@blackburn63 Ahhh but Dave said in the house yesterday he was staying on - are you suggesting he was fibbing?
He can intend whatever he likes, so not technically a fib, but it will be out of his control.
Why would it be out of his control? Are you expecting a vote of no confidence?
I mean in the sense he might want to stay on, he might even think he can, but come the result enough Tory MPs will make clear he has to go that he won't last to a vote and will stand down. He technically has a choice and try to force the issue,mind with the result unclear now he might think that is preferable. But when he faces it for real, I think he'll be made to see there's no advantage to that.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
Cameron didn't say how long he would stay on, did he? In theory he could implement the wishes of the people in the event of Leave by just triggering article 50 and then resigning.
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
Looking at the polling, it seems to me that UKIP is one of the main factors (as in the last Parliament) that prevents Labour from establishing a big lead; that Osborne would be fatal to the Conservatives if he became Leader; that Cameron is no longer an asset to the Remain campaign; and that Leave now have a fair wind behind them.
If Corbyn was not leading Labour maybe, with Corbyn under FPTP UKIP could take enough Tory Leave voters to put Corbyn in No 10
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's been working on leaving for years and has had sweet fa effect that I can see.
After a leave vote, it'll be the people who scream loudest who have the most effect, and my fear is that it will most likely be the burn-all-the-bridges people. The more moderate and reasoned people such as yourself won't stand a chance of getting their voices heard.
And all because of the big lie at the heart of leave.
I would like to think I have had a fair bit of effect. I spent a good few years persuading people in the various factions that the best way to proceed was through research and presenting a strong case that highlighted the faults of the EU with concrete examples and which provided a positive vision of the alternatives. Hence my concentration of the EFTA model. I certainly can't claim to be in any way solely responsible but was amongst a group of people advocating that sort of approach and providing the research to support it.
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
Ha - mr Maxton: ... [monarchy] has not worked well in these last weeks, and which is unlikely to ever have so long a run of smooth easy working.
Good call.
Mr Hardie also said a president can be removed a monarch cannot, which seems an odd thing to say given the issue and implication unacceptable kings can go,mod throw own accord or implied not, not to mention parliament has removed a king before with not too much force, and a lot less would needed now.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
A "socialist EU" has got to go down as the biggest pipe-dream ever. They days of Jacques Delor are long gone, the EU is run by, and for, large corporations. We have seen the extent to which national governments (possibly excluding Germany) can change anything of significance. The EU is now so big and unwieldy that chance of 30ish countries agreeing on a new future treaty is close to zero, so the important institution going forward isn't the politicians, its the ECJ, and we will see how much by the extent to which is shreds Cameron's agreement over the next year or so. To the extent that national governments are still calling the shots, they are heading to the right and/or more anti-EU all across Europe.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's been working on leaving for years and has had sweet fa effect that I can see.
After a leave vote, it'll be the people who scream loudest who have the most effect, and my fear is that it will most likely be the burn-all-the-bridges people. The more moderate and reasoned people such as yourself won't stand a chance of getting their voices heard.
And all because of the big lie at the heart of leave.
(Snip)
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
In which case leave should make it clear that EU immigration will likely remain more or less as it is for that reason.
"From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis"
For the n'th time, I am not advocating 'remain', ffs. I am not a supporter of any of the dire campaigns. I am a voter. It's a shame that you're so invested in leave that you cannot comprehend that fact.
Wallace's sense of political timing is as good as ever.
Hacked Off got a good kicking yesterday and were shown to be a group of unprincipled control freaks by Roy Greenslade of all people, hardly a capitalist media mogul.
It is this time that Ed decides to renew his friendship, and go for a backslapping session with Grant and Yentob.
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
What Corbyn does will be largely irrelevant. Keep him away from this I say. Get Alan Johnson out and touring the country and get the unions involved in GOTV. Gordon could do a few speeches/TV spots in Scotland, but I think most us assume they'll be voting 'Remain' anyway. This is lost unless labour voters and the young can be persuaded to turn out.
I think he would announce it at the same time the result is announced. it's not surprising that that so many Tory politicians on the Leave side are peddling the myth that he'll stay on. Why would they want to advertise that their popular leader will be out with the bathwater if they win?
Douglas Carswell asked him that exact question in PMQ's yesterday, and he said "Yes".
Some people thought that was a fatuous question, but it seems to have a lot of relevance already.
The Prime Minister told parliament, unequivocally, in a one word answer, that he will stay on and manage events should "Leave" be chose by the voters. You might call him a liar (I have plenty of time) but you can't blame Tories for believing what their leader told parliament.
There was a scene in the dramatisation of the OJ Simpson trial where Detective Furman was on the witness stand and in answer to every question about his alleged racist behaviour he replied "I'm sorry but I'm taking the fifth"
The defence asked him if he was going to answer every question the same way
'Yes' he replied
Cochran then said in that case he had one final question. "Have you told the truth in your evidence in this trial?"
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
As for Cameron saying he will stay in the event of a LEAVE vote, that reminds me of Margaret Thatcher saying "I fight on I fight to win" 18 hours before her resignation.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
What Corbyn does will be largely irrelevant. Keep him away from this I say. Get Alan Johnson out and touring the country and get the unions involved in GOTV. Gordon could do a few speeches/TV spots in Scotland, but I think most us assume they'll be voting 'Remain' anyway. This is lost unless labour voters and the young can be persuaded to turn out.
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
What Corbyn does will be largely irrelevant. Keep him away from this I say. Get Alan Johnson out and touring the country and get the unions involved in GOTV. Gordon could do a few speeches/TV spots in Scotland, but I think most us assume they'll be voting 'Remain' anyway. This is lost unless labour voters and the young can be persuaded to turn out.
Labour have more or less the same problem here as they had with their leadership, after Brown there are no big beasts left interested in politics that the public wants to listen to. Brown is not popular, and in these days of nationalism his reach is probably limited even in Scotland, Blair is despised, Postie is a nice enough chap I am sure, but he wont get a word in edgeways when interviewed against Farage/Gove/Boris. Labour loyalists like DMil but as far as the voters are concerned he was so concerned about the EU that he went and got a job in America, the less said about Wallace the better. Once more Labour are missing Ed Testicles.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
You've been building up to that flounce all week, haven't you? What an old ham.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
Come on, @JosiasJessop, stick around. Always remember that no one kicks dead dogs: if you're being given a hard time, it means that people think your views are worth addressing.
You need to forget the compliments and remember the insults. Or possibly the other way around.
I do not want to go on that journey. I want us to step back, to regain more control of our own affairs but also retain the single passport and access to the single market. I think that is eminently achievable and will result in us having a better relationship with the EU than we have had for the last 20 years.
I think VL can take a coherent view on that with more than brushing against that minefield. The key campaign message is "Vote Leave. Take Control". So we can leave the EU, and join the EEA. That gives control to the British people, after that point if they feel that isn't sufficient and they want a loose relationship, they can elect a government with that platform. The key decision is do the voters want the future of their country determined in London, or Brussels. Do they want those decisions to be made by people they can kick out if they do it wrong. Once that is decided, then the British People can decide over the medium term what level of relationship they are comfortable with.
Its a coherent message, and it's hard to oppose without sounding like you don't trust the voters with their own destiny, and that you don't believe in democracy.
But Leave can't afford to lose those 16%, hence the reluctance to define what will happen after Brexit. We all know that we will go the EFTA/EEA route thereby leaving immigration unaffected but the Leave campaign hasn't got the guts to spell it out.
If Leave do get round to agreeing on a single course of action before June then that alternative will be subject to detailed scrutiny. Apart from immigration, I would imagine, for example, that most people would assume that if we Brexit and join EFTA/EEA that we cease contributing to the EU budget and it's going to come as a huge shock to find out that we don't
Just watched PBTV. Excellent edition. Well done Mike and the team.
One thing that's puzzling me re the GOP convention. Can Kasich act as kingmaker for Trump or Cruz? I haven't seen any discussion re this. Could he pledge his delegates to either of the front runners and get them over the line? Or doesn't it work like that?
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's been working on leaving for years and has had sweet fa effect that I can see.
After a leave vote, it'll be the people who scream loudest who have the most effect, and my fear is that it will most likely be the burn-all-the-bridges people. The more moderate and reasoned people such as yourself won't stand a chance of getting their voices heard.
And all because of the big lie at the heart of leave.
I would like to think I have had a fair bit of effect. I spent a good few years persuading people in the various factions that the best way to proceed was through research and presenting a strong case that highlighted the faults of the EU with concrete examples and which provided a positive vision of the alternatives. Hence my concentration of the EFTA model. I certainly can't claim to be in any way solely responsible but was amongst a group of people advocating that sort of approach and providing the research to support it.
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
I'm not as trusting as you Richard. I believe that if "call me Dave" stays on after a Leave win, he will use sabotage to subvert the will of the voters, if he is in any way in charge of negotiations with the EU.
Just watched PBTV. Excellent edition. Well done Mike and the team.
One thing that's puzzling me re the GOP convention. Can Kasich act as kingmaker for Trump or Cruz? I haven't seen any discussion re this. Could he pledge his delegates to either of the front runners and get them over the line? Or doesn't it work like that?
I'm not sure - Marco Rubio will 100% recommend his delegates head for Cruz once they are unbound though. John Kasich is likely to have less, and it is less clear in my mind he will go for Cruz.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
I'm not sure this is a good attack line for Remain to take. The young people who they need to turn out to vote for them might not see this is entirely terrible.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
I am not trying to insult you; I do find your arguments illogical and counterproductive and you've done nothing to help me understand them.
If you want Leave to win, and I presume you do, it's now time to stop attacking them so vociferously and make your own case and arguments as to why you are voting Leave if you think other Leavers and the Leave campaign are failing to do it justice.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
I'm not sure this is a good attack line for Remain to take. The young people who they need to turn out to vote for them might not see this is entirely terrible.
Neither. No one will ever know about it because it's behind the FT paywall.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
The abuse of the word "could" is getting ridiculous, not just on Project Chicken Licken, but as a driver for disingenuous clickbait in general.
It's a next to meaningless term. Something "could" happen. Really ? How likely ? How severe ? For how long ? On the basis of what evidence ?
The problem is a more honest headline:
"We think there is a (small percentage) chance that house prices will drop by (not very much) for (not very long) on the basis of (not a lot of evidence at all)"
doesn't sell many papers or support many campaigns.
Many clickbait headlines are so dishonest they omit the "could" completely in the headline, and then after a certain amount of kicking at the floor with the toe of their shoe in the article, have to admit that is only a possibility, and not a very likely one at that.
Project Fear intensifies: @JonathanEley · 23m23 minutes ago Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
I'm not sure this is a good attack line for Remain to take. The young people who they need to turn out to vote for them might not see this is entirely terrible.
Just who do uniform higher house prices help, even if you have a pile and you're 90 the only difference it'll make is the amount of IHT you'll need to pay/"plan" for. Moving from house to house = more stamp duty for you/your buyers.
The only people who really benefit to my mind are foreign investors.
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's been working on leaving for years and has had sweet fa effect that I can see.
After a leave vote, it'll be the people who scream loudest who have the most effect, and my fear is that it will most likely be the burn-all-the-bridges people. The more moderate and reasoned people such as yourself won't stand a chance of getting their voices heard.
And all because of the big lie at the heart of leave.
(Snip)
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
In which case leave should make it clear that EU immigration will likely remain more or less as it is for that reason.
"From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis"
For the n'th time, I am not advocating 'remain', ffs. I am not a supporter of any of the dire campaigns. I am a voter. It's a shame that you're so invested in leave that you cannot comprehend that fact.
Its a shame that your words on here don't match your claims. I didn't say you were supporting the campaigns, I said that you were advocating Remain. I have seen nothing in any of your comments over the last few months to refute that.
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's been working on leaving for years and has had sweet fa effect that I can see.
After a leave vote, it'll be the people who scream loudest who have the most effect, and my fear is that it will most likely be the burn-all-the-bridges people. The more moderate and reasoned people such as yourself won't stand a chance of getting their voices heard.
And all because of the big lie at the heart of leave.
I would like to think I have had a fair bit of effect. I spent a good few years persuading people in the various factions that the best way to proceed was through research and presenting a strong case that highlighted the faults of the EU with concrete examples and which provided a positive vision of the alternatives. Hence my concentration of the EFTA model. I certainly can't claim to be in any way solely responsible but was amongst a group of people advocating that sort of approach and providing the research to support it.
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
I'm not as trusting as you Richard. I believe that if "call me Dave" stays on after a Leave win, he will use sabotage to subvert the will of the voters, if he is in any way in charge of negotiations with the EU.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
You've been building up to that flounce all week, haven't you? What an old ham.
No, I haven't. What on earth would make you think that?
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
Bit like Boris in the opposite direction then? I know Corbyn is not a real cheerleader for Remain but it is important that every wing of the Labour party is going to be giving the same message. I am no fan but Corbyn does have credibility with a segment of the population and I expect they will now follow his lead. The moderates and Blairites will be strongly pro Remain.
Ha - mr Maxton: ... [monarchy] has not worked well in these last weeks, and which is unlikely to ever have so long a run of smooth easy working.
Good call.
Ironically Maxton's constituency was, and to an extent still is, an enclave of ur Unionism: the sectarian song Billy Boys comes from the Brigton razor gang led by the Fascist Billy Fullerton.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
Sort of.
My problem is not EU immigration, and it's not especially non-EU immigration. It's partly Article 8 which we are lumbered with while we are in the EU, and considerably that the EU gives the British government the top cover it needs to do sweet FA about lots of basic immigration problems we do have, not least of which is that we piss around for so long with our processing of asylum applications that they have mostly got married and had kids by the time we are through it, and then claim Article 8.
We have the ridiculous position of having well over a hundred thousand illegal immigrants in the country that have failed all their appeals, and yet we have failed to remove for one reason or another. At the same time we screw over legal immigrant applying through embassies because we can control their numbers and it's easier to do than to try and properly control people running through the tunnel
My problem isn't that lawful useful people can come to our country from anywhere, its that we can't throw out unlawful people, especially those coming from inside the EU. Its is also more recently that the unilateral actions of idiots like Merkel have massive repercussions for the whole of the EU, and yet the whole of the EU got not say in what she said or what then happened.
There is a vast difference between being anti-immigration, which I am not, and believing we should be able to control our borders, which I do.
Its a shame that your words on here don't match your claims. I didn't say you were supporting the campaigns, I said that you were advocating Remain. I have seen nothing in any of your comments over the last few months to refute that.
My words do match my claims. For the final time I'll explain my position:
I am unconvinced by the leave campaigns as they stand. But I believe the EU (and especially the EZ) will need to integrate further in the long term to survive. And I don't want to be part of that. As we'll need to leave eventually, I'd rather leave sooner and get things sorted before we have more integration creep and it'll be harder to disentangle ourselves.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and it's a shame that hardcore leavers such as yourself think it's so unreasonable.
I think the only thing that's caused this is my belief that there is a lie at the heart of leave as they pursue voters on both the anti-immigration and pro-EEA routes. People may disagree with me on that, but it's something that concerns me deeply about the way I'm going to vote. And no-one on here has managed to convince me otherwise.
I do not want to go on that journey. I want us to step back, to regain more control of our own affairs but also retain the single passport and access to the single market. I think that is eminently achievable and will result in us having a better relationship with the EU than we have had for the last 20 years.
I think VL can take a coherent view on that with more than brushing against that minefield. The key campaign message is "Vote Leave. Take Control". So we can leave the EU, and join the EEA. That gives control to the British people, after that point if they feel that isn't sufficient and they want a loose relationship, they can elect a government with that platform. The key decision is do the voters want the future of their country determined in London, or Brussels. Do they want those decisions to be made by people they can kick out if they do it wrong. Once that is decided, then the British People can decide over the medium term what level of relationship they are comfortable with.
Its a coherent message, and it's hard to oppose without sounding like you don't trust the voters with their own destiny, and that you don't believe in democracy.
We really need Gove to come to the fore now. He has the intellectual clarity and precision that is required to spell out the options clearly. The key for me is that Remain is not a vote for the status quo. If Leave can win that argument they can win. If they don't I still expect the undecided to opt for what they think is the safer option.
Yes - thank goodness Vote Leave got the gig - but we do need to see a coherent vision of which Leave we should be voting for - doing that and selling 'Remain = change/uncertainty' is going to be challenging.
Yes I agree 'thank goodness for Gove' in that he will present what people will accept as a definitive case for Leave but If you are expecting it to be persuasive I think you are going to be disappointed.
I used to read his columns in the Times and he is a neocon with the fervour of Wolfowitz. He was a big fan of Bush and wrote passionately why we should go into Iraq. He even wrote an article ' I can't hide my feelings any longer. I love Tony'
His objection to the EU is based on this desire to be close to the right in the US and has little to do with the issues that seem to be motivating Leavers on here
So two great cheerleaders for Leave, Gove and IDS, were huge enthusiasts for disastrous, US-led adventurism? Bodes well for life outside the EU...
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
What Corbyn does will be largely irrelevant. Keep him away from this I say. Get Alan Johnson out and touring the country and get the unions involved in GOTV. Gordon could do a few speeches/TV spots in Scotland, but I think most us assume they'll be voting 'Remain' anyway. This is lost unless labour voters and the young can be persuaded to turn out.
Maybe he realises that most people (despite what they say about wanting more information) actually can't be bothered with the detail.
Richard and Robert will have no say in what happens after a leave vote - after all, Richard admits he's beethe heart of leave.
I would like to think I ha approach and providing the research to support it. ly') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
I'm not as trusting as you Richard. I believe that if "call me Dave" stays on after a Leave win, he will use sabotage to subvert the will of the voters, if he is in any way in charge of negotiations with the EU.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
Good morning all having just returned from a spell staying with the enemy I can report that the weather is much better in Europe at the moment. Draw from that what you will.
It is strangely enough the EEA solution that I get least. Here's what Norway says about it:
Norway needs to provide input as early as possible in the process in this area too, so that its views can be taken into account before the framework for the decision-making process has been established.
ie as has been well-rehearsed on here, there is input at the early stage of proposed legislation and regulation, but not in the final, critical rounds.
And:
All in all, it has become more difficult to ensure that Norwegian interests are safeguarded when new legislation is being developed in the EU.
So we put ourselves into a second class citizen position wrt EU legislation, can admittedly reject certain laws (question: can we reject EU laws for us if the remainder of the EEA accepts them?), and get the cursed four freedoms.
As I'm sure has been mentioned on here - Leave, take control specifically states (finally on P.32 of 36) they want to take control of immigration.
A no score draw. I don't think Corbyn will make any difference either way. His previous longstanding position just provides a bit of amusement to nerds like us.
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
Bit like Boris in the opposite direction then? I know Corbyn is not a real cheerleader for Remain but it is important that every wing of the Labour party is going to be giving the same message. I am no fan but Corbyn does have credibility with a segment of the population and I expect they will now follow his lead. The moderates and Blairites will be strongly pro Remain.
Maybe he realises that most people (despite what they say about wanting more information) actually can't be bothered with the detail.
Possibly, but that only works with a friendly interviewer, faced with a more assertive interviewer or head-to-head with an intelligent opponent, the genial floundering look gets old quite fast.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
In general anyone with plans to trade up benefits from lower prices, even if they lose money on the property they currently own. The rungs on the ladder become closer when prices are lower. It's only investors or people who believe their property is their pension who really lose out.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
I am not trying to insult you; I do find your arguments illogical and counterproductive and you've done nothing to help me understand them.
If you want Leave to win, and I presume you do, it's now time to stop attacking them so vociferously and make your own case and arguments as to why you are voting Leave if you think other Leavers and the Leave campaign are failing to do it justice.
Rethink your style.
You should rethink yours if you think that last paragraph wasn't one big insult. Perhaps you should revisit it.
As for the rest of your post: I'll post what I believe, and I'll make the case. If you disagree with it, fair enough. But you do seem to notice when I disagree with leave and not when I agree with them. As I said earlier, perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts.
I've made the case of why I'm probably voting leave many times, including I think a couple of times on this thread. People do not argue with it, but they seem to ignore the fact I've made it.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
"If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave"
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
Please don't go. I enjoy your posts and sparring with you on various matters.
As I'm sure has been mentioned on here - Leave, take control specifically states (finally on P.32 of 36) they want to take control of immigration.
I am sure that Vote Leave mean LEAVE, it's just that they can mean that all they want, if the government of the day has the balls, and thinks it has the time, or the political capital, it might just ignore that and go for EEA anyway.
Quite sure that 99% of voters, those who are not political geeks won't have even considered EEA/EFTA, for them out means OUT.
Blake's Seven actor, Gareth Thomas has died. Very sad. I used to love that show as a teenager.
I very much doubt that a TV series with a main premise of a sympathetic portrayal of a group of terrorists led by a convicted paedophile would get made nowadays.
I'm not as trusting as you Richard. I believe that if "call me Dave" stays on after a Leave win, he will use sabotage to subvert the will of the voters, if he is in any way in charge of negotiations with the EU.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
That is the point I was making this morning. Now that there is an "official" campaign there is an opportunity for clarity on the basis on which people are being asked to vote Leave which did not exist before. Not all Leavers will agree with that position but they will face a choice between what is being offered and Remain. People will not be misled.
Its a shame that your words on here don't match your claims. I didn't say you were supporting the campaigns, I said that you were advocating Remain. I have seen nothing in any of your comments over the last few months to refute that.
My words do match my claims. For the final time I'll explain my position:
I am unconvinced by the leave campaigns as they stand. But I believe the EU (and especially the EZ) will need to integrate further in the long term to survive. And I don't want to be part of that. As we'll need to leave eventually, I'd rather leave sooner and get things sorted before we have more integration creep and it'll be harder to disentangle ourselves.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and it's a shame that hardcore leavers such as yourself think it's so unreasonable.
I think the only thing that's caused this is my belief that there is a lie at the heart of leave as they pursue voters on both the anti-immigration and pro-EEA routes. People may disagree with me on that, but it's something that concerns me deeply about the way I'm going to vote. And no-one on here has managed to convince me otherwise.
The problem is, it appears you can't understand why continually carping against Leave gets you seen as at least in sympathy with Remain. Given the precedents of Nabavi and Meeks, it's no wonder Leavers are sensitive to claims and actions that don't seem to add up.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Up to a point, yes. Housing is an illiquid asset - but sometimes it is much more illiquid than at other times. So for example I sold a house in 2006 the same day it was advertised. My father by contrast spent two years from 2009-11 trying to sell his.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
Well owner occupiers are more likely to be on a repayment mortgage which means the chance of negative equity is much lower than the interest only BTL mortgages that landlords use. One of the reasons the market is so skewed towards investors is that mortgage interest relief allows landlords to get away with interest only mortgages which means they can go in with lesser deposits and withstand higher initial interest rates.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
In general anyone with plans to trade up benefits from lower prices, even if they lose money on the property they currently own. The rungs on the ladder become closer when prices are lower. It's only investors or people who believe their property is their pension who really lose out.
That's true and not true.
I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80.
I want to buy a house for £200.
I sell my house, and buy the new house. Result, £200 house and £180 mortgage.
Now, imagine prices have fallen 20%.
Good news, the house I want to buy has fallen by £40, and the one I'm selling has only fallen by £20. In other words, I only need a £160 mortgage to buy it.
*But*
The bank won't lend me the money to buy a £160 house, because I don't have any money for a deposit.
Blake's Seven actor, Gareth Thomas has died. Very sad. I used to love that show as a teenager.
It got very good when they stopped pretending that it was in any way a serious show as opposed to an inspired burlesque. Avon latterly was hysterically funny, unable to walk into a room without kicking a chair over.
BTW I thought @DavidL's post below was really excellent/
Expresses much of what I feel.
One issue that does concern me is whether a Leave win would make it more likely that Labour under Corbyn or McDonnell or a similar person would win the next election. I do not trust them, do not want them in charge of the UK or in charge of any Brexit negotiations.
Corby and his ilk are far more dangerous to Britain than the EU.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Up to a point, yes. Housing is an illiquid asset - but sometimes it is much more illiquid than at other times. So for example I sold a house in 2006 the same day it was advertised. My father by contrast spent two years from 2009-11 trying to sell his.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
True, but that also presupposes that the renter gets a new job on the day he signs the rental contract. Most likely, he's six months in, and only needs to give a couple of months notice.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Up to a point, yes. Housing is an illiquid asset - but sometimes it is much more illiquid than at other times. So for example I sold a house in 2006 the same day it was advertised. My father by contrast spent two years from 2009-11 trying to sell his.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
Not being able to let your house out because you can't sell it and need to move somewhere else for a job without getting screwed by extra stamp duty isn't going to help social mobility in this respect.
Anyway, I am going to withdraw for a while. Thanks for all the wellwishes below, and raspberries to all the meanies.
I just don't have the mental capacity at the moment to deal with this.
A couple of nights ago I was the butt of much quite nasty insulting comments directed at me personally. Fine, it's part of the internet I suppose, although disappointing from PB-ers, as we like to think ourselves above such things. I try to separate the message from the mode of delivery. Which latter, if nasty, reflects more on the posters than perhaps (I hope) they realise.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Up to a point, yes. Housing is an illiquid asset - but sometimes it is much more illiquid than at other times. So for example I sold a house in 2006 the same day it was advertised. My father by contrast spent two years from 2009-11 trying to sell his.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
Not being able to let your house out because you can't sell it and need to move somewhere else for a job without getting screwed by extra stamp duty isn't going to help social mobility in this respect.
That's an extremely good point I hadn't thought of.
Its a shame that your words on here don't match your claims. I didn't say you were supporting the campaigns, I said that you were advocating Remain. I have seen nothing in any of your comments over the last few months to refute that.
My words do match my claims. For the final time I'll explain my position:
I am unconvinced by the leave campaigns as they stand. But I believe the EU (and especially the EZ) will need to integrate further in the long term to survive. And I don't want to be part of that. As we'll need to leave eventually, I'd rather leave sooner and get things sorted before we have more integration creep and it'll be harder to disentangle ourselves.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and it's a shame that hardcore leavers such as yourself think it's so unreasonable.
I think the only thing that's caused this is my belief that there is a lie at the heart of leave as they pursue voters on both the anti-immigration and pro-EEA routes. People may disagree with me on that, but it's something that concerns me deeply about the way I'm going to vote. And no-one on here has managed to convince me otherwise.
It is not a lie but you are absolutely right that Leave proponents have and probably will continue to promote contradictory and incompatible visions of what Leave would actually look like. They are not lying, they just have different views and priorities. The accusations of lying by both sides every time someone disagrees seems to me seriously counterproductive, especially for Leave. We need a lot more of Gove's studied politeness. It would be much more effective.
This is also why the designation of Vote Leave is so important. It should make it possible for the public to understand what they are voting for. I agree that to date this has been far from clear.
As I'm sure has been mentioned on here - Leave, take control specifically states (finally on P.32 of 36) they want to take control of immigration.
I am sure that Vote Leave mean LEAVE, it's just that they can mean that all they want, if the government of the day has the balls, and thinks it has the time, or the political capital, it might just ignore that and go for EEA anyway.
Quite sure that 99% of voters, those who are not political geeks won't have even considered EEA/EFTA, for them out means OUT.
Well, you either take the view that yes, OUT means OUT and the rest is details, or you might take the view that it is beholden upon Leave to explain just what OUT means.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
In general anyone with plans to trade up benefits from lower prices, even if they lose money on the property they currently own. The rungs on the ladder become closer when prices are lower. It's only investors or people who believe their property is their pension who really lose out.
That's true and not true.
I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80.
I want to buy a house for £200.
I sell my house, and buy the new house. Result, £200 house and £180 mortgage.
Now, imagine prices have fallen 20%.
Good news, the house I want to buy has fallen by £40, and the one I'm selling has only fallen by £20. In other words, I only need a £160 mortgage to buy it.
*But*
The bank won't lend me the money to buy a £160 house, because I don't have any money for a deposit.
That assumes you've not paid any equity into the original home.
BTW I thought @DavidL's post below was really excellent/
Expresses much of what I feel.
One issue that does concern me is whether a Leave win would make it more likely that Labour under Corbyn or McDonnell or a similar person would win the next election. I do not trust them, do not want them in charge of the UK or in charge of any Brexit negotiations.
Corby and his ilk are far more dangerous to Britain than the EU.
It's equally likely, possibly even more so, that a Remain will increases the likelihood of a Corbyn government. A significant number of pissed off Tories will decamp to UKIP or stay at home next election. If the deal is shredded by the ECJ or EuroParl post referendum the Tory party will be engulfed in civil war again. If the EU wheel out a load of EuroIdiocy that they have been holding back for the referendum it might also go badly for the government.
Incidentally I see that there was voting in EuroParl yesterday on the formation of the EU Army and a common EU Defense policy, something that Clegg swore to us only a year or so ago was out of the question.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
The irony of the home owning democracy is that it reduces labour market mobility, because it's hard to move somewhere for a job if you can't sell your house.
Up to a point, yes. Housing is an illiquid asset - but sometimes it is much more illiquid than at other times. So for example I sold a house in 2006 the same day it was advertised. My father by contrast spent two years from 2009-11 trying to sell his.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
Not being able to let your house out because you can't sell it and need to move somewhere else for a job without getting screwed by extra stamp duty isn't going to help social mobility in this respect.
That's an extremely good point I hadn't thought of.
Right: back to work.
You can let it out and if you then manage to sell your house within 36 months then you can have a refund of the extra stamp duty.
I don't agree, this isn't a general election. It's about leaving the EU then looking at the various options such as EFTA or EEA.
The various wants of Leavers will form how HMG proceeds. And recommendations will probably require another ref to be legitimate
I first made this point ages ago when describing this as a divorce. We haven't decided who to date next yet. That doesn't make staying in an unhappy marriage the answer.
I'm not as trusting as you Richard. I believe that if "call me Dave" stays on after a Leave win, he will use sabotage to subvert the will of the voters, if he is in any way in charge of negotiations with the EU.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
That is the point I was making this morning. Now that there is an "official" campaign there is an opportunity for clarity on the basis on which people are being asked to vote Leave which did not exist before. Not all Leavers will agree with that position but they will face a choice between what is being offered and Remain. People will not be misled.
Please don't disappear JJ - you're very much part of the PB scene and your contributions are very much valued. Should you feel the EU debate has become a little too heavy for you, then please at least consider continuing to post on the other issues. We've lost too many good'uns already.
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
So generation rent should all be piling into Leave?
Absolutely: I think lower house prices is one of the key selling points for Leave.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
Deservedly so on the latter. Lower house prices will hurt "investors" more than it will hurt owner occupiers so banks who have been getting fat from BTL mortgage fees are the ones who will feel the most pain.
Well that depends on how leveraged the owner occupiers are. Negative or zero equity is never a nice thing.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
In general anyone with plans to trade up benefits from lower prices, even if they lose money on the property they currently own. The rungs on the ladder become closer when prices are lower. It's only investors or people who believe their property is their pension who really lose out.
That's true and not true.
I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80.
I want to buy a house for £200.
I sell my house, and buy the new house. Result, £200 house and £180 mortgage.
Now, imagine prices have fallen 20%.
Good news, the house I want to buy has fallen by £40, and the one I'm selling has only fallen by £20. In other words, I only need a £160 mortgage to buy it.
*But*
The bank won't lend me the money to buy a £160 house, because I don't have any money for a deposit.
That assumes you've not paid any equity into the original home.
No, the equity in the original home is £20. It is wiped out by the increased gearing in the new house.
'Well, you either take the view that yes, OUT means OUT and the rest is details, or you might take the view that it is beholden upon Leave to explain just what OUT means.
I am probably 35:65 on the issue.'
I think it's really simple.
Without a LEAVE vote, there is no chance at all of stopping EU immigration. With a LEAVE vote, there is a chance but it is not guaranteed. Ergo if you want to stop EU immigration you vote LEAVE.
'Well, you either take the view that yes, OUT means OUT and the rest is details, or you might take the view that it is beholden upon Leave to explain just what OUT means.
I am probably 35:65 on the issue.'
I think it's really simple.
Without a LEAVE vote, there is no chance at all of stopping EU immigration. With a LEAVE vote, there is a chance but it is not guaranteed. Ergo if you want to stop EU immigration you vote LEAVE.
Yes absolutely. Hence my point that I don't get the EEA solution as favoured by several on here. One of the Anti-EU Internet Heroes on here the other night even pointed me to a website where a majority of people wanted EEA/EFTA.
I think it is not unreasonable to ask for clarity.
'Well, you either take the view that yes, OUT means OUT and the rest is details, or you might take the view that it is beholden upon Leave to explain just what OUT means.
I am probably 35:65 on the issue.'
I think it's really simple.
Without a LEAVE vote, there is no chance at all of stopping EU immigration. With a LEAVE vote, there is a chance but it is not guaranteed. Ergo if you want to stop EU immigration you vote LEAVE.
Yes absolutely. Hence my point that I don't get the EEA solution as favoured by several on here. One of the Anti-EU Internet Heroes on here the other night even pointed me to a website where a majority of people wanted EEA/EFTA.
I think it is not unreasonable to ask for clarity.
Blake's Seven actor, Gareth Thomas has died. Very sad. I used to love that show as a teenager.
It got very good when they stopped pretending that it was in any way a serious show as opposed to an inspired burlesque. Avon latterly was hysterically funny, unable to walk into a room without kicking a chair over.
Its a shame that your words on here don't match your claims. I didn't say you were supporting the campaigns, I said that you were advocating Remain. I have seen nothing in any of your comments over the last few months to refute that.
My words do match my claims. For the final time I'll explain my position:
I am unconvinced by the leave campaigns as they stand. But I believe the EU (and especially the EZ) will need to integrate further in the long term to survive. And I don't want to be part of that. As we'll need to leave eventually, I'd rather leave sooner and get things sorted before we have more integration creep and it'll be harder to disentangle ourselves.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and it's a shame that hardcore leavers such as yourself think it's so unreasonable.
I think the only thing that's caused this is my belief that there is a lie at the heart of leave as they pursue voters on both the anti-immigration and pro-EEA routes. People may disagree with me on that, but it's something that concerns me deeply about the way I'm going to vote. And no-one on here has managed to convince me otherwise.
This is better, and clearer - I agree with DavidL in response.
Lie is not correct, but different visions of what Leave might mean is not.
I don't agree, this isn't a general election. It's about leaving the EU then looking at the various options such as EFTA or EEA.
The various wants of Leavers will form how HMG proceeds. And recommendations will probably require another ref to be legitimate
I first made this point ages ago when describing this as a divorce. We haven't decided who to date next yet. That doesn't make staying in an unhappy marriage the answer.
But what is the will of the voters in the event of an Out? Without another referendum, I don't think we know.
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
That is the point I was making this morning. Now that there is an "official" campaign there is an opportunity for clarity on the basis on which people are being asked to vote Leave which did not exist before. Not all Leavers will agree with that position but they will face a choice between what is being offered and Remain. People will not be misled.
I think you are wrong (and not just about putting your comments above instead of below like everyone else). If Vote Leave have a position that is now the official position. If they win the government have to try to implement that position. Those that don't agree with the official position are of course free to express their views and campaign for yet more changes by, for example, leaving the EEA. It's a semi free country.
But people with less interest than us have a right to know. If the majority vote Leave what will the government actually do? There has to be a clear answer or the late swing will be to remain, simply because of the uncertainty.
Comments
So far, remain have had the advantage of a more unified campaign that leave, although that might change with yesterday's announcement about Vote Leave. But I really doubt the Corbyn's intervention will have much positive effect for remain.
Firstly, it is obvious his heart is not in it, and the interview on R4 this morning with a Labour bod (I think Straw) focussed more on Corbyn's apparent conversion to remain than on the arguments.
Secondly, his apparent vision of a socialist EU (at least that's the way it seems to be spun) will be anathema to right-wing remainers.
Thirdly, the no campaign in Scotland was successful because the main no parties talked and worked together to a certain extent from a common view. I cannot see the same happening with Corbyn's Labour and the Conservatives, yet alone the Lib Dems.
Fourthly, Labour itself is rather split, and Corbyn isn't very good at appealing outside his own market.
All in all, there's a possibility that leave might solidify around one campaign just as remain splinters. It's also possible that there will be some fertile ground for leave in his speech.
Now, can the leavers on here tell me whether they see this as an anti- or pro- post?
What your bleak vision of Leave ignores - strangely in my opinion - is that the decision on the alternatives after Leave will be made by a Parliament led by and filled with MPs who either advocated Remain or who were in favour of a Leave deal that secured continued trade freedoms. You seem to be claiming (hence the use of the term 'strangely') that the senior members of the Tory party, when faced with negotiating a Leave option, will choose one that will do active harm to the country and its economy. From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis, this does seem to be a strange position to take. Even I, who opposes Cameron over the way he has handled the EU vote so far, do not believe he is so petty or vindictive as to try to get a bad deal just because he lost the vote.
I have not seen them. I have dozens of posts where you attack Leave and almost seem to revel in it. I note you can't refer me to any posts so I see no reason to search for your posts - quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
If you are voting Leave then you are supporting the cause of Leave. That doesn't mean, necessarily, you support the approach of the Leave campaigns or the primary arguments they are advancing. But you certainty qualify as a Leave supporter - it isn't a political party with a fixed set of values.
I can only conclude you wish to cognitively disassociate yourself from other Leave supporters, whether that is out of pomposity, a sense of intellectual superiority, snobbery or narcissism I will leave others to judge.
There are Remainers I respect and Leavers I respect; I'm not black and white.
In fact, I'd reckon you could probably use a Naive Bayesian Classifier to do it with pretty good accuracy.
However, I think that will probably have to wait until I'm jetlegged on a business trip and awake at 3am and bored.
"From someone who has spent so long asking us to trust and believe in Cameron and is advocating Remain on that basis"
For the n'th time, I am not advocating 'remain', ffs. I am not a supporter of any of the dire campaigns. I am a voter. It's a shame that you're so invested in leave that you cannot comprehend that fact.
Hacked Off got a good kicking yesterday and were shown to be a group of unprincipled control freaks by Roy Greenslade of all people, hardly a capitalist media mogul.
It is this time that Ed decides to renew his friendship, and go for a backslapping session with Grant and Yentob.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ed-miliband-is-reunited-with-his-hacked-off-pals/
There was a scene in the dramatisation of the OJ Simpson trial where Detective Furman was on the witness stand and in answer to every question about his alleged racist behaviour he replied "I'm sorry but I'm taking the fifth"
The defence asked him if he was going to answer every question the same way
'Yes' he replied
Cochran then said in that case he had one final question. "Have you told the truth in your evidence in this trial?"
Like Cameron he had no option.
That's the wrong way of thinking about it. There are pull and push factors. Leave are doing nothing to pull me towards them; in fact, they're pushing me away to some extent. Its just that remain are pushing me away more, especially wrt the long term future.
Your conclusions in your last paragraph are also wrong, and quite insulting. I could respond in kind, but I actually quite like you and your posts.
If that's what you think of me, perhaps I should resign from PB for a while.
Have fun, everyone.
As for Cameron saying he will stay in the event of a LEAVE vote, that reminds me of Margaret Thatcher saying "I fight on I fight to win" 18 hours before her resignation.
He's very good at this, but useless on details.
Please don't go; you're one of my favourite posters
Incidentally, did anyone else watch What British Muslims Really Think on Channel 4 last night?
http://www.desmog.uk/2015/07/20/coal-baron-matt-ridley-top-source-peabody-climate-report-white-house
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084292-whats-behind-bankruptcy-of-worlds-largest-private-coal-firm/
@JonathanEley · 23m23 minutes ago
Now it's getting really serious. Brexit could drag down house prices, says Moody’s: http://on.ft.com/1Q6s2A7
You need to forget the compliments and remember the insults. Or possibly the other way around.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/720522826550218752
If Leave do get round to agreeing on a single course of action before June then that alternative will be subject to detailed scrutiny. Apart from immigration, I would imagine, for example, that most people would assume that if we Brexit and join EFTA/EEA that we cease contributing to the EU budget and it's going to come as a huge shock to find out that we don't
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10858267/Oxfam-anti-fraud-boss-jailed-for-stealing-65000-from-the-charity.html
One thing that's puzzling me re the GOP convention. Can Kasich act as kingmaker for Trump or Cruz? I haven't seen any discussion re this. Could he pledge his delegates to either of the front runners and get them over the line? Or doesn't it work like that?
Of course, there wouldn't be so many people wanting to come here illegally if it weren't for Merkel's madness.
Others may say that if all the party leaders except Farage agree on the issue then in all probability they are right.
If you want Leave to win, and I presume you do, it's now time to stop attacking them so vociferously and make your own case and arguments as to why you are voting Leave if you think other Leavers and the Leave campaign are failing to do it justice.
Rethink your style.
It's a next to meaningless term. Something "could" happen. Really ? How likely ? How severe ? For how long ? On the basis of what evidence ?
The problem is a more honest headline: doesn't sell many papers or support many campaigns.
Many clickbait headlines are so dishonest they omit the "could" completely in the headline, and then after a certain amount of kicking at the floor with the toe of their shoe in the article, have to admit that is only a possibility, and not a very likely one at that.
The only people who really benefit to my mind are foreign investors.
(Although, in the interests of balance, we should remember that lower house prices would massacre the balance sheets of some of the UK banks.)
It was obviously very painful for him and if he has been behaving as suggested , he really is
a first class .....
I will be actively advocating EEA/EFTA, and am voting Out because I believe that the Norway solution is the best solution.
Indigo and yourself, on the other hand, will regard EFTA/EEA as a huge betrayal. One of us - probably you - is going to end up feeling screwed.
While it is sometimes said people won't feel it as long as they stay put and an pay the mortgage, it doesn't always work like that - people need to move or remortgage, for example, or may have other loans (inc. small business loans) secured on property.
My problem is not EU immigration, and it's not especially non-EU immigration. It's partly Article 8 which we are lumbered with while we are in the EU, and considerably that the EU gives the British government the top cover it needs to do sweet FA about lots of basic immigration problems we do have, not least of which is that we piss around for so long with our processing of asylum applications that they have mostly got married and had kids by the time we are through it, and then claim Article 8.
We have the ridiculous position of having well over a hundred thousand illegal immigrants in the country that have failed all their appeals, and yet we have failed to remove for one reason or another. At the same time we screw over legal immigrant applying through embassies because we can control their numbers and it's easier to do than to try and properly control people running through the tunnel
My problem isn't that lawful useful people can come to our country from anywhere, its that we can't throw out unlawful people, especially those coming from inside the EU. Its is also more recently that the unilateral actions of idiots like Merkel have massive repercussions for the whole of the EU, and yet the whole of the EU got not say in what she said or what then happened.
There is a vast difference between being anti-immigration, which I am not, and believing we should be able to control our borders, which I do.
I am unconvinced by the leave campaigns as they stand. But I believe the EU (and especially the EZ) will need to integrate further in the long term to survive. And I don't want to be part of that. As we'll need to leave eventually, I'd rather leave sooner and get things sorted before we have more integration creep and it'll be harder to disentangle ourselves.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, and it's a shame that hardcore leavers such as yourself think it's so unreasonable.
I think the only thing that's caused this is my belief that there is a lie at the heart of leave as they pursue voters on both the anti-immigration and pro-EEA routes. People may disagree with me on that, but it's something that concerns me deeply about the way I'm going to vote. And no-one on here has managed to convince me otherwise.
It is strangely enough the EEA solution that I get least. Here's what Norway says about it: ie as has been well-rehearsed on here, there is input at the early stage of proposed legislation and regulation, but not in the final, critical rounds.
And: So we put ourselves into a second class citizen position wrt EU legislation, can admittedly reject certain laws (question: can we reject EU laws for us if the remainder of the EEA accepts them?), and get the cursed four freedoms.
As I'm sure has been mentioned on here - Leave, take control specifically states (finally on P.32 of 36) they want to take control of immigration.
Being a good front man is entirely different to being PM material. His polling on trust pretty good.
As for the rest of your post: I'll post what I believe, and I'll make the case. If you disagree with it, fair enough. But you do seem to notice when I disagree with leave and not when I agree with them. As I said earlier, perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts.
I've made the case of why I'm probably voting leave many times, including I think a couple of times on this thread. People do not argue with it, but they seem to ignore the fact I've made it.
It's hardly an uncommon view.
I just don't have the mental capacity at the moment to deal with this.
Quite sure that 99% of voters, those who are not political geeks won't have even considered EEA/EFTA, for them out means OUT.
Hope to see you soon, Mr. Jessop.
Given that rental contracts are usually at least 6 months, there is also a case that rentals are illiquid too of course. You can argue that landlords and tenants which agree to curtail existing contracts but that will only be the case if the landlord is confident of rapidly re-letting. He may not be - that market fluctuates as well.
I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80.
I want to buy a house for £200.
I sell my house, and buy the new house. Result, £200 house and £180 mortgage.
Now, imagine prices have fallen 20%.
Good news, the house I want to buy has fallen by £40, and the one I'm selling has only fallen by £20. In other words, I only need a £160 mortgage to buy it.
*But*
The bank won't lend me the money to buy a £160 house, because I don't have any money for a deposit.
Expresses much of what I feel.
One issue that does concern me is whether a Leave win would make it more likely that Labour under Corbyn or McDonnell or a similar person would win the next election. I do not trust them, do not want them in charge of the UK or in charge of any Brexit negotiations.
Corby and his ilk are far more dangerous to Britain than the EU.
Stay pls.
Right: back to work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538564/The-luvvies-football-hero-Drogba-s-charity-1-7million-s-never-reached-sick-Africans-meant-Foundation-probed-just-14-000-money-raised-UK-donated-good-causes.html
This is also why the designation of Vote Leave is so important. It should make it possible for the public to understand what they are voting for. I agree that to date this has been far from clear.
I am probably 35:65 on the issue.
Incidentally I see that there was voting in EuroParl yesterday on the formation of the EU Army and a common EU Defense policy, something that Clegg swore to us only a year or so ago was out of the question.
The various wants of Leavers will form how HMG proceeds. And recommendations will probably require another ref to be legitimate
I first made this point ages ago when describing this as a divorce. We haven't decided who to date next yet. That doesn't make staying in an unhappy marriage the answer.
Should you feel the EU debate has become a little too heavy for you, then please at least consider continuing to post on the other issues.
We've lost too many good'uns already.
'Well, you either take the view that yes, OUT means OUT and the rest is details, or you might take the view that it is beholden upon Leave to explain just what OUT means.
I am probably 35:65 on the issue.'
I think it's really simple.
Without a LEAVE vote, there is no chance at all of stopping EU immigration. With a LEAVE vote, there is a chance but it is not guaranteed. Ergo if you want to stop EU immigration you vote LEAVE.
I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this.
Phwoar!
I think it is not unreasonable to ask for clarity.
Lie is not correct, but different visions of what Leave might mean is not.
But people with less interest than us have a right to know. If the majority vote Leave what will the government actually do? There has to be a clear answer or the late swing will be to remain, simply because of the uncertainty.