Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks wonders whether the LEAVE campaign has alre
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks wonders whether the LEAVE campaign has already sunk
The referendum polling generally shows the EU hardly enthuses. Yet Remain is still ahead in most of the polls. One of the Leave campaign’s weaknesses is that there is as yet no agreement about what a vote for Leave stands for. Many of the proposed answers are mutually inconsistent. What should the intending Leave voter expect? Here are some of the possibilities.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One clear one: If you are confident and optimistic, vote Leave. If you are a loser and want someone to tell you what to do, vote Brussels.
And it isn't immigration that is killing it. Not directly anyway. It is that a union of 28 countries, representing over half a billion people, each with their own domestic democratic elections to their own Parliaments, together with elections to an over-arching European Parliament - all that mass of democracy cannot stop the German Chancellor from opening the borders and allowing into the EU untold millions more. Amongst the mass, untold numbers who wish us harm, harm to us and harm to all we represent. And we have no means of knowing which these terrorists are, or where they are going.
She refuses to concede a Plan B is required. And none of all that democracy can do a damned thing to stop her.
Vote Leave - and back away from this decay of democracy.
This is very reminiscent of SINDYREF - with one notable exception - SINDYREF for all practical purpose had one campaign with charismatic leadership and strong message discipline - yes, their prospectus was full of holes (about 8 billion of them) and had major lacunae (currency, for one), but they had a clear consistent message, and stuck to it through thick & thin, bullying and bluster. They also had a diverse, motivated, enthusiastic ground movement (not as good as some of them believed, but there just the same) - and they had 18 months to prepare.......meanwhile, LEAVE.......out of respect for DavidL's early morning composure, and other thoughtful LEAVErs, I won't list them, but they are painfully well known.....
An interesting analysis, taking a slightly longer view:
http://blog.mcnalu.net/scottish-referendum-retro.html
Opinion polls from 15 October 2012 (the Edinburgh agreement) until the end of 2013 show a support for Yes in the range 25% to 45%, No in 40% to 60%, and Don't Knows mostly sitting in 10% to 20%. The final result was that of all registered voters, 38% voted Yes, 47% No, and 15% did not vote.
If we don't like what our politicians do we can kick the bastards out and get changes. How do we kick the bastards out in Brussels? If we want to change a law in Brussels how do we vote for that? We can't.
Sovereignty is an end-goal in itself not a staging post before "what next", what next is up to us. And is up to us every five years.
For good or ill, European politicians have invested almost all their political capital in keeping the show on the road - I have no doubt they will find some way to fudge weather this particular crisis which the normally sensible Merkel has exacerbated in an extraordinarily foolish manner (Cameron, by contrast has called it right from the start) - so if we do vote LEAVE I suspect the EU will still be with us in our lifetimes - probably with a single currency too.
Maybe four centuries of British foreign policy was wrong - maybe a single dominant European hegemonic power may not be a bad thing....
On the measure most economists (as opposed to politicians, talking up the Home Team) use, PPP, we're 8th or so.....still very big and very prosperous, but not quite as big as we like to think.....
Donald Trump is the great hope of dying white supremacist movement
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-is-the-great-hope-of-dying-white-supremacist-movement-20160229-gn6va8.html#ixzz41cxobafY
I fear you should LEAVE PB for the day, for to REMAIN might be notable for the amount of interesting comments aimed in your direction ....
I would seriously dispute that most economists would use PPP in these circumstances. PPP has some advantages especially when looking at per capita and looking at poverty ... but it also has a great many flaws compared to real GDP (real versus nominal over time absolutely most would use).
When it comes to international trade figures real GDP figures are infinitely far more important than PPP. If I import €1000 of goods from a European company or if an Indonesian consumer imports €1000 of goods from a European company then either way the company has receipts of €1000. Under real GDP figures we are accurately comparing like for like.
Under PPP you would misleadingly assume the Indonesian has spent nearly €4000 to make up the identical €1000 it costs us.
PPP measures an individuals ability to spend within their own nation, it does not measure the individual or nations ability to trade globally. It is a completely incorrect metric to use in this arena which is why no serious economists do.
However it does appear that Cameron is quite happy to thrust his hand down the LEAVE Y fronts and squeeze the contents therein .... Ouch ....
Some might describe that as a 'gross, naive and fallacious oversimplification'.....
So my question is this. If we vote to leave (we probably won't, but let's say we did), and the EU start offering all sorts of goodies, do those on the Remain side think we should ignore them and walk away? This was mentioned yesterday, but I suspect those arguing that out means out would quickly start telling us to "at least hear what they have to say."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/feb/29/eurozone-doomed-mervyn-king-markets-fall-g20-live?page=with:block-56d40f1de4b074a9f6b3613f#block-56d40f1de4b074a9f6b3613f
That is economics 101
If they're so good at forecasting why do they keep falling into to trouble with the tax authorities around the world ?
This sort of question, and the header itself are illustrations of why referendums are bad ways of deciding issues. It is why we elect governments to decide and negotiate long term issues. A simple yes/no at any point in time can be made obselete by events very quickly..
There are some LEAVErs who argue for EEA/EFTA and accept the likely consequences of that on the 'Four Freedoms' - and that short term there me be some temporary downsides to leaving - but in the medium term at worst it will be a wash and we may well end up ahead - all perfectly sensible & defensible positions.
Then there are other LEAVErs - who, a bit like most of the ScotNats, - see only the sunny uplands of a land of Freedom, Milk & Honey......
Political Parties campaign on a manifesto. What's LEAVE's manifesto?
In theory, I could be persuaded to support EU membership if it were merely a free trade area. But that option is not, and never will be, on the table.
http://www.strongerin.co.uk
Do you have a preference among the LEAVE campaigns?:
http://leave.eu
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org
http://grassrootsout.co.uk
Y-Fronts? You're showing your age a bit there Jack - we're all into boxers and hipsters these days. You'll be telling us next that you still wear those "sensible" button-up pyjama tops with sleeves and bottoms with cords around the waist.
We know you're pushing 107 years of age, but you really do need to try and move with the times.
Hartlepool will avoid relegation and whether it'll snow this year.
This is purely an obsession for a particular strand of Tory Train Spotter and though I like to think my circle is wide I simply don't seem to know any. Therefore though I'm sure at some point people will feel obliged to tune in they certainly haven't yet.
Unlike the Scottish referendum this hasn't got the ability to fire the imagination because no one really knows what the EU does. It's like asking whether we approve of the civil servants at DEFRA taking on responsibility for fishing quotas. NORMAL people don't like to occupy their mind with trivia that doesn't interest them if they can avoid it.
Therefore the status quo is looking at a landslide whatever the polls say. A coherent advertising campaign is essential but even the best of the best can only expect to generate interest not alter the fundamentals which is that LEAVING is always going to be the risky option and if we wanted to take risks we'd fly Aeroflot
I have suggested a solution. The solution is that if we Leave and go to the EEA there is no obligation to stay there. If we find it does not work for us the UK could choose to go further in due course by either diluting or cancelling our agreement with the EU and going it alone. That means those who want Leave but are obsessed with reducing immigration accepting a compromise which may not be to their liking in the hope or expectation that it is a very positive step down the path they want to take.
But my "solution" only works if the various factions of Leave sign up for it. There is no sign of that, no sign at all.
Those who have reservations about the EU and its path towards ever closer union (even if that is only for the EZ) are in a difficult place. Like Carlotta, I very much doubt many of us will live to see the break up of the EU caused by its own contradictions. The determination shown to keep Greece in when it was plainly bankrupt and being totally unreasonable was instructive. The vested interests in the EU are as enormous as they are undemocratic.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03585/010316-MATT-WEB_3585722a.jpg
What I do think you are wrong about are the consequences of a low turnout. If the public as a rule aren't interested then they leave the committed and there are certainly more of those on the LEAVE side than on the REMAIN side.
Those polls better be correct.
In fact I bet his chat with George went something along the lines of Osborne will support Gove if Brexit; Gove will support Osborne if we remain. A perfectly sensible deal for them to make.
So Gove is the one man whose views are the most important I think. As is I haven't read any of his stuff on what we would do with Brexit but this doesn't change the analysis.
If I thought it was capable of stopping itself constantly interfering on little things I'd be more inclined to remain, as its that behaviour which shows the inability to reform, to stop endless power creep even to no purpose.
Of course, the reasons for wanting out are radically different to those of the Kippers and Kipper-lites, but are still based on a notion of returning sovereignty to the UK parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12178192/Secret-plan-to-axe-90-per-cent-of-Tory-associations-which-would-smooth-George-Osbornes-coronation-as-leader.html
Its all totally counterfactual theoretical though, as Remain will win.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/26/analysis-dont-get-too-comfortable-out-campaign-has/
So what Cameron needs is a good poll scare a couple of weeks out......worked last time.. ;-)
Next up, the Scottish referendum, an unfortunate result for England?
Mr Meeks is a sharp political observer.
A lot of comparisons with the sindyref made, with the big differences while in was negative and not enough people have genuine affinity for the union fir my liking, it's a lot more than have actual affinity for the Eu. So the same tactics may not work as well.
Boris or Priti would be much more likely to secure a majority in 2020.
For me, were I leave (and I am not a million miles away) it would be the "Braveheart" - or as you describe it "Leave means sorting it out later" argument that would be most compelling. If we want to be independent, let's be independent.
We can sort out everything afterwards.
What gets my goat is the illogicality, for example, of the criticisms of the negotiations. Each of us has a different interpretation of what each negotiated point means and enjoy ourselves making it daily here.
But if I were a true leaver, I wouldn't care what the negotiations did or didn't yield vs the status quo ante, I would just want to be out, to hell with the details.
Remind me again of which referenda in Britain have rejected the status quo...
In terms of a strategy for Leave, they must neutralise both disadvantages. So I think:
(1) They must paint Remain as the riskier choice, that there is no "status quo" and that the deal is not guaranteed and offers no certainty of protection. They must also illustrate the multitude of paths the EU might take, further integration being most likely, with the likely impact on the British voter in terms of laws and £££ of each scenario
(2) They must articulate a framework of what their high-level priorities would be (a sort of, reverse Bloomberg speech, if you will) in the event of Brexit, without actually pinning themselves down to one precise "option". Because, if they do, Cameron/Osborne will pounce on it. Plus, in the event of Brexit, the negotiations are going to have to run several options simultaneously to get the best deal for the UK on a EFTA/single market-lite/bilateral deal.
However, Leave can list them, say Leave is a broad open-minded coalition, say how each would be better than what we have now, both for the UK and the EU, preferably with some international politicians from existing EFTA/EEA member states in their backpocket to provide a few helpful quotes, and dog-whistle that as the most credible solution.
Basically, they need to assure they have a plan, and a credible strategy, without getting pinned into a corner.
I think DavidL's approach comes closest to this.
Back here in the real world, we all know that things will carry on much as now. It would be very difficult for govts to derail the current position. They can try, but it will be hard work, with no winners, and nobody gaining. There may have to be invoicing via S Ireland, or somesuch daft contortion. But it would soon be dropped.
How do I know? Look at any time there has been an embrgo on exports to a certain country, and followed aggressively. Stuff still gets through. You can see how easy it is to do, by simply checking on the amount of premium is charged in the country. Small isn't it?
The silliest question that Remainers ask: what will rep[lace the EU? Answer: nothing. But can't govts tip over all the existing arrangements? Almost certainly not.
The Conservative leadership only have themselves to blame for this. And now they want to rig the vote to ensure their chosen successor gets the gig.
Absolutely no bloody way.
The payback is that Gove supports Osborne in the event of Remain. It is a good deal for both men.
My sense on the EU is that most people feel we are being asked to make a decision which should be being made by those we pay to make these decisions for us.
And what's more we are being dragged into an internecine Tory war which is damaging to us all and for reasons not of our making.
But nonetheless we know that for good or bad it's up to Joe Public to clean up the mess and the only way to do that is by calling it for what it is and supporting the status quo