On topic I would say we are at least as involved as anyone else wrt Brexit and we can't agree so why on earth we believe the betting markets have some kind of unique insight is beyond me.
The idea I liked best was for a hedge fund to commission an exit poll (£20k they estimated) and then take a long/short position on sterling depending on the outcome. Do we know when we get the official result?
As to in/out, plan/no plan I think @viewcode had it right (apologies if it was someone else). We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
As for Article 50 well Dave did say he would invoke it and I can see some of the Leavers getting hugely, and rightly, aggrieved if there is not a clear path to actually leave beyond a "yes we'll come to that in due course".
We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
Exterior, Number 10 Downing Street. Friday Morning. The PM speaks
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. Before enacting the settled will of the British people, I have decided to call up the other EU leaders for a chat..."
OK, which level of reality are we supposed to be operating on here?
One of the leading lights of REMAIN is that notable european "expert" Peter Mandelson. Next time Mandelson appears for an interview, it would be nice to see the reporter do a little research and ask him about this infamous statement. "“Staying out of the Euro will mean progressive economic isolation for Britain. It will mean fewer foreign businesses investing here, fewer good jobs created and less trade being done with our European partners.” – Peter Mandelson, Sunday Mirror, 18 May 2003"
"Economic isolation" and the other dodgy forecasts are now being trotted out by REMAIN. They could at least dream up some new impacts for not following the european project!
On topic I would say we are at least as involved as anyone else wrt Brexit and we can't agree so why on earth we believe the betting markets have some kind of unique insight is beyond me.
The idea I liked best was for a hedge fund to commission an exit poll (£20k they estimated) and then take a long/short position on sterling depending on the outcome. Do we know when we get the official result?
As to in/out, plan/no plan I think @viewcode had it right (apologies if it was someone else). We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
As for Article 50 well Dave did say he would invoke it and I can see some of the Leavers getting hugely, and rightly, aggrieved if there is not a clear path to actually leave beyond a "yes we'll come to that in due course".
Leave will soon be demanding that a public inquiry be set to ascertain the best route forward after an Out vote. It's getting to that point.
It's telling. Apart from the odd crackpot (Farage) and the odd career advancer (Boris) few professional politicians have advocated Leave. There must be a politicians-club thing going on here: they know the mayhem Leave will unleash and are kind enough not to inflict that sort of thing on any successor.
And as you said in 1992:
It's telling. Apart from the odd crackpot and the odd career advancer few professional politicians have advocated leaving the ERM. There must be a politicians-club thing going on here: they know the mayhem leaving the ERM will unleash and are kind enough not to inflict that sort of thing on any successor.
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
Exterior, Number 10 Downing Street. Friday Morning. The PM speaks
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. Before enacting the settled will of the British people, I have decided to call up the other EU leaders for a chat..."
OK, which level of reality are we supposed to be operating on here?
The real world Scott.
Not the one where people throw out scare stories, but the one where politicians talk and consult each other all of which takes time.
If it's a huge Leave win that will eleicit one response if it's a close win it will eleict another and since you don't know th result you're no more in a position to say than any one else.
So making stupid TINA statements doesn't actually help your case.
Boaty McBoatface has become the overwhelming choice in a public vote to name a £200m polar research ship. The name, suggested by former BBC Radio Jersey presenter James Hand, went viral, crashing the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) website. Boaty McBoatface was the runaway winner with 124,109 votes. The second most popular choice, Poppy-Mai, had 34,371. BBC online news
Even the name of the REMAIN group is a re-cycling of the name of the pro-euro group that almost succeeded in getting us to join the disastrous euro. The same words "Britain in Europe" "stronger". Almost same "BSIE" but from from 17 years ago. then it was just "BIE".
Lord Marshall, the chairman of Britain in Europe “convinced that inside the single currency, on the right terms, Britain will be stronger in the world, not weaker; our economy and our people will be more prosperous not less; and our future will be confident, not backward looking.” Observer, 21 March 1999.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
And as you said in 1992:
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
One thing that has improved since that pro-euro campaign has been how few jobs are threatened by our leaving. today the "up to 3 million" is used... then it was higher. Unbelievable but true.
“8 million jobs in jeopardy”, Daily Express; “Eight million jobs ‘would be lost if Britain quit EU’ “, Independent; “ 18 February 2000. (from Guilty Men).
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
If it's a huge Leave win that will elicit one response if it's a close win it will elicit another
If leave win, by any margin, Cameron will trigger article 50.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
Your case currently is:
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
1. HMG will have plans based on various scenarios because that what government does 2. Cameron has a split cabinet and party to manage, it's actually a disservice to him to claim he will just jump on TV in a fit of pique and invioke article 50 3. Cameron will consult other EU leaders 4. imo he will also consult other UK political parties before he does anything
So adding that all together he may well in the end decide that invoking article 50 is the best thing to do, and it might be, but it is higly unlikely he will do so before going thought a process of consultation with other interested parties.
So no as a Leaver I'm not afraid of winning, though you clearly are concerned that that's more likely than a month ago.
If it's a huge Leave win that will elicit one response if it's a close win it will elicit another
If leave win, by any margin, Cameron will trigger article 50.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
Can you imagine the howls of derision if Dave tried to fudge it? Of course, in reality Dave will just get on with it toot sweet. Ball now in Leave's court.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
Where's the evidence?
Ahead of the 1994 Norwegian referendum the Norwegian Prime Minister claimed she didn't know of any companies planning to invest if there was a NO vote. One of the country's biggest firms claimed 'billions' would be invested abroad.
Actual result: Norwegian investment
1994 +5% 1995 +3% 1996 +9% 1997 +15%
In an oil boom those are not particularly impressive figures. It seems sensible to conclude that there will be a period of uncertainty and that investment, particularly investment relating to international trade, will be adversely affected until the basis of our future trading is confirmed. All the more reason to get on with fixing those terms of trade as fast as possible of course.
Except it wasn't an oil boom. The period 94 to 97 was a period of very low oil prices at between $20 and $25 a barrel.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm confused.
For weeks Remainians like Meeks have been insisting that Leave need to set out exactly what will happen in the event of a Leave vote, because the government will have to follow it.
Now we have a case where Leave has said what will happen and uber-Remainian Scott P is saying "the government will ignore it".
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
Boaty McBoatface has become the overwhelming choice in a public vote to name a £200m polar research ship. The name, suggested by former BBC Radio Jersey presenter James Hand, went viral, crashing the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) website. Boaty McBoatface was the runaway winner with 124,109 votes. The second most popular choice, Poppy-Mai, had 34,371. BBC online news
Whether official or not, she will always be known as Boaty McBoatface...
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
The Government have set out exactly what will happen in the event of a Leave vote, and now the Brexiteers seem very unhappy about it.
Well always good to see a minority opinion expressed Scott but since the majority of UK citizens say they wouldn't trust what DC says on the EU ref I guess a believer like yourself will just have to come to terms with it.
Maybe Dave could have a pint with Nigel since their credibility ratings aren't that different.
If it's a huge Leave win that will elicit one response if it's a close win it will elicit another
If leave win, by any margin, Cameron will trigger article 50.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
Your case currently is:
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
1. HMG will have plans based on various scenarios because that what government does 2. Cameron has a split cabinet and party to manage, it's actually a disservice to him to claim he will just jump on TV in a fit of pique and invioke article 50 3. Cameron will consult other EU leaders 4. imo he will also consult other UK political parties before he does anything
So adding that all together he may well in the end decide that invoking article 50 is the best thing to do, and it might be, but it is higly unlikely he will do so before going thought a process of consultation with other interested parties.
So no as a Leaver I'm not afraid of winning, though you clearly are concerned that that's more likely than a month ago.
An excellent summary. What a pity that our delightful Remain contingent have so little faith in the Prime Minister and the Government. Boris was quite right in his Gerald Ratner comparison. 'Don't let us govern - we're too crap'
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malcolm, I am not sure that the village idiot is an official position that has to be filled in every case. Unless it was sneaked in under the named person legislation....
David, LOL. Have you seen what Murdo tweeted after the game today, shocking he cab be so stupid. Hard to believe he is a politician at all.
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
Exterior, Number 10 Downing Street. Friday Morning. The PM speaks
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. Before enacting the settled will of the British people, I have decided to call up the other EU leaders for a chat..."
OK, which level of reality are we supposed to be operating on here?
Um no. Since I clearly give Cameron more credit than you do I suspect it will be more along the lines of:
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. To enable us to enact the settled will of the people we will be consulting with the cabinet and particularly with those who have supported the Leave campaign and with our friends in Europe to finalise the details of how the negotiations will be conducted. In accordance with the Treaty for Europe we will shortly be invoking Article 50 which will begin the process of withdrawal from the European Union."
I doubt anyone on either side could seriously claim to have a problem with such a statement and as such I would expect Article 50 to be invoked within a couple of weeks of the referendum result.
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
Are you seriously contending that talks be extended past the article 50 deadline? Existing arrangements actually lapse at that point. It's not like they hold in place...
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
Exterior, Number 10 Downing Street. Friday Morning. The PM speaks
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. Before enacting the settled will of the British people, I have decided to call up the other EU leaders for a chat..."
OK, which level of reality are we supposed to be operating on here?
Um no. Since I clearly give Cameron more credit than you do I suspect it will be more along the lines of:
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. To enable us to enact the settled will of the people we will be consulting with the cabinet and particularly with those who have supported the Leave campaign and with our friends in Europe to finalise the details of how the negotiations will be conducted. In accordance with the Treaty for Europe we will shortly be invoking Article 50 which will begin the process of withdrawal from the European Union."
I doubt anyone on either side could seriously claim to have a problem with such a statement and as such I would expect Article 50 to be invoked within a couple of weeks of the referendum result.
If it's a huge Leave win that will elicit one response if it's a close win it will elicit another
If leave win, by any margin, Cameron will trigger article 50.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
Your case currently is:
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
1. HMG will have plans based on various scenarios because that what government does 2. Cameron has a split cabinet and party to manage, it's actually a disservice to him to claim he will just jump on TV in a fit of pique and invioke article 50 3. Cameron will consult other EU leaders 4. imo he will also consult other UK political parties before he does anything
So adding that all together he may well in the end decide that invoking article 50 is the best thing to do, and it might be, but it is higly unlikely he will do so before going thought a process of consultation with other interested parties.
So no as a Leaver I'm not afraid of winning, though you clearly are concerned that that's more likely than a month ago.
An excellent summary. What a pity that our delightful Remain contingent have so little faith in the Prime Minister and the Government. Boris was quite right in his Gerald Ratner comparison. 'Don't let us govern - we're too crap'
Some Leaver MP really needs to get a closed question at PMQs: what plans does HMG have in place in the event of a Leave vote. Pretty much any possible answer to that can then be ripped to shreds in the supplementary.
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
Are you seriously contending that talks be extended past the article 50 deadline? Existing arrangements actually lapse at that point. It's not like they hold in place...
Two choices. Either the talks are extended or the UK leaves the EU without agreement.
If the latter case then again two choices. Either the UK immediately joins EFTA and remains in the EEA or the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block.
There is no scenario where talks will not continue in one form or another if an agreement has not been reached.
Leave's faith in British politicians to get us a superb deal upon Brexit is touching. Personally I wouldn't trust these jokers further than I could blow them. Still, as least it will give the Leavers something more to harrumph about: Leave's turned out to be crap but it's not our fault.
If it's a huge Leave win that will elicit one response if it's a close win it will elicit another
If leave win, by any margin, Cameron will trigger article 50.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
Your case currently is:
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
1. HMG will have plans based on various scenarios because that what government does 2. Cameron has a split cabinet and party to manage, it's actually a disservice to him to claim he will just jump on TV in a fit of pique and invioke article 50 3. Cameron will consult other EU leaders 4. imo he will also consult other UK political parties before he does anything
So adding that all together he may well in the end decide that invoking article 50 is the best thing to do, and it might be, but it is higly unlikely he will do so before going thought a process of consultation with other interested parties.
So no as a Leaver I'm not afraid of winning, though you clearly are concerned that that's more likely than a month ago.
An excellent summary. What a pity that our delightful Remain contingent have so little faith in the Prime Minister and the Government. Boris was quite right in his Gerald Ratner comparison. 'Don't let us govern - we're too crap'
I don't see why there needs to be a negotiation to precede the negotiation.
Article 50 fires the starting gun for negotiations and then we will see where we are in two years' time. I think the public would rightly question why Dave was on the phone to the EU leaders when he is about to sit down opposite them to hammer out a new set of relationships. They would suspect he was trying to ignore the result. Any politician, in fact, if it isn't Dave, would be suspected of trying to ignore the result if they didn't invoke pretty damn quickly.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
"As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view."
And you would have been saying the equivalent in 1992 if you had been in Britain.
And there were negative short term effects to leaving the ERM - billions were pissed away defending the exchange rate, the government looked economically incompetent , there was uncertainty for tourists and businesses.
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
I know but when you are dealing with idiots it is sometimes necessary , I did not want him confused for a couple of weeks.
LOL
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
You know a man by the company he keeps.
Ah yes yours is stuff the chavs isn't it ?
I rather go to the pub with Malky.
Malcomg is an obvious crank deserving of pity. Alanbrooke promotes himself as some kind of authority and intellectual. That he should find kinship with a irksome, abusive, nationalist bore is - how shall I put it - at best demeaning.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
Are you seriously contending that talks be extended past the article 50 deadline? Existing arrangements actually lapse at that point. It's not like they hold in place...
Two choices. Either the talks are extended or the UK leaves the EU without agreement.
If the latter case then again two choices. Either the UK immediately joins EFTA and remains in the EEA or the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block.
There is no scenario where talks will not continue in one form or another if an agreement has not been reached.
In the second choice of your latter case ("...the UK leaves the EU without agreement...[and]...the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block...") you are describing a scenario whereby the UK has left the EU, the existing arrangements have lapsed, and no legal framework is in place, although talks would be underway to create a new one.
That's an extraordinarily risky position to hold. Trade without law is an invitation to the lawless.
Mr. Viewcode, do you think the EU would be so vindictive, obstructive or incompetent as to wish current arrangements to lapse without even interim arrangements in place?
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
Are you seriously contending that talks be extended past the article 50 deadline? Existing arrangements actually lapse at that point. It's not like they hold in place...
Two choices. Either the talks are extended or the UK leaves the EU without agreement.
If the latter case then again two choices. Either the UK immediately joins EFTA and remains in the EEA or the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block.
There is no scenario where talks will not continue in one form or another if an agreement has not been reached.
In the second choice of your latter case ("...the UK leaves the EU without agreement...[and]...the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block...") you are describing a scenario whereby the UK has left the EU, the existing arrangements have lapsed, and no legal framework is in place, although talks would be underway to create a new one.
That's an extraordinarily risky position to hold. Trade without law is an invitation to the lawless.
...and that's why the Article 50 talks would be extended rather than go to that level.
The Brexiteers are now Demanding in the event of a Leave vote that Cameron ignore the Sovereign will of the British people, and instead consult with other EU leaders.
Cos that's why they want to vote Leave in the first place.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
"As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view."
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Mr. Viewcode, do you think the EU would be so vindictive, obstructive or incompetent as to wish current arrangements to lapse without even interim arrangements in place?
I see the other two, but 'vindictive' - share an example!
The EU mind, not persons therein.
The chance to do nothing and get paid for it is of course the source of many of the problems we have in the world. I returned from Rome yesterday.
Mr. Viewcode, do you think the EU would be so vindictive, obstructive or incompetent as to wish current arrangements to lapse without even interim arrangements in place?
To answer the question you asked: i would hope not.
But I can think of several scenarios where it might happen * a EU country extorts a price for agreement that we are not willing to pay * a EU government with a small majority/plurality is forced by a Eurosceptic party into a referendum on the agreement and the electorate objects to it * a EU government is forced to have a referendum on the agreement and the electorate rejects it because it wants the UK to stay in the EU * a EU government objects to the agreement because the government is made up of idiots. * a EU government objects to the agreement because it wants to hurt the UK
Let's call those scenarios "Hungary 2018", "Netherlands 2018", "Ireland 2018", "Greece 2018" and "France 2018".
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
No. Because the result of the Article 50 talks ending is that we leave anyway. At which point we either join EFTA (remaining in the EEA as a result) or we negotiate a new trade agreement which will be done under QMV on the EU side. Either way the net effect is talks continue until an agreement is reached.
Are you seriously contending that talks be extended past the article 50 deadline? Existing arrangements actually lapse at that point. It's not like they hold in place...
Two choices. Either the talks are extended or the UK leaves the EU without agreement.
If the latter case then again two choices. Either the UK immediately joins EFTA and remains in the EEA or the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block.
There is no scenario where talks will not continue in one form or another if an agreement has not been reached.
In the second choice of your latter case ("...the UK leaves the EU without agreement...[and]...the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block...") you are describing a scenario whereby the UK has left the EU, the existing arrangements have lapsed, and no legal framework is in place, although talks would be underway to create a new one.
That's an extraordinarily risky position to hold. Trade without law is an invitation to the lawless.
...and that's why the Article 50 talks would be extended rather than go to that level.
You're assuming the actors are all rational actors acting according to enlightened self-interest. There is some evidence that this is not the case...
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
Which four freedoms? (They would happen to the extent that we wish them to happen anyway)
Mr. Viewcode, do you think the EU would be so vindictive, obstructive or incompetent as to wish current arrangements to lapse without even interim arrangements in place?
To answer the question you asked: i would hope not.
But I can think of several scenarios where it might happen * a EU country extorts a price for agreement that we are not willing to pay * a EU government with a small majority/plurality is forced by a Eurosceptic party into a referendum on the agreement and the electorate objects to it * a EU government is forced to have a referendum on the agreement and the electorate rejects it because it wants the UK to stay in the EU * a EU government objects to the agreement because the government is made up of idiots. * a EU government objects to the agreement because it wants to hurt the UK
Let's call those scenarios "Hungary 2018", "Netherlands 2018", "Ireland 2018", "Greece 2018" and "France 2018".
The significance of the fact that the agreement itself is subject to QMV (unlike extending the negotiations which requires unanimity) is difficult to overstate.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
The Brexiteers are now Demanding in the event of a Leave vote that Cameron ignore the Sovereign will of the British people, and instead consult with other EU leaders.
Cos that's why they want to vote Leave in the first place.
Oh, wait...
I agree. It's a bit of a bugger's muddle. I don't know if this stems from genuine confusion and lack of foresight, or if they're getting their excuses in early - actually to shift the blame to Cameron and the Remainers when Brexit goes all ends up. Either way, it re-enforces my hunch that they're more keen on enjoying the process than thinking about the actual result.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
Which four freedoms?
THE four freedoms
Sorry, yes, my fault. I meant to enquire as to what was added (amended the post). There is nothing new or other than common practice.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
Which four freedoms? (They would happen to the extent that we wish them to happen anyway)
Freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.
On Brexit they will happen to the extent all sides can agree they will happen. We want to restrict freedom of movement of EU citizens; the quid pro quo might be restrictions on moving capital. That, along with the end of passporting, would be very bad news for our financial services industries and the City.
The Brexiteers are now Demanding in the event of a Leave vote that Cameron ignore the Sovereign will of the British people, and instead consult with other EU leaders.
Cos that's why they want to vote Leave in the first place.
Oh, wait...
I agree. It's a bit of a bugger's muddle. I don't know if this stems from genuine confusion and lack of foresight, or if they're getting their excuses in early - actually to shift the blame to Cameron and the Remainers when Brexit goes all ends up. Either way, it re-enforces my hunch that they're more keen on enjoying the process than thinking about the actual result.
The difficulty that Leavers have is that (as Scott admits, but Meeks denies) they have precisely no control over what happens after June 24th. The government is going to do what it sees as in the British national interests given that it has been instructed to cease membership of the EU.
The only people who can say what a Leave vote means is the government - and it's in their interests not to tell us, because knowing might make us more likely to vote to Leave.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
No, I didn't say that.
Really ???
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
I find your attitude confusing to say the least. It's like eating all the ingredients before you bake the cake.
My attitude is that the four freedoms EU membership deliver are a net benefit to the UK and so are not worth risking for the uncertainty even Leave voters agree Brexit would deliver. I am not bothered about pooling sovereignty given that this referendum shows that ultimately it is in our hands.
Which four freedoms? (They would happen to the extent that we wish them to happen anyway)
Freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.
On Brexit they will happen to the extent all sides can agree they will happen. We want to restrict freedom of movement of EU citizens; the quid pro quo might be restrictions on moving capital. That, along with the end of passporting, would be very bad news for our financial services industries and the City.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
"As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view."
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Except the UK didn't enter the ERM at the wrong rate. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
We are not easily frightened.
Casino, One can only hope you have more fortitude than that shown in Scotland.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
"As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view."
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Except the UK didn't enter the ERM at the wrong rate. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
So cabinet ministers, leading businessmen, newspaper editors and proprietors are no longer part of the establishment? That is news to me.
I think you'll find a fair few people - including shadow chancellor John Smith - were dubious about the rate at which the UK had entered the ERM.
Mr. Viewcode, do you think the EU would be so vindictive, obstructive or incompetent as to wish current arrangements to lapse without even interim arrangements in place?
To answer the question you asked: i would hope not.
But I can think of several scenarios where it might happen * a EU country extorts a price for agreement that we are not willing to pay * a EU government with a small majority/plurality is forced by a Eurosceptic party into a referendum on the agreement and the electorate objects to it * a EU government is forced to have a referendum on the agreement and the electorate rejects it because it wants the UK to stay in the EU * a EU government objects to the agreement because the government is made up of idiots. * a EU government objects to the agreement because it wants to hurt the UK
Let's call those scenarios "Hungary 2018", "Netherlands 2018", "Ireland 2018", "Greece 2018" and "France 2018".
The significance of the fact that the agreement itself is subject to QMV (unlike extending the negotiations which requires unanimity) is difficult to overstate.
Indeed. I was referring to the talks continuing past the deadline sans extension, not the renegotiation per se.
(Looks around furtively, hope they buy it, wipes brow, walks away whistling until round the corner, then sprints away fast.. )
However, that brings me to the scenarios whereby the agreement can be delayed, namely:
The Brexiteers are now Demanding in the event of a Leave vote that Cameron ignore the Sovereign will of the British people, and instead consult with other EU leaders.
Cos that's why they want to vote Leave in the first place.
Oh, wait...
I agree. It's a bit of a bugger's muddle. I don't know if this stems from genuine confusion and lack of foresight, or if they're getting their excuses in early - actually to shift the blame to Cameron and the Remainers when Brexit goes all ends up. Either way, it re-enforces my hunch that they're more keen on enjoying the process than thinking about the actual result.
The difficulty that Leavers have is that (as Scott admits, but Meeks denies) they have precisely no control over what happens after June 24th. The government is going to do what it sees as in the British national interests given that it has been instructed to cease membership of the EU.
The only people who can say what a Leave vote means is the government - and it's in their interests not to tell us, because knowing might make us more likely to vote to Leave.
I am saying that in 1992 I was 24 and living in Spain. I didn't follow events at all.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
"As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view."
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Except the UK didn't enter the ERM at the wrong rate. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
Actually, I think you are thinking of the Euro rather than the ERM. It's worth reading Lord Lawson's book, The View from Number Eleven, for a really good feel for why people (including him) wanted to be in the ERM, and all the pros and cons.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Except the UK didn't enter the ERM at the wrong rate. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
So cabinet ministers, leading businessmen, newspaper editors and proprietors are no longer part of the establishment? That is news to me.
I think you'll find a fair few people - including shadow chancellor John Smith - were dubious about the rate at which the UK had entered the ERM.
There were quite a few people who were wise after the event regarding the ERM but I don't recall any of them saying that Britain should leave it while it was in it.
As to the establishment I'll look forward to the propaganda sheet coming from the government telling us why Britain should leave the EU.
Or perhaps when Obama tells us that Britain should vote Leave.
Or a thousand others we could all name.
Please don't embarrass yourself in claiming that the establishment doesn't support Remain.
Anyway I have things to do so a good evening to you.
'Actually, I think you are thinking of the Euro rather than the ERM. It's worth reading Lord Lawson's book, The View from Number Eleven, for a really good feel for why people (including him) wanted to be in the ERM, and all the pros and cons.'
Oh there were certainly some very over-the-top warnings about what would happen if we left the ERM, most notably by Major - along the lines of the Pound turning into something akin to the Ukrainian Karbovanets. So Richard does have a point.
On the backing for the ERM, Richard is also right that a huge chunk of the economic and political establishment lined up behind it and were proved badly wrong.
Some of them have made up various mea non culpas over the years, including the rubbish about 'the wrong rate' or even claims that ERM membership sort of worked because inflation fell (ever so hard to achieve if you have a recession). Others have repented their sins.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
We are not easily frightened.
Casino, One can only hope you have more fortitude than that shown in Scotland.
MG
I do not think so, there will be a reluctant remain.
My father was a definte leave voter, but he told me today, that he has changed his mind after speaking to my brother. Who said to him, that without membership of the EU all the the rights won by workers over the years, would be swept away if we left, by continual Conservative Government.. Corbyn has more impact than I imagined.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
We are not easily frightened.
Casino, One can only hope you have more fortitude than that shown in Scotland.
MG
I do not think so, there will be a reluctant remain.
My father was a definte leave voter, but he told me today, that he has changed his mind after speaking to my brother. Who said to him, that without membership of the EU all the the rights won by workers over the years, would be swept away if we left, by continual Conservative Government.. Corbyn has more impact than I imagined.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
We are not easily frightened.
Casino, One can only hope you have more fortitude than that shown in Scotland.
MG
I do not think so, there will be a reluctant remain.
My father was a definte leave voter, but he told me today, that he has changed his mind after speaking to my brother. Who said to him, that without membership of the EU all the the rights won by workers over the years, would be swept away if we left, by continual Conservative Government.. Corbyn has more impact than I imagined.
I think what I might have been saying in 1992 was that we went in to the ERM at the wrong level and so brought the crisis on ourselves. Was there any alternative to the decision Lamont was forced into?
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
Except the UK didn't enter the ERM at the wrong rate. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
So cabinet ministers, leading businessmen, newspaper editors and proprietors are no longer part of the establishment? That is news to me.
I think you'll find a fair few people - including shadow chancellor John Smith - were dubious about the rate at which the UK had entered the ERM.
There were quite a few people who were wise after the event regarding the ERM but I don't recall any of them saying that Britain should leave it while it was in it.
As to the establishment I'll look forward to the propaganda sheet coming from the government telling us why Britain should leave the EU.
Or perhaps when Obama tells us that Britain should vote Leave.
Or a thousand others we could all name.
Please don't embarrass yourself in claiming that the establishment doesn't support Remain.
Anyway I have things to do so a good evening to you.
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
This is the position Cameron has stated. Why are you so afraid of it?
I'm not afraid of it as I said.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
Nothing on his CCHQ crib sheet so he has to keep repeating ad nauseum
He's now got to a point where the scare stories are counter productive. A lot of the leavers on here have run businesses, traded across Europe, seen it done it got the T shirt.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
I agree, unless we are for Euro and more integration it is pointless. However the scaremongering will work on many, unfortunately too many.
It will, but I can't help but be impressed that after nearly two months of it our fellow countrymen, both north and south of the border, are still saying they are 50:50, or thereabouts.
We are not easily frightened.
Casino, One can only hope you have more fortitude than that shown in Scotland.
Ultimately, I doubt it Malcolm, but we have to stick to what we believe in, don't we?
Comments
We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
gadzooks a sensible post from a remainer !
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. Before enacting the settled will of the British people, I have decided to call up the other EU leaders for a chat..."
OK, which level of reality are we supposed to be operating on here?
"“Staying out of the Euro will mean progressive economic isolation for Britain. It will mean fewer foreign businesses investing here, fewer good jobs created and less trade being done with our European partners.” – Peter Mandelson, Sunday Mirror, 18 May 2003"
"Economic isolation" and the other dodgy forecasts are now being trotted out by REMAIN. They could at least dream up some new impacts for not following the european project!
It's telling. Apart from the odd crackpot and the odd career advancer few professional politicians have advocated leaving the ERM. There must be a politicians-club thing going on here: they know the mayhem leaving the ERM will unleash and are kind enough not to inflict that sort of thing on any successor.
Not the one where people throw out scare stories, but the one where politicians talk and consult each other all of which takes time.
If it's a huge Leave win that will eleicit one response if it's a close win it will eleict another and since you don't know th result you're no more in a position to say than any one else.
So making stupid TINA statements doesn't actually help your case.
Dramatic if this turns out to be the result.
Boaty McBoatface has become the overwhelming choice in a public vote to name a £200m polar research ship.
The name, suggested by former BBC Radio Jersey presenter James Hand, went viral, crashing the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) website.
Boaty McBoatface was the runaway winner with 124,109 votes. The second most popular choice, Poppy-Mai, had 34,371.
BBC online news
Lord Marshall, the chairman of Britain in Europe “convinced that inside the single currency, on the right terms, Britain will be stronger in the world, not weaker; our economy and our people will be more prosperous not less; and our future will be confident, not backward looking.” Observer, 21 March 1999.
Why are Brexiteers now so afraid of winning?
If you seriously believe that the UK voting to leave the EU will have no impact beyond these shores at a time when the global economy is feeling pretty fragile then we will just have to agree to disagree.
“8 million jobs in jeopardy”, Daily Express; “Eight million jobs ‘would be lost if Britain quit EU’ “, Independent; “ 18 February 2000. (from Guilty Men).
Cameron has made no plans if we leave except to go on TV and invoke article 50.
That's not even credible as a position
1. HMG will have plans based on various scenarios because that what government does
2. Cameron has a split cabinet and party to manage, it's actually a disservice to him to claim he will just jump on TV in a fit of pique and invioke article 50
3. Cameron will consult other EU leaders
4. imo he will also consult other UK political parties before he does anything
So adding that all together he may well in the end decide that invoking article 50 is the best thing to do, and it might be, but it is higly unlikely he will do so before going thought a process of consultation with other interested parties.
So no as a Leaver I'm not afraid of winning, though you clearly are concerned that that's more likely than a month ago.
No need to keep repeating a point Ive already answered.
For weeks Remainians like Meeks have been insisting that Leave need to set out exactly what will happen in the event of a Leave vote, because the government will have to follow it.
Now we have a case where Leave has said what will happen and uber-Remainian Scott P is saying "the government will ignore it".
Which is it, please, chaps?
Are you saying that in 1992 you backed Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman and not the entire political and business establishment.
Everything has impact but it will be neither the gotterdamarung nor the utopia claimed by partisans of each side.
I've heard too many predictions of great events or great disasters if such or such a thing happens.
They rarely do.
The big changes usually come unexpectedly.
The Government have set out exactly what will happen in the event of a Leave vote, and now the Brexiteers seem very unhappy about it.
As for the EU referendum, Brexit won't presage catastrophe, but I do think it will have a negative short to medium turn negative effect here and elsewhere, and I don't see the benefits that inflicting this on ourselves will bring. Why bother? is more my view.
Maybe Dave could have a pint with Nigel since their credibility ratings aren't that different.
"The people of the UK have voted to leave the EU. To enable us to enact the settled will of the people we will be consulting with the cabinet and particularly with those who have supported the Leave campaign and with our friends in Europe to finalise the details of how the negotiations will be conducted. In accordance with the Treaty for Europe we will shortly be invoking Article 50 which will begin the process of withdrawal from the European Union."
I doubt anyone on either side could seriously claim to have a problem with such a statement and as such I would expect Article 50 to be invoked within a couple of weeks of the referendum result.
I'm beginning to think turnip is a stage of evolution too advanced for some
You can't have it both ways.
I must be a glutton for punishment. Then again, it's still lovely out and I've been to the pub.
Next!
If the latter case then again two choices. Either the UK immediately joins EFTA and remains in the EEA or the UK and the EU immediately commence talks on a trade agreement which no individual EU member will have the ability to block.
There is no scenario where talks will not continue in one form or another if an agreement has not been reached.
Article 50 fires the starting gun for negotiations and then we will see where we are in two years' time. I think the public would rightly question why Dave was on the phone to the EU leaders when he is about to sit down opposite them to hammer out a new set of relationships. They would suspect he was trying to ignore the result. Any politician, in fact, if it isn't Dave, would be suspected of trying to ignore the result if they didn't invoke pretty damn quickly.
There's no point trying to frighten them since they manage risk every day as part of their jobs and are more than comfortable in taking their own view.
To date I'm still waiting for something which tells me why I'll be better off in the EU ten years from now than taking my chances outside it. It's a long wait.
And you would have been saying the equivalent in 1992 if you had been in Britain.
And there were negative short term effects to leaving the ERM - billions were pissed away defending the exchange rate, the government looked economically incompetent , there was uncertainty for tourists and businesses.
But the economic disaster which the entire political and business establishment claimed would happen if the UK left the ERM didn't happen.
On the contrary it turned out to beneficial to the economy.
Now what the effects of the UK leaving the EU would be I don't know but I'm not going to believe the predictions of disaster coming from a self-serving establishment which has been shown to be wrong so many times before.
I rather go to the pub with Malky.
I'm still waiting for my 2,000 leaflets to arrive from Vote Leave.
We are not easily frightened.
That's an extraordinarily risky position to hold. Trade without law is an invitation to the lawless.
The Brexiteers are now Demanding in the event of a Leave vote that Cameron ignore the Sovereign will of the British people, and instead consult with other EU leaders.
Cos that's why they want to vote Leave in the first place.
Oh, wait...
Image
The self-serving establishment is on both sides of the referendum argument.
The EU mind, not persons therein.
The chance to do nothing and get paid for it is of course the source of many of the problems we have in the world. I returned from Rome yesterday.
But I can think of several scenarios where it might happen
* a EU country extorts a price for agreement that we are not willing to pay
* a EU government with a small majority/plurality is forced by a Eurosceptic party into a referendum on the agreement and the electorate objects to it
* a EU government is forced to have a referendum on the agreement and the electorate rejects it because it wants the UK to stay in the EU
* a EU government objects to the agreement because the government is made up of idiots.
* a EU government objects to the agreement because it wants to hurt the UK
Let's call those scenarios "Hungary 2018", "Netherlands 2018", "Ireland 2018", "Greece 2018" and "France 2018".
Remainians don't believe in the last of these.
On Brexit they will happen to the extent all sides can agree they will happen. We want to restrict freedom of movement of EU citizens; the quid pro quo might be restrictions on moving capital. That, along with the end of passporting, would be very bad news for our financial services industries and the City.
http://www.europeanpolicy.org/en/european-policies/single-market.html
The only people who can say what a Leave vote means is the government - and it's in their interests not to tell us, because knowing might make us more likely to vote to Leave.
There was no option to being in the ERM and only fruitcakes and loons claimed otherwise. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
And if for some reason Britain left the ERM then total economic disaster would happen - the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt, there would be no inward investment, the pound would become as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon, three million people would lose their jobs and the rest of the EU would ban British exports. We know this because the entire political and business establishment told us so.
As to the establishment being on both sides of the referendum ? Please don't pretend that to be the case.
I think you'll find a fair few people - including shadow chancellor John Smith - were dubious about the rate at which the UK had entered the ERM.
(Looks around furtively, hope they buy it, wipes brow, walks away whistling until round the corner, then sprints away fast..
However, that brings me to the scenarios whereby the agreement can be delayed, namely:
* an alliance of southern protectionist states saying "No" indefinitely
* The European Parliament (I keep forgetting about this!) saying "no" indefinitely.
And what proportion of voters have even heard of Article 50, ffs.
As to the establishment I'll look forward to the propaganda sheet coming from the government telling us why Britain should leave the EU.
Or perhaps when Obama tells us that Britain should vote Leave.
Or a thousand others we could all name.
Please don't embarrass yourself in claiming that the establishment doesn't support Remain.
Anyway I have things to do so a good evening to you.
'Actually, I think you are thinking of the Euro rather than the ERM. It's worth reading Lord Lawson's book, The View from Number Eleven, for a really good feel for why people (including him) wanted to be in the ERM, and all the pros and cons.'
Oh there were certainly some very over-the-top warnings about what would happen if we left the ERM, most notably by Major - along the lines of the Pound turning into something akin to the Ukrainian Karbovanets. So Richard does have a point.
On the backing for the ERM, Richard is also right that a huge chunk of the economic and political establishment lined up behind it and were proved badly wrong.
Some of them have made up various mea non culpas over the years, including the rubbish about 'the wrong rate' or even claims that ERM membership sort of worked because inflation fell (ever so hard to achieve if you have a recession). Others have repented their sins.
I do not think so, there will be a reluctant remain.
My father was a definte leave voter, but he told me today, that he has changed his mind after speaking to my brother.
Who said to him, that without membership of the EU all the the rights won by workers over the years, would be swept away if we left, by continual Conservative Government..
Corbyn has more impact than I imagined.
The only question worth considering at this point is whether he will resign or not. Everything else is angels on pinheads.