'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.
I'm baffled by that post. Have another go.
Many on here support the EEA/EFTA route. Many want out out (ie non-EEA/EFTA, go it alone, a series of bilateral deals, etc).
The official Leave campaign wants the latter.
I think it reasonable, now that they have been chosen as official Leave group, to clear up their stance on a much-discussed (not only on here) option once we have voted Leave, ie EEA.
Edit: as I said, to clarify further, I have 35% support for "Leave, Cry Freedom, we'll sort it all out later" but aren't there parallels with the Scots Out-ers who ignored the reality, for example, of fiscal revenue from oil taxes under certain scenarios?
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.
Yes, don't go. There's plenty of far more elevating debate (and betting) to be had on the GOP contested convention.
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.
Yep. As ever put much more succinctly than my effort which managed to confuse @runnymede.
Oh brilliant, he's just said he's listen to views of unions, MPs, supporters etc and they all say EU is great thing. But, but, he couldn't bring himself to say '...and I agree with them.'
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.
Well the official campaign just started, the official campaign has only just been selected. They are not going to want to blow good message by delivering it badly, so they are probably going to take a few days to hire their preferred advertising agency and start cranking out the messages.
From what was said yesterday it seems that Cumming's is briefing for a message which highlights that the EU is an unknown future and is more dangerous than leaving, so we have to leave to take control, which is audacious but could be very effective if they strike the right note.
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
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.
No, I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. The government will do what it wants to do (provided it's not in direct contradiction to its mandate), as it always does.
Therefore the question you pose of "If the majority vote Leave what will the government actually do?" is one to be asked of Cameron rather than VL. Has anyone actually asked him?
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
The more I think of it the more I think the parallel with IndyRef is pertinent.
The SNP refused to entertain what would happen post Yes under differing oil price scenarios, to their post-independent fiscal position. They were, IMO, rightly castigated for it.
VLTC is in danger of exposing a weak flank if they don't address this head on because as the public becomes more acquainted with the issues, it is a matter I suspect VLTC won't be allowed to play the "Cry Freedom" joker on.
Edit: as I said, to clarify further, I have 35% support for "Leave, Cry Freedom, we'll sort it all out later" but aren't there parallels with the Scots Out-ers who ignored the reality, for example, of fiscal revenue from oil taxes under certain scenarios?
99% of the voters will be completely unaware of the EEA/EFTA option. They will assume that Vote Leave means all the way out and bilaterals. So I can't see them getting much of a drop in their support by confirming this, only a small number of free market Libertarians (like RCS1K) will switch to them if they go for EEA/EFTA. Conversely lots of that support will feel betrayed by the saying they will go for EEA/EFTA. I therefore expect Leave to rubbish EEA/EFTA and confirm they are for all the way out, its the least dangerous path with their current support base.
Bilaterals - lose a small number a small number of free market libertarians. Firm up the kippers and people unaware of EEA/EFTA (the majority of leavers)
EEA/EFTA - confuse lots of voters who did know the option existed. lose lots of voter who thought out meant out. lots of kippers will either peel off or stay at home. Gain a small number a small number of free market libertarians.
Its a no brainer really. Vote Leave will support out and bilaterals.
Gordon Bennett- Jezza is giving a speech on Europe- about as helpful as Mark Anthony's speech to unify Rome after Caesars murder- with the exception that Mark Anthony's speech was intended to cause civil war.
I just don't get the nihilism of Brexit. There was an interview with some farmers, farmers who rely on EU subsidies, and they supported Brexit. Patriotism should be confined to sports- harmless fun. Nationalism is insidious and dangerous. Look how it destroyed Yugoslavia? People lose sight of what's good for them.
TSE- his firm did a cost/benefit analysis on Brexit. Of course Brexit is bad for business.
Brexit is bad. That's it. Nothing more. At best it harks back to a romantic notion of patriotism and nationalism, at worst it brings out that terrible nationalistic fervour.
Anyway, it's all semantics. Even if we did vote Brexit- the shock of what we've done will quickly bring us back to another vote where Remain will win with a resounding Yes.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Edit: as I said, to clarify further, I have 35% support for "Leave, Cry Freedom, we'll sort it all out later" but aren't there parallels with the Scots Out-ers who ignored the reality, for example, of fiscal revenue from oil taxes under certain scenarios?
99% of the voters will be completely unaware of the EEA/EFTA option. They will assume that Vote Leave means all the way out and bilaterals. So I can't see them getting much of a drop in their support by confirming this, only a small number of free market Libertarians (like RCS1K) will switch to them if they go for EEA/EFTA. Conversely lots of that support will feel betrayed by the saying they will go for EEA/EFTA. I therefore expect Leave to rubbish EEA/EFTA and confirm they are for all the way out, its the least dangerous path with their current support base.
Bilaterals - lose a small number a small number of free market libertarians. Firm up the kippers and people unaware of EEA/EFTA (the majority of leavers)
EEA/EFTA - confuse lots of voters who did know the option existed. lose lots of voter who thought out meant out. lots of kippers will either peel off or stay at home. Gain a small number a small number of free market libertarians.
Its a no brainer really. Vote Leave will support out and bilaterals.
Crystal Clear. My point is I think it reasonable to expect VLTC to make the point as clearly as you have.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
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 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.
Well the official campaign just started, the official campaign has only just been selected. They are not going to want to blow good message by delivering it badly, so they are probably going to take a few days to hire their preferred advertising agency and start cranking out the messages.
From what was said yesterday it seems that Cumming's is briefing for a message which highlights that the EU is an unknown future and is more dangerous than leaving, so we have to leave to take control, which is audacious but could be very effective if they strike the right note.
As I have said so many times that everyone is probably bored stupid with it, this is exactly the key. Remain is not the status quo. It is a commitment to change because the EU will change and so will our relationship with it. It always has, ever since the Treaty of Rome was signed and it always will. And their need for change at the moment is urgent.
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 it doesn't. The first line says "I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80." - that's £20 of equity.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
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.
Fine, haven't paid any additional equity beyond the deposit into the home.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Are you for Remain by any chance Mr Meeks ?
You may well ask. You may also wonder why do some of the people on here that are for REMAIN spend their time attacking and insulting those who dare to be for LEAVE? Just like Peter Mandelson on the recent Newsnight. One might wonder why they choose to follow the tactics of Mandelson, but that would just end up joining them in the gutter.
This is such a fascinating time for me, I remember 10 years ago telling people we should leave the EU, the vast majority shrugged their shoulders, others said "Why?", more said "It can't happen", plenty said "But you've just been to Italy".
Finally we're getting the chance to decide, the long term xenophobic, fruitcake racists like me are feeling very pleased that around half those interested share our view, 10 years ago it was probably 10%.
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.
You're right that vote Leave have to make the future clear. Only the zealots would vote for a pig in a poke and there aren't enough of them. It can't be compared to choosing a government. It's choosing a method of government. It's the equivalent of replacing our parliamentary system with something else. The alternative will have to be spelled out clearly.
The Yes campaign wanted it, the rest of the UK did not.
Post UK exit, both the UK and the EU will want a trading relationship. You can argue about how that might work precisely, but the EU is not going to try and stop all trade between it and the UK.
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 it doesn't. The first line says "I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80." - that's £20 of equity.
I meant additional equity. If one lives in a property for 5 years with a 25 year repayment period one has paid a further 16% worth of equity into home.
Life changes. People change. I hope that Europe adapts to the future- it should change. Technologically, culturally and economically we are as close to our Europe as we have ever been. We are on the same ride and we need to stick on that bus.
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 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.
Well the official campaign just started, the official campaign has only just been selected. They are not going to want to blow good message by delivering it badly, so they are probably going to take a few days to hire their preferred advertising agency and start cranking out the messages.
From what was said yesterday it seems that Cumming's is briefing for a message which highlights that the EU is an unknown future and is more dangerous than leaving, so we have to leave to take control, which is audacious but could be very effective if they strike the right note.
As I have said so many times that everyone is probably bored stupid with it, this is exactly the key. Remain is not the status quo. It is a commitment to change because the EU will change and so will our relationship with it. It always has, ever since the Treaty of Rome was signed and it always will. And their need for change at the moment is urgent.
The Yes campaign wanted it, the rest of the UK did not.
Post UK exit, both the UK and the EU will want a trading relationship. You can argue about how that might work precisely, but the EU is not going to try and stop all trade between it and the UK.
But can you guarantee they'll give us terms comparable to what we have now?
Corbyn was better than I've heard him before. He made some good points particularly at the beginning but he showed the difficulty the campaign is going to have keeping the disparate groups appearing on the same stage
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
Mr. Eagles, of course I can't give that guarantee. Can you give a guarantee that we wouldn't be utterly shafted by continual integration of the eurozone and their QMV critical mass?
It's not a binary choice, when it comes to trade. It was on currency.
You've already said you believe over the next 10-15 years things will worsen with the EU and we'll leave anyway. So why not spare ourselves a decade and a half of pain?
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Are you for Remain by any chance Mr Meeks ?
You may also wonder why do some of the people on here that are for REMAIN spend their time attacking and insulting those who dare to be for LEAVE?
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Obviously, if it happens I want Leave to be as painless as possible. But if Armageddon does befall us, we all know what will happen: those most vociferous in advocating Leave will melt away like snow in rain.
Mr. Eagles, of course I can't give that guarantee. Can you give a guarantee that we wouldn't be utterly shafted by continual integration of the eurozone and their QMV critical mass?
It's not a binary choice, when it comes to trade. It was on currency.
You've already said you believe over the next 10-15 years things will worsen with the EU and we'll leave anyway. So why not spare ourselves a decade and a half of pain?
But some of the leavers are giving out that guarantee without any basis in fact.
We need an orderly exit, right now, it's the equivalent of stopping the car in the fast lane of the M1. We need to make sure we stop at a safe time and place.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another measured and informed contribution from our Italian colleague.
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
It is precisely the position of many on here, much perhaps to their irritation (they are certainly irritated by those who point it out).
Yet it is by your account "not a credible position to take."
A shame that a perfectly coherent option, albeit with drawbacks (similarly to the other options including staying in) is deemed not credible.
This is such a fascinating time for me, I remember 10 years ago telling people we should leave the EU, the vast majority shrugged their shoulders, others said "Why?", more said "It can't happen", plenty said "But you've just been to Italy".
Finally we're getting the chance to decide, the long term xenophobic, fruitcake racists like me are feeling very pleased that around half those interested share our view, 10 years ago it was probably 10%.
Another LEAVER insulting themselves for advocating 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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
I disagree with you. I think the UK breaks down into three roughly equal blocks:
EU, EFTA, CO.
And a lot of the EFTA group - particularly small business people - are EFTA > EU > CO. If you eliminate the EFTA option, more of them will vote to stay in the EU than will vote for CO.
This is such a fascinating time for me, I remember 10 years ago telling people we should leave the EU, the vast majority shrugged their shoulders, others said "Why?", more said "It can't happen", plenty said "But you've just been to Italy".
Finally we're getting the chance to decide, the long term xenophobic, fruitcake racists like me are feeling very pleased that around half those interested share our view, 10 years ago it was probably 10%.
It's never been 10% or anything like. The Murdoch press have been pushing the EU as a bunch of nutters manufacturing straight bananas for years. I don't remember the figures but in and out have aways been pretty close
I don't think that is hard since the bar for whatever Corbyn does is set so excruciatingly low. By making Ed Miliband look vaguely competent in retrospect-Corbyn has achieved the impossible.
Corbyn was better than I've heard him before. He made some good points particularly at the beginning but he showed the difficulty the campaign is going to have keeping the disparate groups appearing on the same stage
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
That's moonshine. The Germans have already said they would offer an EEA/EFTA style deal if it came to it. The comparison with Scotland is a ridiculous one.
This is just lawyerly cr*p aimed at confusing the issue.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
The report is wrong. At least as far as EEA membership is concerned. As long as we move from EU to EFTA we will remain in the EEA. And the move to EFTA is in every European government's interests.
Mr. Eagles, so? I'm not responsible for what others say.
We have a chance to leave shortly. Your proposal to wait is based on the belief, with no evidence (no guarantee, you might say), that we'll get a second opportunity in the near future. And that such an opportunity will, for some reason, be better than the current one.
If your house is on fire, you leap out of the window. If your spouse is abusing you, you pack your bags and flee. You don't wander down a burning staircase or consult a bus timetable. There is no guarantee we'll get another opportunity to leave within a decade or two, or even three. The last vote was over 40 years ago.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June. "Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
Does the Gov't really pay attention to below the line comments on here, Guido or the Grauniad ?
I'd be surprised.
Dave told us all he's staying on yesterday in the event of a leave vote anyway, so despite spoiling a few PBers bets I'm going to take him as a man of his word. Cast iron Dave - recorded in Hansard in response to Carswell's question... preserved for eternity !
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
It is remarkable how irresponsible - and additionally dishonest - so many Remain campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the fact that a vote for Remain is not a vote for status quo but for more integration and a continued move towards political union.
'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.
Given that immigration/control of borders is (alleged to be, at any rate) one of the factors driving Leave voters, it is indeed pertinent to ask what campaign leaders envisage will happen afterwards. AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
I disagree with you. I think the UK breaks down into three roughly equal blocks:
EU, EFTA, CO.
And a lot of the EFTA group - particularly small business people - are EFTA > EU > CO. If you eliminate the EFTA option, more of them will vote to stay in the EU than will vote for CO.
I would argue that almost all that small business block will have assumed that EFTA isn't on the table and picked their side already accordingly, it's possibly VLTC might gain some votes from that sector if is suddenly got enthusiastic about EFTA, but at the expense of losing most of the kippers and people worried about waiting two week for a doctor's appointment.
On this last point the current polling is absolutely the government own fault, if they had pumped an amount of money into health and education commensurate with the population growth from immigration a lot of people complaining now would be sitting happily at home. Its not good enough to say there isn't enough money, we are told this level of immigration is good for our economy, if it doesn't generate enough revenue to even cover the cost of its own social care, clearly not.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Obviously, if it happens I want Leave to be as painless as possible. But if Armageddon does befall us, we all know what will happen: those most vociferous in advocating Leave will melt away like snow in rain.
Mr. Eagles, so? I'm not responsible for what others say.
We have a chance to leave shortly. Your proposal to wait is based on the belief, with no evidence (no guarantee, you might say), that we'll get a second opportunity in the near future. And that such an opportunity will, for some reason, be better than the current one.
If your house is on fire, you leap out of the window. If your spouse is abusing you, you pack your bags and flee. You don't wander down a burning staircase or consult a bus timetable. There is no guarantee we'll get another opportunity to leave within a decade or two, or even three. The last vote was over 40 years ago.
Well next week, my work agenda is all about Brexit contingency planning. I'll keep you updated.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Too much of the Leave campaign (arguably all of it) has been focused on the "push" factors and very little on the "pull" factors i.e. what an exit from the EU would mean - for us and the single market, for immigration, for a whole host of areas and how to get there. I think this flaw is probably the main reason why I think that Remain will win.
Saying the EU is not for us and is going in the wrong direction is all very well and may be agreed to by a large number - maybe even a majority - of people. But that does not mean that that same majority will necessarily agree to vote to leave if they have no idea or very different ideas about where we would be going and how, if we left. Unless the Leave campaign seriously addresses this question then it will not win. And, arguably, won't deserve to win.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
Does the Gov't really pay attention to below the line comments on here, Guido or the Grauniad ?
I'd be surprised.
Dave told us all he's staying on yesterday in the event of a leave vote anyway, so despite spoiling a few PBers bets I'm going to take him as a man of his word. Cast iron Dave - recorded in Hansard in response to Carswell's question... preserved for eternity !
Hmmm, it would be different if Dave was a man of iron or steel.
But cast iron ? You see it's extremely brittle, it doesn't stand up well to shocks; it cracks and shatters if it's hit too hard.
Hence why he had difficulty with his cast iron promise.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
It is remarkable how irresponsible - and additionally dishonest - so many Remain campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the fact that a vote for Remain is not a vote for status quo but for more integration and a continued move towards political union.
Remain is offering a prospectus. Leave is not. You can criticise the Remain prospectus for being fanciful, implausible or dishonest, but it is offering one.
Leave? It simply hasn't got as far as aspiring to coherence.
I don't think that is hard since the bar for whatever Corbyn does is set so excruciatingly low. By making Ed Miliband look vaguely competent in retrospect-Corbyn has achieved the impossible.
Corbyn was better than I've heard him before. He made some good points particularly at the beginning but he showed the difficulty the campaign is going to have keeping the disparate groups appearing on the same stage
Unfortunately he followed a master class from David Miliband who gave the most coherent pro EU argument I've heard earlier in the week. It's difficult not to be reminded what might have been.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
If you aren't prepared to make the effort to understand your opponents, you deserve to lose to them.
Let's face it, the EFTA/EEA lark hardly enters the imagination of most Leavers. They just want a return to a Silver Jubilee world where we all where union-jack bowlers and trade in shillings. What annoys me is that once they've wreaked their mayhem, they won't be around to sort out the consequences, preferring instead to blame their ills on the World Government that resides beyond the North Pole.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Obviously, if it happens I want Leave to be as painless as possible. But if Armageddon does befall us, we all know what will happen: those most vociferous in advocating Leave will melt away like snow in rain.
Why would one expect Armageddon?
Has been a while since I watched The Omen, but didn't that say The Treaty of Rome was foretold in the Book of Revelation.
Edit: Close
The Treaty of Rome is one of the signs that indicates the Antichrist's rise as stated in a Biblical poem from Father Brennan.
Mr. Eagles, so? I'm not responsible for what others say.
We have a chance to leave shortly. Your proposal to wait is based on the belief, with no evidence (no guarantee, you might say), that we'll get a second opportunity in the near future. And that such an opportunity will, for some reason, be better than the current one.
If your house is on fire, you leap out of the window. If your spouse is abusing you, you pack your bags and flee. You don't wander down a burning staircase or consult a bus timetable. There is no guarantee we'll get another opportunity to leave within a decade or two, or even three. The last vote was over 40 years ago.
Well next week, my work agenda is all about Brexit contingency planning. I'll keep you updated.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
Leave didn't create the problem. The government did, they asked the question. You as a lawyer, of all people should know that it's foolish to ask a question if you don't want to know the answer. A government that asks a question of the population on the future of the country, and isn't prepared and planned for any eventuality is negligent.
In addition, about three months ago Cameron was strutting around the TV studios telling us that if he didn't get a slightly larger bit of fluff than the one currently on offer he was perfectly prepared to leave the EU, and was sure we would be fine going it alone, and yet we are supposed to believe him when a couple of months later when he says leaving would be a complete disaster and we would be badly damaged if we went alone, and with a straight face as well.
Let's face it, the EFTA/EEA lark hardly enters the imagination of most Leavers. They just want a return to a Silver Jubilee world where we all where union-jack bowlers and trade in shillings. What annoys me is that once they've wreaked their mayhem, they won't be around to sort out the consequences, preferring instead to blame their ills on the World Government that resides beyond the North Pole.
Most families don't give up their home unless they have somewhere else lined up or at least a plan for where they are going to live. Leave are not going to win if all they offer is leaving the EU and then we have an almighty argument about what that means and what arrangements we put in its place.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
I'm not playing your loyalty to the UK trolling game.
Your report may well have said that. But there are others like Capital Economics and by Open Europe that say differently and outline the options and positive economic effects of Brexit very clearly. And there are no guarantees for either Remain or Leave, or anything in life.
I think you are cherry picking the evidence you want to support a conclusion you'd already reached many moons ago. I knew deep-down this would come from the very first day you signalled some sympathises for Leave - you would always follow Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
Let's face it, the EFTA/EEA lark hardly enters the imagination of most Leavers. They just want a return to a Silver Jubilee world where we all where union-jack bowlers and trade in shillings. What annoys me is that once they've wreaked their mayhem, they won't be around to sort out the consequences, preferring instead to blame their ills on the World Government that resides beyond the North Pole.
No, we want to establish a far-right dictatorship.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
Project Fear isn't working so now it's just insults.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
I disagree with you. I think the UK breaks down into three roughly equal blocks:
EU, EFTA, CO.
And a lot of the EFTA group - particularly small business people - are EFTA > EU > CO. If you eliminate the EFTA option, more of them will vote to stay in the EU than will vote for CO.
"Second, all European countries, in and out of the euro, should be able to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way. This does not require the supremacy of European law ."
With respect to them that is nonsense. How do we have free trade without a regulator that can impose its decisions on the parties? I remember the nonsense when Japan claimed that skis could not be imported because they had a different kind of snow. If Germany decides they need a different kind of bank or Italy a different kind of insurance we need to be able to stop them or there is no free trade at all.
That requires the supremacy of EU law, at least in the area of the single market. Worse alternatives are available (such as the NAFTA tribunals you have referred to) but some form of regulation which binds the hands of the UK government is an essential component of any meaningful trade deal. I hesitate to use the word but it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
Does the Gov't really pay attention to below the line comments on here, Guido or the Grauniad ?
I'd be surprised.
Dave told us all he's staying on yesterday in the event of a leave vote anyway, so despite spoiling a few PBers bets I'm going to take him as a man of his word. Cast iron Dave - recorded in Hansard in response to Carswell's question... preserved for eternity !
Hmmm, it would be different if Dave was a man of iron or steel.
But cast iron ? You see it's extremely brittle, it doesn't stand up well to shocks; it cracks and shatters if it's hit too hard.
Hence why he had difficulty with his cast iron promise.
Which bit was difficult? Is 2016 a special year without a June 23rd?
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
The problem you have with this line of argument is that you fail to admit that the leave campaign have precisely zero official status with the government after June 23rd.
Zero official status. But Leave campaigners such as yourself want to wash your hands of sorting out the sets of problems that you are keen to create. By explaining now what Leave wants Leave to look like would give a strong policy steer to the government after 23 June.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
Does the Gov't really pay attention to below the line comments on here, Guido or the Grauniad ?
I'd be surprised.
Dave told us all he's staying on yesterday in the event of a leave vote anyway, so despite spoiling a few PBers bets I'm going to take him as a man of his word. Cast iron Dave - recorded in Hansard in response to Carswell's question... preserved for eternity !
Hmmm, it would be different if Dave was a man of iron or steel.
But cast iron ? You see it's extremely brittle, it doesn't stand up well to shocks; it cracks and shatters if it's hit too hard.
Hence why he had difficulty with his cast iron promise.
Which bit was difficult? Is 2016 a special year without a June 23rd?
All of it it appears, hence why he's looking a little stressed these days.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
I'm not playing your loyalty to the UK trolling game.
Your report may well have said that. But there are others like Capital Economics and by Open Europe that say differently and outline the options and positive economic effects of Brexit very clearly. And there are no guarantees for either Remain or Leave, or anything in life.
I think you are cherry picking the evidence you want to support a conclusion you'd already reached many moons ago. I knew deep-down this would come from the very first day you signalled some sympathises for Leave - you would always follow Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
haha more in sorrow than anger...patronising, much?
Let's face it, the EFTA/EEA lark hardly enters the imagination of most Leavers. They just want a return to a Silver Jubilee world where we all where union-jack bowlers and trade in shillings. What annoys me is that once they've wreaked their mayhem, they won't be around to sort out the consequences, preferring instead to blame their ills on the World Government that resides beyond the North Pole.
And to bring back the birch, cold showers in the morning, the drudgery of domestic service and the Delhi Durbar.
I can't see how else you could run this campaign other than Project Fear. The world has changed from the 60's- anyone projecting a European utopian dream would appear to be quite mad. Unfortunately, we are all a bit more hard headed.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
Project Fear isn't working so now it's just insults.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whatsoever. A lot of rationalisation for a decision you'd already taken weeks ago out of your closeness to CCHQ and loyalty to the leadership.
You know perfectly well that consistent Leavers like Richard Tyndall, and Robert Smithson favour EFTA-EEA - which retain full single market access - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
I'm not playing your loyalty to the UK trolling game.
Your report may well have said that. But there are others like Capital Economics and by Open Europe that say differently and outline the options and positive economic effects of Brexit very clearly. And there are no guarantees for either Remain or Leave, or anything in life.
I think you are cherry picking the evidence you want to support a conclusion you'd already reached many moons ago. I knew deep-down this would come from the very first day you signalled some sympathises for Leave - you would always follow Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
I haven't, the co-author is an ardent Leaver. His final conclusion was painful for him.
The report was well resourced, and took in a lot of impartial evidence.
On the balance of probabilities Brexit is too higher a risk for the company, the sector and the UK as a whole.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
Project Fear isn't working so now it's just insults.
Let's face it, the EFTA/EEA lark hardly enters the imagination of most Leavers. They just want a return to a Silver Jubilee world where we all where union-jack bowlers and trade in shillings. What annoys me is that once they've wreaked their mayhem, they won't be around to sort out the consequences, preferring instead to blame their ills on the World Government that resides beyond the North Pole.
And to bring back the birch, cold showers in the morning, the drudgery of domestic service and the Delhi Durbar.
Pulling up the drawbridge is Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff. There will have to be some sort of associate-membership arrangement with the same immigration obligations that we have now. But you can't blame Leave for obfuscating on this. Admitting to it would kill Leave stone dead.
Nonsense.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
I disagree with you. I think the UK breaks down into three roughly equal blocks:
EU, EFTA, CO.
And a lot of the EFTA group - particularly small business people - are EFTA > EU > CO. If you eliminate the EFTA option, more of them will vote to stay in the EU than will vote for CO.
"Second, all European countries, in and out of the euro, should be able to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way. This does not require the supremacy of European law ."
With respect to them that is nonsense. How do we have free trade without a regulator that can impose its decisions on the parties? I remember the nonsense when Japan claimed that skis could not be imported because they had a different kind of snow. If Germany decides they need a different kind of bank or Italy a different kind of insurance we need to be able to stop them or there is no free trade at all.
That requires the supremacy of EU law, at least in the area of the single market. Worse alternatives are available (such as the NAFTA tribunals you have referred to) but some form of regulation which binds the hands of the UK government is an essential component of any meaningful trade deal. I hesitate to use the word but it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
I think you are over-reading it, perhaps because of your background as a lawyer.
Clearly in a free trade area you have a system of conflict resolution.
But here they are equally clearly referring to to EU law in general (as in the ECJ) - although in practice I suspect that many of the judgements voters are concerned about are ECHR not ECJ
Most families don't give up their home unless they have somewhere else lined up or at least a plan for where they are going to live. Leave are not going to win if all they offer is leaving the EU and then we have an almighty argument about what that means and what arrangements we put in its place.
But that's all that Leave is empowered to offer. I think the campaign should be more clear about that: "This isn't a referendum on staying in the EU vs a specific other option, it's a referendum on whether the British people will be allowed to decide on how they want to interact with the EU in future". Anything else would be completely dishonest, and immediately panned as such by Remain.
The referendum was designed to allow Cameron to placate his backbenchers, while enabling his Remain campaign to ridicule the Leave campaign regardless of whether it defined an alternative model or left it open. It wasn't intended to be possible to lose (though he's giving it a good go), which probably isn't going to do his relationship with his party a lot of good.
I don't think that is hard since the bar for whatever Corbyn does is set so excruciatingly low. By making Ed Miliband look vaguely competent in retrospect-Corbyn has achieved the impossible.
Corbyn was better than I've heard him before. He made some good points particularly at the beginning but he showed the difficulty the campaign is going to have keeping the disparate groups appearing on the same stage
Unfortunately he followed a master class from David Miliband who gave the most coherent pro EU argument I've heard earlier in the week. It's difficult not to be reminded what might have been.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whats - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
I'm not playing your loyalty to the UK trolling game.
Your report may well ha Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
I haven't, the co-author is an ardent Leaver. His final conclusion was painful for him.
The report was well resourced, and took in a lot of impartial evidence.
On the balance of probabilities Brexit is too higher a risk for the company, the sector and the UK as a whole.
I can get how it's a risk for your business and that you should vote for what's best for you, but it's quite a jump to say that applies to the UK as a whole when there is a large enough body of evdience to say the reverse.
The comments tonight are very reminiscent of The Day The Polls Turned last year
Nope. Remain will win.
Leave sympathisers including AndyJS, you(?), SeanT, AnneJGP, Philip Thompson, Stodge and Cyclefree *still* aren't 100% sure they'll vote Leave, and this is before the campaign has even begun.
Those who aren't sure abstain, or default to the status quo, on the day.
Without them, Leave have no chance.
I've moved to Remain this evening.
Our work produced our final report on what Brexit means for ourselves and the businesses we deal with.
Without access to the financial passport and the single market, there would be a cascade of damage to ourselves and the UK economy.
One of the authors of the report was an ardent leaver.
Cameron's deal might be crap, but Leave are giving no assurances that we will retain what we already have.
No surprise whats - for precisely this reason.
So a straw man.
Perhaps my loyalty to the UK is stronger.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
I'm not playing your loyalty to the UK trolling game.
Your report may well ha Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
I haven't, the co-author is an ardent Leaver. His final conclusion was painful for him.
The report was well resourced, and took in a lot of impartial evidence.
On the balance of probabilities Brexit is too higher a risk for the company, the sector and the UK as a whole.
I can get how it's a risk for your business and that you should vote for what's best for you, but it's quite a jump to say that applies to the UK as a whole when there is a large enough body of evdience to say the reverse.
Last time the banking/financial services industry went mammary glands up, it wasn't good news for the UK.
It is difficult not to ridicule such moronic thinking. If I didn't know better I would assume that the Brexit bunch have been consumed by a brain disease that inhibits all rational thought.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
It's remarkable how irresponsible - in the deepest sense of the word - so many Leave campaigners are. Unable or unwilling to face up to the deep contradictions in their ranks, they seek to pass the responsibility for what a Leave vote would mean onto the shoulders of someone who is avowedly in favour of staying in the EU.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Another REMAINER insulting people advocating LEAVE.
Project Fear isn't working so now it's just insults.
Comments
The official Leave campaign wants the latter.
I think it reasonable, now that they have been chosen as official Leave group, to clear up their stance on a much-discussed (not only on here) option once we have voted Leave, ie EEA.
Edit: as I said, to clarify further, I have 35% support for "Leave, Cry Freedom, we'll sort it all out later" but aren't there parallels with the Scots Out-ers who ignored the reality, for example, of fiscal revenue from oil taxes under certain scenarios?
From what was said yesterday it seems that Cumming's is briefing for a message which highlights that the EU is an unknown future and is more dangerous than leaving, so we have to leave to take control, which is audacious but could be very effective if they strike the right note.
AIUI staying in the EEA or whatever means the border deal we have now.
And we’re at a point in the economic cycle where UK offers attractions for economic migrants, however temporary. Will that always be the caser. I can clearly recall when the reverse was true.
Therefore the question you pose of "If the majority vote Leave what will the government actually do?" is one to be asked of Cameron rather than VL. Has anyone actually asked him?
The SNP refused to entertain what would happen post Yes under differing oil price scenarios, to their post-independent fiscal position. They were, IMO, rightly castigated for it.
VLTC is in danger of exposing a weak flank if they don't address this head on because as the public becomes more acquainted with the issues, it is a matter I suspect VLTC won't be allowed to play the "Cry Freedom" joker on.
And rail nationalisation which is a bit weird
Bilaterals - lose a small number a small number of free market libertarians. Firm up the kippers and people unaware of EEA/EFTA (the majority of leavers)
EEA/EFTA - confuse lots of voters who did know the option existed. lose lots of voter who thought out meant out. lots of kippers will either peel off or stay at home. Gain a small number a small number of free market libertarians.
Its a no brainer really. Vote Leave will support out and bilaterals.
I just don't get the nihilism of Brexit. There was an interview with some farmers, farmers who rely on EU subsidies, and they supported Brexit. Patriotism should be confined to sports- harmless fun. Nationalism is insidious and dangerous. Look how it destroyed Yugoslavia? People lose sight of what's good for them.
TSE- his firm did a cost/benefit analysis on Brexit. Of course Brexit is bad for business.
Brexit is bad. That's it. Nothing more. At best it harks back to a romantic notion of patriotism and nationalism, at worst it brings out that terrible nationalistic fervour.
Anyway, it's all semantics. Even if we did vote Brexit- the shock of what we've done will quickly bring us back to another vote where Remain will win with a resounding Yes.
The nonchalance with which - even for the policy that has been their touchstone for decades - they disavow the hard work of trying to make their incoherent policy work is astonishing.
Unfortunately, as wonderful as Richard and Robert are, they won't be able to gift us membership of the EFTA/EEA.
The report says there's no automaticity nor any guarantee that we will get membership nor that we will get favourable terms.
The most damning part of the report said it was very reminiscent of the Scottish Nationalist movement who were convinced they could force the rest of the UK into a currency union.
The first line says "I buy a house for £100 with a mortgage of £80." - that's £20 of equity.
Brexit is nihilistic nonsense.
Finally we're getting the chance to decide, the long term xenophobic, fruitcake racists like me are feeling very pleased that around half those interested share our view, 10 years ago it was probably 10%.
The Yes campaign wanted it, the rest of the UK did not.
Post UK exit, both the UK and the EU will want a trading relationship. You can argue about how that might work precisely, but the EU is not going to try and stop all trade between it and the UK.
Leave will be playing for complete leave of the EU and bilateral trade agreements, if they go for EEA they will lose half their support. EEA might make sense to some better informed people, but politically it's a dead duck. You can't campaign on "we need to leave the EU, but join the almost-EU", its not a credible position to take. Vote Leave's message will be there is no status quo, the EU is going somewhere and probably not where we want to go, we need to be in control of our own destiny. It's a simple message and on the evidence easy to sell.
It's not a binary choice, when it comes to trade. It was on currency.
You've already said you believe over the next 10-15 years things will worsen with the EU and we'll leave anyway. So why not spare ourselves a decade and a half of pain?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36042426
Like a sports relief rerun of Kids Company...
We need an orderly exit, right now, it's the equivalent of stopping the car in the fast lane of the M1. We need to make sure we stop at a safe time and place.
Yet it is by your account "not a credible position to take."
A shame that a perfectly coherent option, albeit with drawbacks (similarly to the other options including staying in) is deemed not credible.
EU, EFTA, CO.
And a lot of the EFTA group - particularly small business people - are EFTA > EU > CO. If you eliminate the EFTA option, more of them will vote to stay in the EU than will vote for CO.
I don't think that is hard since the bar for whatever Corbyn does is set so excruciatingly low. By making Ed Miliband look vaguely competent in retrospect-Corbyn has achieved the impossible.
"Not my problem guv" is a contemptible attitude.
This is just lawyerly cr*p aimed at confusing the issue.
We have a chance to leave shortly. Your proposal to wait is based on the belief, with no evidence (no guarantee, you might say), that we'll get a second opportunity in the near future. And that such an opportunity will, for some reason, be better than the current one.
If your house is on fire, you leap out of the window. If your spouse is abusing you, you pack your bags and flee. You don't wander down a burning staircase or consult a bus timetable. There is no guarantee we'll get another opportunity to leave within a decade or two, or even three. The last vote was over 40 years ago.
I'd be surprised.
Dave told us all he's staying on yesterday in the event of a leave vote anyway, so despite spoiling a few PBers bets I'm going to take him as a man of his word. Cast iron Dave - recorded in Hansard in response to Carswell's question... preserved for eternity !
On this last point the current polling is absolutely the government own fault, if they had pumped an amount of money into health and education commensurate with the population growth from immigration a lot of people complaining now would be sitting happily at home. Its not good enough to say there isn't enough money, we are told this level of immigration is good for our economy, if it doesn't generate enough revenue to even cover the cost of its own social care, clearly not.
Seriously, why would a farmer want to leave the EU when his livelihood depends on it?
There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit thinking other than nonsense, stupidity, or the kind of reactionary nationalism that has caused Europe so much harm in the last century.
And this is me being quite kind and reasonable.
Too much of the Leave campaign (arguably all of it) has been focused on the "push" factors and very little on the "pull" factors i.e. what an exit from the EU would mean - for us and the single market, for immigration, for a whole host of areas and how to get there. I think this flaw is probably the main reason why I think that Remain will win.
Saying the EU is not for us and is going in the wrong direction is all very well and may be agreed to by a large number - maybe even a majority - of people. But that does not mean that that same majority will necessarily agree to vote to leave if they have no idea or very different ideas about where we would be going and how, if we left. Unless the Leave campaign seriously addresses this question then it will not win. And, arguably, won't deserve to win.
But cast iron ? You see it's extremely brittle, it doesn't stand up well to shocks; it cracks and shatters if it's hit too hard.
Hence why he had difficulty with his cast iron promise.
Leave? It simply hasn't got as far as aspiring to coherence.
Mr. Brooke, some say the tens of thousands migration pledge was a wrought iron promise.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party manifesto is a Damascus steel promise. If not a tungsten promise.
Edit: Close
The Treaty of Rome is one of the signs that indicates the Antichrist's rise as stated in a Biblical poem from Father Brennan.
http://omen.wikia.com/wiki/Rome
In addition, about three months ago Cameron was strutting around the TV studios telling us that if he didn't get a slightly larger bit of fluff than the one currently on offer he was perfectly prepared to leave the EU, and was sure we would be fine going it alone, and yet we are supposed to believe him when a couple of months later when he says leaving would be a complete disaster and we would be badly damaged if we went alone, and with a straight face as well.
Leave are not going to win if all they offer is leaving the EU and then we have an almighty argument about what that means and what arrangements we put in its place.
Your report may well have said that. But there are others like Capital Economics and by Open Europe that say differently and outline the options and positive economic effects of Brexit very clearly. And there are no guarantees for either Remain or Leave, or anything in life.
I think you are cherry picking the evidence you want to support a conclusion you'd already reached many moons ago. I knew deep-down this would come from the very first day you signalled some sympathises for Leave - you would always follow Dave's lead.
It's your vote but I'm not going to conceal my disappointment.
setting out their position is this:
"Second, all European countries, in and out of the euro, should be able to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way. This does not require the supremacy of European law ."
With respect to them that is nonsense. How do we have free trade without a regulator that can impose its decisions on the parties? I remember the nonsense when Japan claimed that skis could not be imported because they had a different kind of snow. If Germany decides they need a different kind of bank or Italy a different kind of insurance we need to be able to stop them or there is no free trade at all.
That requires the supremacy of EU law, at least in the area of the single market. Worse alternatives are available (such as the NAFTA tribunals you have referred to) but some form of regulation which binds the hands of the UK government is an essential component of any meaningful trade deal. I hesitate to use the word but it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
A damn good flogging would sort you out.
The report was well resourced, and took in a lot of impartial evidence.
On the balance of probabilities Brexit is too higher a risk for the company, the sector and the UK as a whole.
Clearly in a free trade area you have a system of conflict resolution.
But here they are equally clearly referring to to EU law in general (as in the ECJ) - although in practice I suspect that many of the judgements voters are concerned about are ECHR not ECJ
The referendum was designed to allow Cameron to placate his backbenchers, while enabling his Remain campaign to ridicule the Leave campaign regardless of whether it defined an alternative model or left it open. It wasn't intended to be possible to lose (though he's giving it a good go), which probably isn't going to do his relationship with his party a lot of good.
https://mobile.twitter.com/vote_leave/status/719876646183047169/video/1
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/720549484783079424
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/12/german-comedian-faces-five-years-jail-mocking-turkish-president/
Remain isn't making a case, I'd like to read one that was aspirational.
Accept nothing less than tamahagane - Japanese jewel steel, used to make the blade of the finest Samurai swords....
[If you're into history, in particular (his Youtube channel has other stuff), it's well worth giving him a look].