by exit, but exit will not cure them, nor make them less likely (see "Angelina Jolie fallacy" above), and it ignores the disadvantages of the alternatives.
I think each of your fallacies contains fallacies (at least false assumptions) too numerous to list. Not you best analytic work.
Viewcodes whole posting is one big fallacy. It is called the Straw Man fallacy.
The interesting thing is Zac is condemned for voting "with the Tory whip 9 times out of 10".
I know. It makes him sound like a loyalist but only voting 9/10 with the Govt puts him as quite a rebel. Ok not Corbyn level of rebellion but still he's no party loyalist.
No no, the point being made is that Tories are evil and voting with them is evil, Khan votes with Labour who are virtuous so when is voting statistics show an even lesser level of rebellion against the whip it's a good thing.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
#FALLACY1: The Telepod Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal" * Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID * Long form: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal". Each option (EEA, EFTA, own deal) has its advantages and disadvantages, and some of them are contradictory. You can have one option, or the other, or another, but you cannot combine options and expect the combination to make sense: it will have contradictory elements. You can desire the strength of the gorilla, the cunning of the wolf, the smile of the dolphin, but if you put all three into a telepod and press "send" you're not going to get a smiley strong cunning thing, you're going to get a red mess that screams wetly and dies.
#FALLACY2: The Angelina Jolie Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But we can have our own tailored deal". * Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" * Long form: People who want to get divorced fixate on an idealised partner: the unhappy husband dreams of an infinitely sympathetic Angelina Jolie at his beck and call. Similarly, the dreams of a tailored deal in which each country provides a new deal with none of the disadvantages and all the advantages of the old deal. But the other country's interests have not changed, they will not want to change the deal, and will have other commitments: the divorced male is still middle-aged (and now poor) and Angelina Jolie is still rich and married to Brad Pitt. A tailored deal will not eventuate because from the other country's POV nothing has changed: a key still has to fit a lock, even if the key believes otherwise. Options are not chosen in isolation and there are other interests that act against it. * See also "we can have controlled migration", "we can have a Commonwealth free trade area"
#FALLACY3: The Rincewind fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But Europe is full of rapist/crooks/thugs/etc". * Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER * Some of you may recall the Pratchett wizard Rincewind who was firmly convinced that it's not where you run *to*, it's what you run *from*. This was useful when evading monsters, but it only works in fiction. Running from a problem does not cure a problem. You may desire to reduce migration or evade militant religionists by exit, but exit will not cure them, nor make them less likely (see "Angelina Jolie fallacy" above), and it ignores the disadvantages of the alternatives.
I find this to be quite intriguing, I must say, and well presented. And I appreciate giving the arguments a name, particularly if it is with a Pratchett reference. I've actually been swayed by the very argument of running from Europe, not toward anything in particular - the potential disadvantages no longer concern me as much - but I take the point, even if I am not swayed back.
...Viewcodes whole posting is one big fallacy. It is called the Straw Man fallacy...
Straw Man only works if I introduce another argument and knock that one down. But I wasn't doing that: the fallacies themselves are listed in the "short form" entries, namely:
#FALLACY1: ...Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID #FALLACY2: ...Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" #FALLACY3: ...Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER
I even put them in capitals for emphasis (was this not obvious?)
I gave them humorous names ("Telepod", "Angelina Jolie", "Rincewind") to aid recall and add levity, not as part of the argument. If you find the humorous names to be strawmanesque, the fallacies work perfectly well without them.
I have to go back to work from lunch, so any response will be delayed, for which I apologise.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
...Viewcodes whole posting is one big fallacy. It is called the Straw Man fallacy...
Straw Man only works if I introduce another argument and knock that one down. But I wasn't doing that: the fallacies themselves are listed in the "short form" entries, namely:
#FALLACY1: ...Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID #FALLACY2: ...Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" #FALLACY3: ...Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER
I even put them in capitals for emphasis (was this not obvious?)
I gave them humorous names ("Telepod", "Angelina Jolie", "Rincewind") to aid recall and add levity, not as part of the argument. If you find the humorous names to be strawmanesque, the fallacies work perfectly well without them.
I have to go back to work from lunch, so any response will be delayed, for which I apologise.
Straw man is putting arguments into someone elses mouth and then shooting them down. Your paraphrasing of the arguments is either malicious falsehood or willful misunderstanding.
I like MPs not to be beholden to the whips myself, but if voting with them 9 times out of 10 is in itself evidence of failure, why not just put 'he is a tory' under record of failure, as all its saying is he agrees with his party?
(Does anyone know if a rebel rate of 1 out of 10 is actually pretty rebellious or not, on average? In the Syrian debate my MP, who has been in place 14 years, said they'd only rebelled against their party once in all that time - over Iraq - so I imagine his rebel rate is much much lower!)
The average rebellion rate for Tory MPs in the last Parliament was about 2.6%.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
Will Steven Caulker let me down tonight ?
I'm worried that he's finally playing for a big team he might freeze under the pressure.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
#FALLACY1: The Telepod Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal" * Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID * Long form: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal". Each option (EEA, EFTA, own deal) has its advantages and disadvantages, and some of them are contradictory. You can have one option, or the other, or another, but you cannot combine options and expect the combination to make sense: it will have contradictory elements. You can desire the strength of the gorilla, the cunning of the wolf, the smile of the dolphin, but if you put all three into a telepod and press "send" you're not going to get a smiley strong cunning thing, you're going to get a red mess that screams wetly and dies.
#FALLACY2: The Angelina Jolie Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But we can have our own tailored deal". * Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" * Long form: People who want to get divorced fixate on an idealised partner: the unhappy husband dreams of an infinitely sympathetic Angelina Jolie at his beck and call. Similarly, the dreams of a tailored deal in which each country provides a new deal with none of the disadvantages and all the advantages of the old deal. But the other country's interests have not changed, they will not want to change the deal, and will have other commitments: the divorced male is still middle-aged (and now poor) and Angelina Jolie is still rich and married to Brad Pitt. A tailored deal will not eventuate because from the other country's POV nothing has changed: a key still has to fit a lock, even if the key believes otherwise. Options are not chosen in isolation and there are other interests that act against it. * See also "we can have controlled migration", "we can have a Commonwealth free trade area"
#FALLACY3: The Rincewind fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But Europe is full of rapist/crooks/thugs/etc". * Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER * Some of you may recall the Pratchett wizard Rincewind who was firmly convinced that it's not where you run *to*, it's what you run *from*. This was useful when evading monsters, but it only works in fiction. Running from a problem does not cure a problem. You may desire to reduce migration or evade militant religionists by exit, but exit will not cure them, nor make them less likely (see "Angelina Jolie fallacy" above), and it ignores the disadvantages of the alternatives.
...Viewcodes whole posting is one big fallacy. It is called the Straw Man fallacy...
Straw Man only works if I introduce another argument and knock that one down. But I wasn't doing that: the fallacies themselves are listed in the "short form" entries, namely:
#FALLACY1: ...Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID #FALLACY2: ...Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" #FALLACY3: ...Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER
I even put them in capitals for emphasis (was this not obvious?)
I gave them humorous names ("Telepod", "Angelina Jolie", "Rincewind") to aid recall and add levity, not as part of the argument. If you find the humorous names to be strawmanesque, the fallacies work perfectly well without them.
I have to go back to work from lunch, so any response will be delayed, for which I apologise.
Which boils down to: leaving the EU is not a panacea, and you can't guarantee the future anyway, ergo we may as well stay in the EU.
With absolutely no disrespect to David Mundell isn't it rather sad that in this day and age the fact that he is gay should be so newsworthy that it features as the lead item in the Telegraph? I would have liked to have thought we had got past that.
I've just changed my tw@tter password, but note that I was following @rstarsick
'World famous-In my world, that is. Musician, Kung Fu Practitioner, Filmmaker, Audio-Video Editor, Husband, Father, Humorist. Voice Actor. You Need Me.'
I have no idea who he is but he seems to have 483,000 followers. Are there some weird pseudo auto-follow type virus type thingies about on twitter ? If so alot of wannabes/Z-list celebs use these to big up their following...
I believe one can buy Twitter followers by the thousand to make oneself look like a thing.
I have 37 followers @DavidHerdson . It's quality not quantity that counts (I wouldn't object to a few more though).
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
I wouldn't pay for IFA unless it was to advise me on the technical and legal structures of something complex with which I am unfamiliar, e.g pensions.
No one knows crap about the future, and most financial advice is just very well articulated crystal ball gazing.
"I think the other thing that is missing is that there is a lot of basic stuff that people should be doing e.g. NS&I, premium bonds and other basic money management well before they get to investment advice. A lot of it is the sort of stuff that you see in the papers but that is not personalised and can be wrong. A good financial advisor will tell you to sort out the basic stuff first and them move to the more complicated stuff. But of course that takes a bit of time. How is that going to be paid for.
Only 3 options as I see it:-
1. People pay for advice. 2. Some sort of government provided advisory service coupled with education so that those who can and want to can do it for themselves. 3. Financial advisors provide it as a sort of loss leader / to build up trust and in the hope/expectation that they get more profitable work from the client later.
At the moment, people don't really get the advice / basic information they should be getting and those who provide the products are, understandably, concentrating on selling and trying to make a profit. So there is a mis-match.
However, having spotted a gap in the market, I am damned if I can find a way of making it pay. Otherwise I would be out there doing it - or selling the idea to someone!!!"
******************************************************************* My comments:
Excellent post but I have plenty of clients where no investment risk is the right solution and my advice is purely cash management and tax planning.
The whole point of the RDR was to abolish the incentive to sell commission paying products and rather for we advisers to be paid for our advice rather than selling a certain type of products.
My client bank has millions in NS&I Premium Bonds and especially Index linked savings certificates which have been fabulous - until very recently - for example and despite them not now having been on sale for years and having never paid commission.
The problem is those of modest means where I can't add enough value for it to be worth it for a client to pay me my minimum fee (which is £250).
viewcode and Richard are advocating the "stay with vasoline" fallacy - that its awesome that it wont hurt quite so much to be violated in the rear once we have a fingers crossed promise from Brussels.
Viewcodes whole posting is one big fallacy. It is called the Straw Man fallacy.
Nevertheless, he writes well and there aren't enough eloquent europhiles on the board. So I salute his three fallacies.
Agreed. But eloquence is no substitute for rigorous thought.
FWIW, here is my interpretation of the 3 Fallacies:
1. Changing things might not make them better so we should not try. 2. Viewpoint is not confident about identifying the real alternative options available, therefore no-one can or they do not exist. 3. Describing the problem does not make the alternative better. So what? A meaningless truism.
To elaborate a little on 2 and 3 (one is so egregious it needs no further comment):
2. This view is predicated on the assumption that in a relationship, if one party changes, nothing changes for the other party(ies). Simply not true. Try telling your spouse that you are having a sex change and see if he or she thinks your actions will not change his or her life. 3. Describing the problem does not make alternatives better. True on the face of it, but what value does that nugget bring? Zero. On the other hand, describing the problem - situation awareness in academic speak - is the first necessary step in decision-making. And the first rule is stop making things worse. Running from a problem is not necessarily bad and may be necessary at least for a time while you are working on a more permanent solution. If a tiger is heading at me with the intent of making me breakfast, I will run until I find some safe refuge (or until I am breakfast).
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Since you repeated a series of outright lies a couple of nights ago on the subject of the EU and the EEA you are in no position to comment on this.
Besides, he was not insulted. Insulting is what I do to you because you deserve it. All I did was point out that his post was in itself a fallacy just like those he is describing.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
I wouldn't pay for IFA unless it was to advise me on the technical and legal structures of something complex with which I am unfamiliar, e.g pensions.
No one knows crap about the future, and most financial advice is just very well articulated crystal ball gazing.
No financial adviser should claim they can. That's not what our job is. I dispute entirely that 'most' financial advice is crystal ball gazing, it's not - it's dealing with the here and now.
Perhaps the closest to ball gazing is when we do cashflow planning and that is mainly to try and help a client 'visualise' their future needs and objectives and whether they are in with a chance of meeting them. That's got lots of assumptions.
Pension work is indeed huge these days as 'A' day is long since dead.
It's all very well calling for the legal aid budget to rise, but why bother when the system is so open to abuse by squillionaires who claim to be broke, and then expect the taxpayer to cough up on their behalf?
viewcode and Richard are advocating the "stay with vasoline" fallacy - that its awesome that it wont hurt quite so much to be violated in the rear once we have a fingers crossed promise from Brussels.
If by 'Richard' you mean me, I'm not advocating anything. I awaiting a response to the various points I've made questioning the validity of point raised by the Leave side, and also making the wider point that I remain amazed at how poorly they have prepared their case despite the three or more years' warning they have had.
We had a lovely example of fallacies 1 and 3 yesterday, regarding the City. MaxPB and Runnymede were pointing out the risks to the City if we stay in the EU. The thing is, I agree with them on that. They were also advocating the EEA route (Fallacy 1 in all its glory, when combined with 'control of our borders'). Of course (Fallacy 3) if we leave the EU but join the EEA the risks to the City are identical to staying in the EU - in fact, slightly worse because we'd have even less say and even less institutional protection.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Pish and tish, Mr. Navabi. Some of us on the leave side have never indulged in any sort of personal abuse and have consistently tried to address the issues. However, some people on the remain side just keep repeating the same things without ever seeming to acknowledge that people have made coherent and valid arguments.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
That's straightforward. The present relationship between this country and the EU is unsatisfactory, and there is no evidence that it is going to get better so long as we remain a member of the EU (and blaming Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for what's gone wrong is cold comfort, as far as I'm concerned).
So, it is sensible to leave. Things may get better, or they may not, but it's at least better to take the chance that they will get better, rather than remain, in the sure knowledge that things won't get better.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
I wouldn't pay for IFA unless it was to advise me on the technical and legal structures of something complex with which I am unfamiliar, e.g pensions.
No one knows crap about the future, and most financial advice is just very well articulated crystal ball gazing.
I recommend you read Tetlock's "Superforecasting". Your final paragraph does little more than expose your own ignorance.
viewcode and Richard are advocating the "stay with vasoline" fallacy - that its awesome that it wont hurt quite so much to be violated in the rear once we have a fingers crossed promise from Brussels.
If by 'Richard' you mean me, I'm not advocating anything. I awaiting a response to the various points I've made questioning the validity of point raised by the Leave side, and also making the wider point that I remain amazed at how poorly they have prepared there case despite the three or more years' warning they have had.
We had a lovely example of fallacies 1 and 3 yesterday, regarding the City. MaxPB and Runnymede were pointing out the risks to the City if we stay in the EU. The thing is, I agree with them on that. They were also advocating the EEA route (Fallacy 1 in all its glory, when combined with 'control of our borders'). Of course (Fallacy 3) if we leave the EU but join the EEA the risks to the City are identical to staying in the EU - in fact, slightly worse because we'd have even less say and even less institutional protection.
And there is your lie yet again.
Why don't you actually learn something about how the EEA works. We would not have less protection. On matters where we currently have a veto we would still have a veto. On matters where we do not currently have a veto we would now have a veto.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
Will Steven Caulker let me down tonight ?
I'm worried that he's finally playing for a big team he might freeze under the pressure.
That's straightforward. The present relationship between this country and the EU is unsatisfactory, and there is no evidence that it is going to get better so long as we remain a member of the EU (and blaming Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for what's gone wrong is cold comfort, as far as I'm concerned).
So, it is sensible to leave. Things may get better, or they may not, but it's at least better to take the chance that they will get better, rather than remain, in the sure knowledge that things won't get better.
Yes, and you are one of the very BOOers who makes a coherent case for leaving, without insulting those who have doubts.
Obviously it's a judgement call in the sense that there are uncertainties on both sides - if we stay, the EU will continue to evolve, if we leave, we don't know what the agreement with our EU friends will look like.
With absolutely no disrespect to David Mundell isn't it rather sad that in this day and age the fact that he is gay should be so newsworthy that it features as the lead item in the Telegraph? I would have liked to have thought we had got past that.
I think for men of Mr Mundell's generation- and very likely Telegraph readers too - who grew up in an environment where homosexuals were imprisoned or derided - it is a big deal - fortunately for younger people it is much less of an issue- or none at all.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
That's it. What matters is winning the Referendum. If that means getting the votes of people who support Leave, because they hope to turn the UK into a revolutionary socialist republic, or Leave because they want to turn the UK into a national socialist folk state, then so be it. Don't get pinned down to one model.
Lawyer wants to get his hands on taxpayer funds shock
I've never worked on a legal aid case in my life.
My only interest is in getting justice for the plebeians
If you have done criminal work and not accepted Legal Aid cases then you have either worked only for the very peak of the criminal classes or are a very noble fellow. In either case, Respect!
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
With absolutely no disrespect to David Mundell isn't it rather sad that in this day and age the fact that he is gay should be so newsworthy that it features as the lead item in the Telegraph? I would have liked to have thought we had got past that.
I think for men of Mr Mundell's generation- and very likely Telegraph readers too - who grew up in an environment where homosexuals were imprisoned or derided - it is a big deal - fortunately for younger people it is much less of an issue- or none at all.
Agreed. I was wondering (hoping perhaps) that this is more of a poor reflection of the Telegraph than of society as a whole.
When I think of Corbyn these days (I try not to) I think of an annoying Jehovah's witness knocking on my door.... He is so utterly useless , it defies belief.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
There are indeed real issues, but that does not detract from the fact that the fallacies are themselves fallacies. Nor do I have to provide solutions to the issues to prove a fallacy.
1. Combining options in a new format is indeed an option. As is coming up with completely new approaches. I do not need to say what these are to counter this fallacy. A basic rule of negotiations is that if none of the options on the table are attractive, make up new options or create new issues with which to trade. 2. The difference between can and will. Another truism. But if we leave the EU, there will be at least one 'will' regardless of anything else because the UK and the EU will still be doing business. Again, I do not have to describe what that 'will' will be in order to disprove viewpoint's fallacy.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
In other words, the Leave side should try to get away with Fallacy 1 and hope that voters don't notice.
As a matter of tactics, I don't think that will be successful, although the fact that so little work has been done in preparing a coherent case for what Brexit would look like probably means there's no alternative now but for Leave to try to get away with it.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
When I think of Corbyn these days (I try not to) I think of an annoying Jehovah's witness knocking on my door.... He is so utterly useless , it defies belief.
And like those Jehovah's witness, you would never want them in charge of anything.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
The way I see it, simply and succinctly:
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!) REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
As far as I'm concerned, the politics of the matter has always mattered far more than the economics. The UK will be a rich country whether or not it's part of the EU.
When I think of Corbyn these days (I try not to) I think of an annoying Jehovah's witness knocking on my door.... He is so utterly useless , it defies belief.
And like those Jehovah's witness, you would never want them in charge of anything.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
The way I see it, simply and succinctly:
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!) REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
My preference is for EFTA, and I agree with the Brexit conclusions in this paper. I think the UK Government and Foreign Office would almost certainly prefer the EEA:
viewcode and Richard are advocating the "stay with vasoline" fallacy - that its awesome that it wont hurt quite so much to be violated in the rear once we have a fingers crossed promise from Brussels.
If by 'Richard' you mean me, I'm not advocating anything. I awaiting a response to the various points I've made questioning the validity of point raised by the Leave side, and also making the wider point that I remain amazed at how poorly they have prepared their case despite the three or more years' warning they have had.
We had a lovely example of fallacies 1 and 3 yesterday, regarding the City. MaxPB and Runnymede were pointing out the risks to the City if we stay in the EU. The thing is, I agree with them on that. They were also advocating the EEA route (Fallacy 1 in all its glory, when combined with 'control of our borders'). Of course (Fallacy 3) if we leave the EU but join the EEA the risks to the City are identical to staying in the EU - in fact, slightly worse because we'd have even less say and even less institutional protection.
Richard you still never addressed the point about the BRRD, we are part of it but it is an EMU solution that has been foisted on all the the EU by QMV and we weren't able to secure an opt-out. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are under no obligation to implement BRRD despite either being in the EEA/EFTA or having their own single market deal. Lamenting the loss of our veto is not an answer, it is avoidance which is all I have got from you so far.
As I have said time and again the threat to the City is the same whether we leave or not, I have not said that we will be better off out in terms of financial services. Without the FinReg veto we have no power within the EU to stop hostile regulations and you have yet to outline what these "institutional protections" are that we have. I pointed out yesterday or the day before that the FTT is still extraterritorial, the BRRD is being implemented EU-wide despite our clear opposition to it and the EUParl implemented the bonus cap against our wishes and we had to implement that as well. In the EEA we would not be subject to either of the last two and outside of the EU we could take the extraterritorial nature of the FTT proposals to a court which is not politically motivated like the ECJ.
You accuse the leave side of not having any answers on the City, but you have continually refused to outline what remain's arguments are on financial services and specifically protection of the City. Dave is not negotiating for a FinReg veto and as I have pointed out time and again, in almost all cases the vote is usually 1vs27 or in some cases 2vs26. Whatever non-EMU protections Dave can get would make no difference in those circumstances since we don't have a veto and we aren't going to get one.
On financial advisors, I've never had cause to pay for them and have only used them for mortgages when supplied by the mortgage provider, and I once used a free broker, where I've found it hard work, restricted to their own products and they always try and flog you something extra. One even did so despite the fact I told him I wasn't interested and then I was pestered for calls for weeks afterward.
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
I appear to be missing a financial advice chat? Shocking oversight by me.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
I wouldn't pay for IFA unless it was to advise me on the technical and legal structures of something complex with which I am unfamiliar, e.g pensions.
No one knows crap about the future, and most financial advice is just very well articulated crystal ball gazing.
No financial adviser should claim they can. That's not what our job is. I dispute entirely that 'most' financial advice is crystal ball gazing, it's not - it's dealing with the here and now.
Perhaps the closest to ball gazing is when we do cashflow planning and that is mainly to try and help a client 'visualise' their future needs and objectives and whether they are in with a chance of meeting them. That's got lots of assumptions.
Pension work is indeed huge these days as 'A' day is long since dead.
I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that if you have a pension pot > £100k, then you are required to take financial advice on it before drawdown ?
Is that correct - it is the only time I could see myself paying for advice tbh.
I see that viewcode is being insulted and accused of malice and falsehood for his very reasonable post on his 'three fallacies'.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
It would be nice. I'm for leave, but you'd be surprised how often I get mistaken for Remain simply for not getting frothing mad at some things. On the final 'fallacy' sometimes the disadvantages to the known position are so bad that one should risk the Unknown (or unexplained) disadvantages of the other position. Many people do not think the EU, bad as it is, is worth the risk of unknown disadvantages without - I was the same for a long time - but now I do. So while I take the point, I know enough about the EU position to be fairly confident any alternatives are not going to be worse, at least in the specific sense I regard it as bad (I don't actually care about immigration, although I think society at large has reached a tipping point, but the general superstate direction of the EU I cannot abide)
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
In other words, the Leave side should try to get away with Fallacy 1 and hope that voters don't notice.
As a matter of tactics, I don't think that will be successful, although the fact that so little work has been done in preparing a coherent case for what Brexit would look like probably means there's no alternative now but for Leave to try to get away with it.
No, not at all. Fallacy no.1 is (you guessed it) a fallacy: I see no reason why combining options is invalid.
Britain may well look for and get a bespoke deal in exchange for trade-offs elsewhere, which is what Open Europe argue for with their 'single market lite' suggestion. Switzerland has precisely such a deal. Ultimately, real politik governs.
Yes, we might not get exactly what we want but that's different to say it's totally off the table before we've even started.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
Indeed, in a democracy based upon time-limited granting of monopoly of power by the citizens to the government, trust is the key element. Trust is even more of an issue when that monopoly of power is granted permanently to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy.
An elitist, dirigiste ruling class lying and obfuscating to the public is guaranteed to shred that trust. A few more months like the last couple of weeks, and I'll be surprised if the referendum is even close.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work, it would also allow us to implement Dave's discriminatory policy of no in-work benefits for a few years as well AIUI, but the principle would remain that people from within the EU would be able to come and work here if they choose to do so. I think we would also be able to implement a language and skills test but I'm not 100% on that.
Retail investment advice is not my area of speciality but my thoughts are these:- [snip] I'm sure @Charles will have views on this, if he's around.
It's a fundamental issue: all of the points that you raise are completely fair ones. I'm not sure that anyone really has the answer, although the recent RDR reforms, although a nightmare to implement, are probably a step in the right direction.
The key problems that I see are:
(1) Most of the money is in the product design and management rather than the retail sales, so the big firms naturally want to be in that segments of the market
(2) This means to the extent that they are in the retail distribution market they will be biased towards in-house products where they can capture all of the value chain
(3) RDR tries to address this by forcing financial advisors to be truly independent (whole of market) or to be truly captive (selling their house products). At least the customer knows what they are getting.
(4) Customers, in the most case, just don't want to pay upfront for advice but, as you say, provider payments/trailing commissions distort incentives for the advisers
I'm not sure what the answer is, frankly. In an ideal world you'd have armies of independent financial advisers whose customers are willing to pay for the value that they add. But I think we are a distance from this - and it's uneconomic to expect the banks to provide free, high quality advice. But I'm still smarting from the roasting I got on here when I suggested that customers' refusal to pay for current account banking was at the root of many of the mis-selling problems of the last few years...
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
The way I see it, simply and succinctly:
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!) REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
More generally, as I said yesterday, you don't need to convince me that there are risks to the City from staying in. I'm already convinced of that. The bit I'm struggling with is how leaving makes it better.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
The way I see it, simply and succinctly:
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!) REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
"Scoundrel? Scoundrel? I like the sound of that!" - Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back (Star Wars Episode V).
More generally, as I said yesterday, you don't need to convince me that there are risks to the City from staying in. I'm already convinced of that. The bit I'm struggling with is how leaving makes it better.
It's optional, Switzerland are not implementing it, not sure about Iceland.
Richard, that's my point exactly. It makes no difference, leave or remain, the City is going to be under threat from the EU, which means we can take this idea that our financial services industry will go into decline if we leave completely off the table. Rob and I were discussing it yesterday, there is just too much inertia for banks, investment firms and hedge funds to just up sticks to Paris or Frankfurt. The worst that will happen is some American banks will open branch offices in Dublin, though that is already underway because of cheaper labour and land/rent costs for back office functions.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
That's straightforward. The present relationship between this country and the EU is unsatisfactory, and there is no evidence that it is going to get better so long as we remain a member of the EU (and blaming Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for what's gone wrong is cold comfort, as far as I'm concerned).
So, it is sensible to leave. Things may get better, or they may not, but it's at least better to take the chance that they will get better, rather than remain, in the sure knowledge that things won't get better.
Yes, and you are one of the very BOOers who makes a coherent case for leaving, without insulting those who have doubts.
Obviously it's a judgement call in the sense that there are uncertainties on both sides - if we stay, the EU will continue to evolve, if we leave, we don't know what the agreement with our EU friends will look like.
I think your last paragraph sums it up.
For me, our current terms of EU membership are unacceptable, I think the direction of travel of the EU's future evolution is clear (even if its 'degree' is not) the extent of the renegotiation being sought isn't sufficient for me to reassess that, and experience to date shows that EU guarantees guarantee very little.
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
Indeed, in a democracy based upon time-limited granting of monopoly of power by the citizens to the government, trust is the key element. Trust is even more of an issue when that monopoly of power is granted permanently to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy.
An elitist, dirigiste ruling class lying and obfuscating to the public is guaranteed to shred that trust. A few more months like the last couple of weeks, and I'll be surprised if the referendum is even close.
Quite. Trust is key. Remain does not mean the status quo. I don't like the direction of travel of the EU and I don't trust what EU bureaucrats say about what may or may not happen.
But fundamentally I am with RCS100 on this: Continental Europe and the UK are too far apart on too many fundamental issues and the way the EU is currently constructed it seems to make it a choice between "Europe" and "democracy". In such a forced question I will choose democracy every time, even though there are undoubted and serious risks with leaving.
I wish that this were not so. I like many things about the EU and the ideal behind it is a good one. But it is being pushed beyond what the people of Europe want and are comfortable with and the past few years have seen the resulting strains. Carry on like this and those strains will get much worse, I fear. Time to set the reset button. The UK will cope fine, will cope well on its own.
I will be interested to see what Cameron comes back with but since he has never put the argument about Europe in a way which resonates with my concerns I'm not holding my breath. Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
I think news stories like Cologne have a very high degree of cut-through for the reasons you mention.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work
Just on this: presumably, though, we would continue to allow people to come to this country without visas. What is to stop someone coming to the UK visa-free and looking for a job?
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Then how do Norway do exactly this. I know the Swiss have their own separate deal to do it, but Norway have job conditionality for people who want to move there from within the EU. They also have language tests, but I think those are being challenged.
Richard we are still struggling to understand how City-related issues might sway your vote on the EU when you yourself admit that what the PM is aiming for in this area is at best 'small beer' and that an 'acceptable' outcome is unlikely.
If your 'small beer' changes don't materialise, will you vote LEAVE? And why would such 'small beer' changes affect your vote one way or the other?
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I think that is perhaps the fatal flaw in the Leave campaign and is largely the fault of Farage. EEA membership absolutely precludes the end to Freedom of Movement. As such building an argument around migration then precludes EEA membership which throws us into all sorts of problems with regard to what comes next.
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work
Just on this: presumably, though, we would continue to allow people to come to this country without visas. What is to stop someone coming to the UK visa-free and looking for a job?
For sure, but we wouldn't have to extend state help for them in the form of benefits if they were unable to find a job. They would just have to go back to their home country. They would be working tourists for a while I guess.
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
It's not just the economic question, there is also a very significant issue on the political side. The 'government by fax' jibe is not without substance , and the Leave side are wrong to dismiss it as a Europhile lie. Trying to argue that we'd have as much influence from outside as inside is a hell of a stretch, and not very convincing. The EU is still going to be there on our doorstep, the Euro will still be a much more important currency in world trade than Sterling is, and on any scenario we are going to be subject to massive amounts of EU legislation.
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Then how do Norway do exactly this. I know the Swiss have their own separate deal to do it, but Norway have job conditionality for people who want to move there from within the EU. They also have language tests, but I think those are being challenged.
My understanding wrt Norway was that anyone can turn up and look for a job, but after 90 days you have to register with the police and prove that you have means of support. Presumably that also discourages people working in the black market.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
I think news stories like Cologne have a very high degree of cut-through for the reasons you mention.
Yes - they do because those girls could be my daughter. And, frankly, because I - and plenty of others - are fed up to the back teeth with politicians sacrificing women on the altar of their own virtue.
If @Charles is about. Are you involved with any chemo and radio therapy resistant drugs? And any that are potentially supported by aspirin?
Friend diagnosed with an aggressive one where aspirin made a big difference.
Salycyclic acid is a wonderful compound (that we don't really understand), but I've not really been involved with ADP blockers since the days of clopidogrel.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
The way I see it, simply and succinctly:
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!) REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I thought that was reserved for blind party loyalty.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Then how do Norway do exactly this. I know the Swiss have their own separate deal to do it, but Norway have job conditionality for people who want to move there from within the EU. They also have language tests, but I think those are being challenged.
My understanding wrt Norway was that anyone can turn up and look for a job, but after 90 days you have to register with the police and prove that you have means of support. Presumably that also discourages people working in the black market.
Comments
There's no subscription platform to read them
On a brighter side, they can be helpful within the sales 'boundaries' within which they are permitted to operate because they have a working knowledge of the T&Cs of the products, but 80-90% of the value you can achieve yourself through basic research.
Or through using the excellent moneysavingexpert.com website.
#FALLACY1: ...Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID
#FALLACY2: ...Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL"
#FALLACY3: ...Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER
I even put them in capitals for emphasis (was this not obvious?)
I gave them humorous names ("Telepod", "Angelina Jolie", "Rincewind") to aid recall and add levity, not as part of the argument. If you find the humorous names to be strawmanesque, the fallacies work perfectly well without them.
I have to go back to work from lunch, so any response will be delayed, for which I apologise.
There's a world of difference between the work of a mortgage broker and an IFA (I wear both hats) - will read through the comments to see what's going on.
Zac Goldsmith is a serial rebeller on 9.5%.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Zac_Goldsmith&mpc=Richmond_Park&house=commons
This is why Zac has never been promoted to a government position in spite of his ability.
Other serial rebellers are Bill Cash (10.2%) and David Davis (11.8%).
I'm worried that he's finally playing for a big team he might freeze under the pressure.
It would be nice if occasionally those advocating Leave (a) actually addressed the points and (b) managed to do so without personal insults. All three of his fallacies are certainly very real problems for the Leave side.
Colour me unconvinced.
Edit: Apparently Tuilaigi (and Slade) would have been picked but are injured.
Still backs especially are basically we we went with at the WC plus the return of Ashton and Yarde.
No one knows crap about the future, and most financial advice is just very well articulated crystal ball gazing.
"I think the other thing that is missing is that there is a lot of basic stuff that people should be doing e.g. NS&I, premium bonds and other basic money management well before they get to investment advice. A lot of it is the sort of stuff that you see in the papers but that is not personalised and can be wrong. A good financial advisor will tell you to sort out the basic stuff first and them move to the more complicated stuff. But of course that takes a bit of time. How is that going to be paid for.
Only 3 options as I see it:-
1. People pay for advice.
2. Some sort of government provided advisory service coupled with education so that those who can and want to can do it for themselves.
3. Financial advisors provide it as a sort of loss leader / to build up trust and in the hope/expectation that they get more profitable work from the client later.
At the moment, people don't really get the advice / basic information they should be getting and those who provide the products are, understandably, concentrating on selling and trying to make a profit. So there is a mis-match.
However, having spotted a gap in the market, I am damned if I can find a way of making it pay. Otherwise I would be out there doing it - or selling the idea to someone!!!"
*******************************************************************
My comments:
Excellent post but I have plenty of clients where no investment risk is the right solution and my advice is purely cash management and tax planning.
The whole point of the RDR was to abolish the incentive to sell commission paying products and rather for we advisers to be paid for our advice rather than selling a certain type of products.
My client bank has millions in NS&I Premium Bonds and especially Index linked savings certificates which have been fabulous - until very recently - for example and despite them not now having been on sale for years and having never paid commission.
The problem is those of modest means where I can't add enough value for it to be worth it for a client to pay me my minimum fee (which is £250).
FWIW, here is my interpretation of the 3 Fallacies:
1. Changing things might not make them better so we should not try.
2. Viewpoint is not confident about identifying the real alternative options available, therefore no-one can or they do not exist.
3. Describing the problem does not make the alternative better. So what? A meaningless truism.
To elaborate a little on 2 and 3 (one is so egregious it needs no further comment):
2. This view is predicated on the assumption that in a relationship, if one party changes, nothing changes for the other party(ies). Simply not true. Try telling your spouse that you are having a sex change and see if he or she thinks your actions will not change his or her life.
3. Describing the problem does not make alternatives better. True on the face of it, but what value does that nugget bring? Zero. On the other hand, describing the problem - situation awareness in academic speak - is the first necessary step in decision-making. And the first rule is stop making things worse. Running from a problem is not necessarily bad and may be necessary at least for a time while you are working on a more permanent solution. If a tiger is heading at me with the intent of making me breakfast, I will run until I find some safe refuge (or until I am breakfast).
Besides, he was not insulted. Insulting is what I do to you because you deserve it. All I did was point out that his post was in itself a fallacy just like those he is describing.
UK's most senior judge says civil justice is now unaffordable to most
Lord chief justice says in annual report to parliament that one result is rise in number of litigants unrepresented in court
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/13/uk-most-senior-judge-says-justice-has-become-unaffordable-to-most?CMP=share_btn_tw
Perhaps the closest to ball gazing is when we do cashflow planning and that is mainly to try and help a client 'visualise' their future needs and objectives and whether they are in with a chance of meeting them. That's got lots of assumptions.
Pension work is indeed huge these days as 'A' day is long since dead.
We had a lovely example of fallacies 1 and 3 yesterday, regarding the City. MaxPB and Runnymede were pointing out the risks to the City if we stay in the EU. The thing is, I agree with them on that. They were also advocating the EEA route (Fallacy 1 in all its glory, when combined with 'control of our borders'). Of course (Fallacy 3) if we leave the EU but join the EEA the risks to the City are identical to staying in the EU - in fact, slightly worse because we'd have even less say and even less institutional protection.
I wouldn;t call Dylan Hartley 'rather dull'.
So, it is sensible to leave. Things may get better, or they may not, but it's at least better to take the chance that they will get better, rather than remain, in the sure knowledge that things won't get better.
My only interest is in getting justice for the plebeians
Why don't you actually learn something about how the EEA works. We would not have less protection. On matters where we currently have a veto we would still have a veto. On matters where we do not currently have a veto we would now have a veto.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
Obviously it's a judgement call in the sense that there are uncertainties on both sides - if we stay, the EU will continue to evolve, if we leave, we don't know what the agreement with our EU friends will look like.
Sorry, brainf&rt.
Stop making false statements and I will happily stop telling you you are lying.
He is so utterly useless , it defies belief.
1. Combining options in a new format is indeed an option. As is coming up with completely new approaches. I do not need to say what these are to counter this fallacy. A basic rule of negotiations is that if none of the options on the table are attractive, make up new options or create new issues with which to trade.
2. The difference between can and will. Another truism. But if we leave the EU, there will be at least one 'will' regardless of anything else because the UK and the EU will still be doing business. Again, I do not have to describe what that 'will' will be in order to disprove viewpoint's fallacy.
As a matter of tactics, I don't think that will be successful, although the fact that so little work has been done in preparing a coherent case for what Brexit would look like probably means there's no alternative now but for Leave to try to get away with it.
"So, I’m no longer weighing up the economic arguments for staying in or leaving the EU. A European Union which loses control of immigration, which jeopardises its own precious, civilised values, then lies about it because it doesn’t want to “spread a bad mood”, doesn’t deserve my support.
Labour’s Alan Johnson warns that quitting the EU could damage London’s global status – but what if staying in means taharrush gamea for female commuters at Waterloo or St Pancras?"
England are always very very big. I sometimes think they are a bit scared to pick smaller players.
LEAVE = true English, I mean British, patriots! (oops!)
REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
What we should really be doing is understanding that the majority of those who consider migration to be the big EU issue are probably leaning towards Leave anyway. As such even if we were to go for EEA membership we would probably not lose many of them and would gain far more of those who are not so concerned about immigration but are leaning Leave as long as there is a coherent alternative.
The EEA provides that alternative and it is the option that Leave should be embracing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Brexit Entry 170_final_bio_web.pdf
I'd take either over the EU.
As I have said time and again the threat to the City is the same whether we leave or not, I have not said that we will be better off out in terms of financial services. Without the FinReg veto we have no power within the EU to stop hostile regulations and you have yet to outline what these "institutional protections" are that we have. I pointed out yesterday or the day before that the FTT is still extraterritorial, the BRRD is being implemented EU-wide despite our clear opposition to it and the EUParl implemented the bonus cap against our wishes and we had to implement that as well. In the EEA we would not be subject to either of the last two and outside of the EU we could take the extraterritorial nature of the FTT proposals to a court which is not politically motivated like the ECJ.
You accuse the leave side of not having any answers on the City, but you have continually refused to outline what remain's arguments are on financial services and specifically protection of the City. Dave is not negotiating for a FinReg veto and as I have pointed out time and again, in almost all cases the vote is usually 1vs27 or in some cases 2vs26. Whatever non-EMU protections Dave can get would make no difference in those circumstances since we don't have a veto and we aren't going to get one.
Dave Strettle is playing out of his skin in France....
Anyhoo an away tie at Murrayfield first up looks a bit trickier than it has in the recent past.
Is that correct - it is the only time I could see myself paying for advice tbh.
Britain may well look for and get a bespoke deal in exchange for trade-offs elsewhere, which is what Open Europe argue for with their 'single market lite' suggestion. Switzerland has precisely such a deal. Ultimately, real politik governs.
Yes, we might not get exactly what we want but that's different to say it's totally off the table before we've even started.
An elitist, dirigiste ruling class lying and obfuscating to the public is guaranteed to shred that trust. A few more months like the last couple of weeks, and I'll be surprised if the referendum is even close.
The key problems that I see are:
(1) Most of the money is in the product design and management rather than the retail sales, so the big firms naturally want to be in that segments of the market
(2) This means to the extent that they are in the retail distribution market they will be biased towards in-house products where they can capture all of the value chain
(3) RDR tries to address this by forcing financial advisors to be truly independent (whole of market) or to be truly captive (selling their house products). At least the customer knows what they are getting.
(4) Customers, in the most case, just don't want to pay upfront for advice but, as you say, provider payments/trailing commissions distort incentives for the advisers
I'm not sure what the answer is, frankly. In an ideal world you'd have armies of independent financial advisers whose customers are willing to pay for the value that they add. But I think we are a distance from this - and it's uneconomic to expect the banks to provide free, high quality advice. But I'm still smarting from the roasting I got on here when I suggested that customers' refusal to pay for current account banking was at the root of many of the mis-selling problems of the last few years...
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15253.pdf
More generally, as I said yesterday, you don't need to convince me that there are risks to the City from staying in. I'm already convinced of that. The bit I'm struggling with is how leaving makes it better.
- Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back (Star Wars Episode V).
1) We'd have control of our borders
2) There'd be no economic risk because we'd join the EEA or negotiate a Swiss-style deal.
One of those might be true. Both of them cannot be.
Richard, that's my point exactly. It makes no difference, leave or remain, the City is going to be under threat from the EU, which means we can take this idea that our financial services industry will go into decline if we leave completely off the table. Rob and I were discussing it yesterday, there is just too much inertia for banks, investment firms and hedge funds to just up sticks to Paris or Frankfurt. The worst that will happen is some American banks will open branch offices in Dublin, though that is already underway because of cheaper labour and land/rent costs for back office functions.
For me, our current terms of EU membership are unacceptable, I think the direction of travel of the EU's future evolution is clear (even if its 'degree' is not) the extent of the renegotiation being sought isn't sufficient for me to reassess that, and experience to date shows that EU guarantees guarantee very little.
I agree: there's absolutely no way of knowing exactly what a leave agreement would look like, but I'd take anything (right now) that allows us to immediately quit its political structures.
I appreciate that for others, who own EU-trading UK businesses, the maximum degree of access to the single market trumps everything else.
But fundamentally I am with RCS100 on this: Continental Europe and the UK are too far apart on too many fundamental issues and the way the EU is currently constructed it seems to make it a choice between "Europe" and "democracy". In such a forced question I will choose democracy every time, even though there are undoubted and serious risks with leaving.
I wish that this were not so. I like many things about the EU and the ideal behind it is a good one. But it is being pushed beyond what the people of Europe want and are comfortable with and the past few years have seen the resulting strains. Carry on like this and those strains will get much worse, I fear. Time to set the reset button. The UK will cope fine, will cope well on its own.
I will be interested to see what Cameron comes back with but since he has never put the argument about Europe in a way which resonates with my concerns I'm not holding my breath. Benefits for migrants is a ridiculous issue to be having a referendum about.
If your 'small beer' changes don't materialise, will you vote LEAVE? And why would such 'small beer' changes affect your vote one way or the other?
The Cameroons are having this debate with themselves. The public don't give a t8ss, as they perhaps find out when they attempt to sell it.
The gap between what ruling elites across the west think and what electorates think...well, chasm doesn;t really do it justice.
I agree. That's still no argument to me for staying in the EU.
In a very real sense 'leave' is not a single option but a continuum of options, depending on how much we buy back into the EU as part of the exit negotiations.