LEAVE has a monopoly on patriotism. LEAVE has a monopoly on democracy. I know this because you lot say so.
If I go out shortly, as I shall, and whilst I am out I find a REMAINDER and kick them to death, will all the LEAVERS here go into the witness box to back up my plea of "justifiable homicide"?
No? Thought not. All talk and no do, the pack of you.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I haven't reviewed the Treasury workings.
But do you really think that it is *plausible* that every family will be £4,300 worse off* as the Beeb is reporting? It seems well out of line with what everyone else is saying and, in my view, overeggs what they need to do and risks credibility
* I believe this is by 2030.
Yes Charles, as I posted yesterday it rather looks like the process was as follows
DC 'why aren't people scared by our numbers?'
GO 'they aren't big enough'
DC 'Why can't we make the numbers bigger?'
GO 'Let's take whatever estimates we can find and double them, or triple them!'
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
I think it's pretty clear from your posts on here that you're more interested in pushing attack lines than genuinely exploring the boundaries of any new deal.
I think people also miss that one can have Freedom of Labour, but have more control over migration. We can require registration for anyone staying longer than three months in the UK. We can largely eliminate (perhaps totally) eliminate benefits. We might well be able to require compulsory UK health insurance at 3k a year. (Although Italy does something similar today, so we could partly do that in the EU.)
I mean, who on earth could have thought that giving John Redwood the first response on the Chancellor's claims was a good idea? And referring to the ERM, for God's sake! Isn't Norman Lamont on the Leave side? Not that anyone normal actually remembers the ERM crisis and what caused it, of course.
I think memories of the ERM run quite deep on the Right. A lot of natural Conservatives were hit hard in 1990-92.
A lot of them were already pretty fed up by then, the late Mr Indigo (Snr), a engineer from a military family, as Tory as they come, stopped voting Conservative over Chancellor John Major's pronoucement that " The harsh truth is that if the policy isn’t hurting, it isn’t working." as he watched his mortage rate hit 15%, and infact never forgave that for the rest of his life.
Although mortgage rates were there before the ERM too. When John Major announced the UK was joining the ERM in 1990, it was announced concurrent with a cut in interest rates.
The fact is that Nigel Lawson's policy of shadowing the Deutschemark in the late 1980s led to monetary policy that was far too loose. This meant that inflation accelerated, reaching about 11% in late summer 1990. To respond to sharply rising inflation, interest rates rose, and this hammered the UK economy at the same time that the world economy was already slipping into a nasty recession.
The ERM did not cause Britain's early 1990s recession: that was the result of a late 1980s boom, too much consumer debt, a slowdown in the world economy, and runaway inflation.
It did, however, make it harder for the government to respond, and the fact that interest rates in the summer of 1992 were sent through the roof at a time when inflation was largely vanquished is a testament to the fact that exchange rate pegs very rarely work.
I largely agree with that but I think some of our younger readers may struggle to recall a time when UK inflation was a persistent and serious threat to our economic performance. The peg was sought because the argument was that we could not simply allow our currency to depreciate against the mighty deutschmark indefinitely as this was at least one of the reasons that inflation was so endemic. The irony was that on the back of the boom the government was struggling to control the upward pressure on sterling which was something of a petro-currency at the time.
The Euro is of course a completely different beast.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
No, it's not. Brexit is about negotiating a new deal. That will be as binding as the current one.
Not at all. If we moved to EFTA that would give far more freedom to the electorate to decide their future. If we were completely out we could have an ala carte future shaped by the government of the day in according with the wishes of the voters, I think some countries call it democracy, I understand it's quite popular.
We would be bound by the terms of whatever new deal is negotiated. If we moved to EFTA, for example, we would be obliged to guarantee free movement of people. We could not just vote in a general election to end it any more than we can now.
Well we could but it would involve leaving EFTA. This of course would be less of a step than leaving the EU and it is quite possible that a major party (UKIP being the obvious one) might argue for it. If the UK then voted for it that is what we would do.
And we could vote in a GE to leave the EU with no need for a referendum. All of which shows that the British people retain sovereignty and the right to decide the country's future.
Not really. Whilst we remain in the EU we have the entire smorgasboard of the EU take it or leave it. This ties the hands of the government of any member state no matter what people vote for as Greece demonstrated all too vividly last year.
Once we are out a more nuanced approach will be more straightforward, albeit still a matter of negotiation and agreement.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
I mean, who on earth could have thought that giving John Redwood the first response on the Chancellor's claims was a good idea? And referring to the ERM, for God's sake! Isn't Norman Lamont on the Leave side? Not that anyone normal actually remembers the ERM crisis and what caused it, of course.
I think memories of the ERM run quite deep on the Right. A lot of natural Conservatives were hit hard in 1990-92.
A lot of them were already pretty fed up by then, the late Mr Indigo (Snr), a engineer from a military family, as Tory as they come, stopped voting Conservative over Chancellor John Major's pronoucement that " The harsh truth is that if the policy isn’t hurting, it isn’t working." as he watched his mortage rate hit 15%, and infact never forgave that for the rest of his life.
Although mortgage rates were there before the ERM too. When John Major announced the UK was joining the ERM in 1990, it was announced concurrent with a cut in interest rates.
The fact is that Nigel Lawson's policy of shadowing the Deutschemark in the late 1980s led to monetary policy that was far too loose. This meant that inflation accelerated, reaching about 11% in late summer 1990. To respond to sharply rising inflation, interest rates rose, and this hammered the UK economy at the same time that the world economy was already slipping into a nasty recession.
The ERM did not cause Britain's early 1990s recession: that was the result of a late 1980s boom, too much consumer debt, a slowdown in the world economy, and runaway inflation.
It did, however, make it harder for the government to respond, and the fact that interest rates in the summer of 1992 were sent through the roof at a time when inflation was largely vanquished is a testament to the fact that exchange rate pegs very rarely work.
Yes indeed. I didn't remember the detail but that was basically my point, that a lot of natural conservatives were all ready pretty pissed off with the government of the day because of the interest rates going through the roof before they got the to ERM fiasco which for many was just ice in the top of an already pretty bad tasting cake.
I mean, who on earth could have thought that giving John Redwood the first response on the Chancellor's claims was a good idea? And referring to the ERM, for God's sake! Isn't Norman Lamont on the Leave side? Not that anyone normal actually remembers the ERM crisis and what caused it, of course.
I think memories of the ERM run quite deep on the Right. A lot of natural Conservatives were hit hard in 1990-92.
It will certainly play to the older (already LEAVE) demographic - a 40 year old in 1990 is now 66 - while no one under their mid-thirties will have the remotest idea what its about...
But, the former will probably vote, and the latter probably won't.
I mean, who on earth could have thought that giving John Redwood the first response on the Chancellor's claims was a good idea? And referring to the ERM, for God's sake! Isn't Norman Lamont on the Leave side? Not that anyone normal actually remembers the ERM crisis and what caused it, of course.
I think memories of the ERM run quite deep on the Right. A lot of natural Conservatives were hit hard in 1990-92.
A lot of them were already pretty fed up by then, the late Mr Indigo (Snr), a engineer from a military family, as Tory as they come, stopped voting Conservative over Chancellor John Major's pronoucement that " The harsh truth is that if the policy isn’t hurting, it isn’t working." as he watched his mortage rate hit 15%, and infact never forgave that for the rest of his life.
Although mortgage rates were there before the ERM too. When John Major announced the UK was joining the ERM in 1990, it was announced concurrent with a cut in interest rates.
The fact is that Nigel Lawson's policy of shadowing the Deutschemark in the late 1980s led to monetary policy that was far too loose. This meant that inflation accelerated, reaching about 11% in late summer 1990. To respond to sharply rising inflation, interest rates rose, and this hammered the UK economy at the same time that the world economy was already slipping into a nasty recession.
The ERM did not cause Britain's early 1990s recession: that was the result of a late 1980s boom, too much consumer debt, a slowdown in the world economy, and runaway inflation.
It did, however, make it harder for the government to respond, and the fact that interest rates in the summer of 1992 were sent through the roof at a time when inflation was largely vanquished is a testament to the fact that exchange rate pegs very rarely work.
The Summer of 1992 taught me that trying to fix currency values for all time is an awful idea.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
I think it's pretty clear from your posts on here that you're more interested in pushing attack lines than genuinely exploring the boundaries of any new deal.
I think people also miss that one can have Freedom of Labour, but have more control over migration. We can require registration for anyone staying longer than three months in the UK. We can largely eliminate (perhaps totally) eliminate benefits. We might well be able to require compulsory UK health insurance at 3k a year. (Although Italy does something similar today, so we could partly do that in the EU.)
We can do all these things. The question is what would we have to give up to secure it. The restrictions on the City's freedom to operate in the single market look the obvious quid pro quo.
'I largely agree with that but I think some of our younger readers may struggle to recall a time when UK inflation was a persistent and serious threat to our economic performance. The peg was sought because the argument was that we could not simply allow our currency to depreciate against the mighty deutschmark indefinitely as this was at least one of the reasons that inflation was so endemic. The irony was that on the back of the boom the government was struggling to control the upward pressure on sterling which was something of a petro-currency at the time.
The Euro is of course a completely different beast.'
It was a flawed analysis. The exchange rate was not the cause of the inflation in the late 80s/early 90s - excessively loose monetary policy was.
And that looseness resulted in large part from the mistaken policy of Deutschemark shadowing that preceded joining the ERM.
So the idea that 'importing' German monetary policy via an exchange rate link could solve the inflation problem was illogical when it was exactly such a link that had contributed to the initial problem. German policy settings might suit the UK sometimes, but at other times they would be quite inappropriate.
The inflation problems of that period were used as a lever to get the UK into the ERM. Politics driving economics again.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
I think it's pretty clear from your posts on here that you're more interested in pushing attack lines than genuinely exploring the boundaries of any new deal.
I think people also miss that one can have Freedom of Labour, but have more control over migration. We can require registration for anyone staying longer than three months in the UK. We can largely eliminate (perhaps totally) eliminate benefits. We might well be able to require compulsory UK health insurance at 3k a year. (Although Italy does something similar today, so we could partly do that in the EU.)
Yes, I think a practical deal on free movement needs to be found that both the UK and the EU can sign up to. The EU will want its citizens to be able to freely work here. All the matters for the UK is reducing net settlement numbers significantly.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
I think it's pretty clear from your posts on here that you're more interested in pushing attack lines than genuinely exploring the boundaries of any new deal.
I'd welcome a straight answer to a straight question.
Some LEAVErs are perfectly happy with the Four Freedoms (the EFTA ones, who've thought it through)
Others are gloriously vague and say 'its up to the government to negotiate after a LEAVE vote.'
Given the UKIP LEAVErs are primarily motivated by immigration - I suspect a lot of them are going to be very upset by the EFTA/4 Freedoms result of any LEAVE vote, as the government will prioritise the economy & employment., accepting the Four Freedoms as the price for EFTA membership.
What's the official LEAVE position - the document you linked to earlier was gloriously ambiguous?
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
I mean, who on earth could have thought that giving John Redwood the first response on the Chancellor's claims was a good idea? And referring to the ERM, for God's sake! Isn't Norman Lamont on the Leave side? Not that anyone normal actually remembers the ERM crisis and what caused it, of course.
I think memories of the ERM run quite deep on the Right. A lot of natural Conservatives were hit hard in 1990-92.
A lot of them were already pretty fed up by then, the late Mr Indigo (Snr), a engineer from a military family, as Tory as they come, stopped voting Conservative over Chancellor John Major's pronoucement that " The harsh truth is that if the policy isn’t hurting, it isn’t working." as he watched his mortage rate hit 15%, and infact never forgave that for the rest of his life.
Although mortgage rates were there before the ERM too. When John Major announced the UK was joining the ERM in 1990, it was announced concurrent with a cut in interest rates.
The fact is that Nigel Lawson's policy of shadowing the Deutschemark in the late 1980s led to monetary policy that was far too loose. This meant that inflation accelerated, reaching about 11% in late summer 1990. To respond to sharply rising inflation, interest rates rose, and this hammered the UK economy at the same time that the world economy was already slipping into a nasty recession.
The ERM did not cause Britain's early 1990s recession: that was the result of a late 1980s boom, too much consumer debt, a slowdown in the world economy, and runaway inflation.
It did, however, make it harder for the government to respond, and the fact that interest rates in the summer of 1992 were sent through the roof at a time when inflation was largely vanquished is a testament to the fact that exchange rate pegs very rarely work.
The Summer of 1992 taught me that trying to fix currency values for all time is an awful idea.
There are two types of currency peg: those that have already broken, and those that will break.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
I think it's pretty clear from your posts on here that you're more interested in pushing attack lines than genuinely exploring the boundaries of any new deal.
I'd welcome a straight answer to a straight question.
Some LEAVErs are perfectly happy with the Four Freedoms (the EFTA ones, who've thought it through)
Others are gloriously vague and say 'its up to the government to negotiate after a LEAVE vote.'
Given the UKIP LEAVErs are primarily motivated by immigration - I suspect a lot of them are going to be very upset by the EFTA/4 Freedoms result of any LEAVE vote, as the government will prioritise the economy & employment., accepting the Four Freedoms as the price for EFTA membership.
What's the official LEAVE position - the document you linked to earlier was gloriously ambiguous?
VLTC wants to take back control over immigration (p.32, IIRC).
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I haven't reviewed the Treasury workings.
But do you really think that it is *plausible* that every family will be £4,300 worse off* as the Beeb is reporting? It seems well out of line with what everyone else is saying and, in my view, overeggs what they need to do and risks credibility
* I believe this is by 2030.
All forecasts require margins of error so insanely wide as to make the predictions largely pointless.
Could we all be 4k worse off? Yes. Could we all be 4k bettwe off? Yes.
Is there any way to test? No.
Short of sawing the country in half, and allowing half of it to remain in the EU, and half to leave, all these are forecasts are untestable and should be ignored. (Perhaps we should saw it in three thirds: EU, EFTA/EEA, and CO.)
I think it's perfectly reasonable for Remain to point out the risks of a short-term economic hit, principally because both the UK and EU are burying any hint of any contingency plan and not tabling any credible alternatives to maximise uncertainty, which is affecting the markets.
However, long-term is crystal ball gazing - although personally i think we'd be economically better off out - and your figures would be just as accurate if you held a seance to find them.
Hound getting worse with the towel (having her paws wiped), after some progress in recent days. Might try another approach, removing it and just making her wait whenever she goes mad with it. Had grumbly dogs with towels before, but not one so manic. I'm sure it's partly age-related (she's nearly one) but can't just wait for her to grow out of it.
On-topic: I wonder whether people will take the claim we'll all be £43,000 worse off a year seriously. If they do, then £430,000 is a lot of money so it'll be a huge win for Remain. But if people don't believe they'll be £4.3m a year worse off out of the EU then it'll only further damage the Remain campaign's credibility.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I haven't reviewed the Treasury workings.
But do you really think that it is *plausible* that every family will be £4,300 worse off* as the Beeb is reporting? It seems well out of line with what everyone else is saying and, in my view, overeggs what they need to do and risks credibility
* I believe this is by 2030.
All forecasts require margins of error so insanely wide as to make the predictions largely pointless.
Could we all be 4k worse off? Yes. Could we all be 4k bettwe off? Yes.
Is there any way to test? No.
Short of sawing the country in half, and allowing half of it to remain in the EU, and half to leave, all these are forecasts are untestable and should be ignored. (Perhaps we should saw it in three thirds: EU, EFTA/EEA, and CO.)
Yes. Some of these studies are now putting forward some very questionable chains of events.
In particular, there are suggestions that there will be huge drops in FDI which will in turn lead to massive declines in productivity growth. Both parts of this particular claim are very dubious both in terms of the historical record and the (cherry-picked) empirical studies which supposedly underlie them (where as you rightly say the margins of error are often extremely wide).
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
The problem LEAVE has is trying to persuade frightened people to vote for change. I can't think of a referendum where the side opposed to the status quo has managed it. Quebec is still part of Canada, for example.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
The point is for the next decade or so until the next treaty comes along, those word carry no legal weight at all with the ECJ.
@SamCoatesTimes: The problem for the Leave campaign over the Treasury doc is that Boris Johnson leapt on the Canadian EU deal as a model despite shortcomings
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
Agreed. It's simple and speaks to one of the fundamental issues a lot of people have with the Eu, which is they stand in the ay of us doing what we want.
What various people want, what the eu may do to prevent that and if others may think it a good idea to prevent will differ, but the take control message can apply without variation tall sorts of concerns.
Why do we have to put up with such obvious lying rubbish.
The only pandering Downing Street does, is to the EU and all it's foibles. Cameron has been well and truly marked by the Brussels Oligarchy; even if remain win, he is a dead duck.
O/T but sums up why Michael Gove is such an impressive man & minister. I've been looking at the Oswin Project to try and increase the amount of work we do in the North East & came across this quote:
"Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishment...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs - to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves - can become assets - citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption [July, 2015]
@bbclaurak: Throws down gauntlet to Leavers - 'where is your document, where is your backing' ?
@politicshome: George Osborne: "Where is a single ally or credible international organisation that thinks it is a good idea for Britain to leave the EU?"
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
The point is for the next decade or so until the next treaty comes along, those word carry no legal weight at all with the ECJ.
And by the time the Treaty comes along (if it ever does) the EU will be hoping for a more pliable UK government still. Which they may well get.
The 'deal' is, as was obvious from the first moment, a worthless piece of paper.
That is why the government is not bothering to campaign on it, but is inventing big scare stories about the economy instead.
Mr. P, if it's seen as a personality contest between Osborne and Boris, that bodes ill for Remain. If it's seen as a credibility issue, that's better for Remain, though Osborne's stock has declined markedly in recent months.
I'm still surprised the polling's so tight. But, as the election showed, months of tight polling doesn't necessarily mean a tight result.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, why would a country's people making a decision on sovereignty give a damn about whether it's approved of or in the interests of other countries?
I don't care if our staying or going helps out France or the US or the Central African Republic. My concern is the British interest.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
@bbclaurak: Throws down gauntlet to Leavers - 'where is your document, where is your backing' ?
@politicshome: George Osborne: "Where is a single ally or credible international organisation that thinks it is a good idea for Britain to leave the EU?"
Those allies are all in the club, don't have to put up with the club themselves, or looking for themselves not necessarily us.
Honestly, economic predictions won't sway anyone, so lack if a document on that score won't hurt leave, since we all know how badly governments are at predicting such things.
A much better attack against leave is about how we will get what we want from other nations. That we will negotiate us certain, but remain are correct at least that many things done in leave want are not in our own gift, and odds are we don't get everything we want from others.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
People don't want to take control. A fundamental concept of advertising is that you flatter people's 'busy lives' and tell them you'll take care of things. Compare the 'Big Society' Tory manifesto flop to the 'Don't worry, switch your brain off, we'll look after you' later success. Taking control carries risk. It takes time, thought, and effort.
O/T but sums up why Michael Gove is such an impressive man & minister. I've been looking at the Oswin Project to try and increase the amount of work we do in the North East & came across this quote:
"Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishment...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs - to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves - can become assets - citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption [July, 2015]
Sums it up perfectly.
If it is LEAVE I hope Cameron entrusts negotiations to Gove......(and locks Osborne in the attic)
The general position of Remain seems to be .... Yes, the EU has problems, and no, we can't fix them, but Leave is worse because it's step into the unknown.
Leave seems to be ....Not sure what will happen when we leave but it's better than staying in a dysfunctional relationship.
The optimal positions should be ... Remaining has problems but we've identified them and can fix them, and we won't be sucked into a political union cos Dave is a man of his word.
Leaving gives us the chance to take back control and not be bossed around by faceless unelected bureaucrats who have no particular love for us.
O/T but sums up why Michael Gove is such an impressive man & minister. I've been looking at the Oswin Project to try and increase the amount of work we do in the North East & came across this quote:
"Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishment...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs - to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves - can become assets - citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption [July, 2015]
Sums it up perfectly.
Indeed. And which of his predecessors in office, of any political colour, would disagree with a word? The problem is that the victims of crime all too often want revenge, not justice - should politicians not listen to them, too? (I think they should engage with them, but it takes two to tango.)
O/T but sums up why Michael Gove is such an impressive man & minister. I've been looking at the Oswin Project to try and increase the amount of work we do in the North East & came across this quote:
"Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishment...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs - to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves - can become assets - citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption [July, 2015]
Sums it up perfectly.
I cannot find words strong enough to express the admiration and respect I have for Michael Gove.
It could be folorn: but that's why I'd vote for him as leader. He isn't particularly popular amongst voters at large but I think if he had a different platform, and people could see him as a successful PM, that could be change.
The general position of Remain seems to be .... Yes, the EU has problems, and no, we can't fix them, but Leave is worse because it's step into the unknown.
Leave seems to be ....Not sure what will happen when we leave but it's better than staying in a dysfunctional relationship.
The optimal positions should be ... Remaining has problems but we've identified them and can fix them, and we won't be sucked into a political union cos Dave is a man of his word.
Leaving gives us the chance to take back control and not be bossed around by faceless unelected bureaucrats who have no particular love for us.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
The point is for the next decade or so until the next treaty comes along, those word carry no legal weight at all with the ECJ.
And by the time the Treaty comes along (if it ever does) the EU will be hoping for a more pliable UK government still. Which they may well get.
The 'deal' is, as was obvious from the first moment, a worthless piece of paper.
That is why the government is not bothering to campaign on it, but is inventing big scare stories about the economy instead.
How can the Brussels hope for a more compliant UK government than this one? It is because thay are so wedded to the EU that we have these constant scare stories
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
Osborne seems to be becoming a sort of bad bank a la Michael Fallon. Indicates he's entirely given up his leadership ambitions now poor lamb.
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
I'm of the view that the UK should act in its own interest, not in the interests of international institutions.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
The point is for the next decade or so until the next treaty comes along, those word carry no legal weight at all with the ECJ.
And by the time the Treaty comes along (if it ever does) the EU will be hoping for a more pliable UK government still. Which they may well get.
The 'deal' is, as was obvious from the first moment, a worthless piece of paper.
That is why the government is not bothering to campaign on it, but is inventing big scare stories about the economy instead.
How can the Brussels hope for a more compliant UK government than this one? It is because thay areso wedded to the EU that we have these constant scare stories
You clearly lack imagination, sir. A more compliant uk government wouldn't have had a referendum at all, even at the cost of internal ructions.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
It's actually Vote Leave, Take Control - and is the overall brand for the group rather than a slogan as such.
I personally think it is pretty good - sums up the key message (at least for me). But I'm not a marketing guy - why do you think it is so bad?
Why do we have to put up with such obvious lying rubbish.
The only pandering Downing Street does, is to the EU and all it's foibles. Cameron has been well and truly marked by the Brussels Oligarchy; even if remain win, he is a dead duck.
It’s been floating around for a while and never denied. At least insofaras going to Downing St and them taking notice of what he says.
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
I'm of the view that the UK should act in its own interest, not in the interests of international institutions.
Something George Osborne would naturally find very difficult to understand.
I see Rousseff lost the vote last night. Hilariously, the next three people in line are facing the sad or similar corruption allegations, and the parliament as a whole seems full of the accused, like the Indian Parliament a few years back.
The general position of Remain seems to be .... Yes, the EU has problems, and no, we can't fix them, but Leave is worse because it's step into the unknown.
Leave seems to be ....Not sure what will happen when we leave but it's better than staying in a dysfunctional relationship.
The optimal positions should be ... Remaining has problems but we've identified them and can fix them, and we won't be sucked into a political union cos Dave is a man of his word.
Leaving gives us the chance to take back control and not be bossed around by faceless unelected bureaucrats who have no particular love for us.
"Will try" sounds more attractive than "can't do.". "Can't do" is Remain's argument in a nutshell.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I haven't reviewed the Treasury workings.
But do you really think that it is *plausible* that every family will be £4,300 worse off* as the Beeb is reporting? It seems well out of line with what everyone else is saying and, in my view, overeggs what they need to do and risks credibility
* I believe this is by 2030.
All forecasts require margins of error so insanely wide as to make the predictions largely pointless.
Could we all be 4k worse off? Yes. Could we all be 4k bettwe off? Yes.
Is there any way to test? No.
Short of sawing the country in half, and allowing half of it to remain in the EU, and half to leave, all these are forecasts are untestable and should be ignored. (Perhaps we should saw it in three thirds: EU, EFTA/EEA, and CO.)
I know. But my point was I think they have been too extreme to serve their own cause & are actively harming it.
If they had said £800 or £1,200 people might have believed them. But this just looks silly.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
It's actually Vote Leave, Take Control - and is the overall brand for the group rather than a slogan as such.
I personally think it is pretty good - sums up the key message (at least for me). But I'm not a marketing guy - why do you think it is so bad?
I posted below. Everyone would say they want control. But people are bad predictors of their own behaviour.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
Are you trying to tell us something, Robert?
I think he;s still looking for payment for the upgrade
No ever closer union is pretty nuanced. Politically (for that is surely where the fuss is) we can decide to opt out of all kinds of measures, citing Section C ("Sovereignty") from the text.
The problem is, it's just words. None of the existing EU Treaties contain the words "ever closer union" so it's not going to be hard to miss them out in future, but the intent is still there. Also since the chances of new treaty happening in the near future is pretty slim, the ECJ is going to be increasingly important, and the ECJ judges soley on the basis of ratified treaties. The founding principle of the ECJ are explicitly about ever closer union and about promoting "unity" within the EU. The political agreements can say what they want, the ECJ has plenty of form for setting those aside, ask the Danes.
Well, the text says that no ECU will be incorporated into the Treaties at their next revision.
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
The point is for the next decade or so until the next treaty comes along, those word carry no legal weight at all with the ECJ.
And by the time the Treaty comes along (if it ever does) the EU will be hoping for a more pliable UK government still. Which they may well get.
The 'deal' is, as was obvious from the first moment, a worthless piece of paper.
That is why the government is not bothering to campaign on it, but is inventing big scare stories about the economy instead.
How can the Brussels hope for a more compliant UK government than this one? It is because thay areso wedded to the EU that we have these constant scare stories
You clearly lack imagination, sir. A more compliant uk government wouldn't have had a referendum at all, even at the cost of internal ructions.
Ah, but Dodgy Dave gave a promise to his party that there would be a referendum if the Tories won the election. With all his other broken promises, he thought he would come out on top if he made a sham negotiation with Brussels and then do all in his power - with out and out lying and distortion - to win. The only problem with that, is that DD has truly split his party - and the country - in a way never intended.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
That's just not true. Look at Open Europe or Capital Economics forecasts from before this febrile campaign.
They both showed anything from a small negative of -2% GDP to a net positive of +2% GDP depending on what policy approach we adopted post Brexif. Some forecasts from Adam Smith Institue have it even higher.
In the short term there may well be a small economic hit; in the long term it will make little difference but gives us the policy tools to make it an even greater success.
We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
Four Freedoms?
Yes or No?
We've already been told we can't have 'Three out of Four' Freedoms.....
Which bit of it being up to the electorate didn't you understand ? Leaving is about giving back power to the British voters to decide how they want their country run, including issues like whether they want the Four Freedoms or not, the clue is in the campaign slogan "Take Control".
Take Control is an awful slogan.
Personally, I think it's rather good.
It sounds like a 1950s campaign to teach henpecked husbands to be more assertive.
People don't want to take control. A fundamental concept of advertising is that you flatter people's 'busy lives' and tell them you'll take care of things. Compare the 'Big Society' Tory manifesto flop to the 'Don't worry, switch your brain off, we'll look after you' later success. Taking control carries risk. It takes time, thought, and effort.
That's an interesting thought. You'd think politicians though as a singular species might want to take back control but it seems they've grown lazy on the Brussels fat.
@tnewtondunn: "Where is a single ally or credible itnl organisation that thinks it's a good idea for GB to leave the EU?" Osborne. Hardest Q for Leave.
I'm of the view that the UK should act in its own interest, not in the interests of international institutions.
I think that question is quite pointless.
When do any international institutions advocate such bodies becoming significantly smaller? Never. Such institutions are dedicated to growing and increasing their powers. If a country can leave the EU, and succeed, other countries might take note and question their own position in similar institutions.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
That's just not true. Look at Open Europe or Capital Economics forecasts from before this febrile campaign.
They both showed anything from a small negative of -2% GDP to a net positive of +2% GDP depending on what policy approach we adopted post Brexif. Some forecasts from Adam Smith Institue have it even higher.
In the short term there may well be a small economic hit; in the long term it will make little difference but gives us the policy tools to make it an even greater success.
That is at least an argument. Some of your fellow Leavers downthread were heading towards throwing out any inconvenient forecast because who knows what the day after tomorrow will bring. But you have to accept that the Treasury is a serious economic outfit and its arguments need to be addressed seriously.
Any argument that Brexit will be positive in the long term for Britain is based around Britain taking brave long term policy positions in the wake of leaving. Is there anything, anything at all, in the Leave campaign, that gives us any reason to hope that those advocating Leave could construct a coherent politically-brave policy mix geared towards long term success? It's mainly characterised by incoherent and shambolic populism.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
As someone who has done lots of long-range economic forecasts in my career, I would say the mockery should be reserved for those who think they should be taken too seriously.
Especially when they are produced as part of a propaganda effort.
We are better looking at historic evidence on these kinds of matters. And the evidence there, while clearly incomplete, points towards the Remain side's efforts being bullsh*t.
For example, let's consider the notion that the EU has led to massive inward flows of FDI which in turn have boosted productivity growth. Here are some numbers:
Inward FDI as % of UK GDP, av. p.a Productivity growth, av p.a 1973-1985 2.5 1.9 1986-1996 3.8 2.0 1997-2008 11.2 1.6
So as we can see, the modest pick-up in inward FDI from 1973-1985 to 1986-1996 had no discernible impact on productivity growth. And the much bigger pick-up between 1997-2008 coincided with a period of slower productivity growth.
Now of course you can pick your subperiods carefully...so let's just consider the period of strong productivity growth from 1982-1988, where it averaged 2.8% p.a. Surely FDI played a big role here? Well in this period inward flows were not very strong, only 2.1% of GDP per year.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose consensus is wrong.
As someone who has done lots of long-range economic forecasts in my career, I would say the mockery should be reserved for those who think they should be taken too seriously.
Especially when they are produced as part of a propaganda effort.
We are better looking at historic evidence on these kinds of matters. And the evidence there, while clearly incomplete, points towards the Remain side's efforts being bullsh*t.
For example, let's consider the notion that the EU has led to massive inward flows of FDI which in turn have boosted productivity growth. Here are some numbers:
Inward FDI as % of UK GDP, av. p.a Productivity growth, av p.a 1973-1985 2.5 1.9 1986-1996 3.8 2.0 1997-2008 11.2 1.6
So as we can see, the modest pick-up in inward FDI from 1973-1985 to 1986-1996 had no discernible impact on productivity growth. And the much bigger pick-up between 1997-2008 coincided with a period of slower productivity growth.
Now of course you can pick your subperiods carefully...so let's just consider the period of strong productivity growth from 1982-1988, where it averaged 2.8% p.a. Surely FDI played a big role here? Well in this period inward flows were not very strong, only 2.1% of GDP per year.
spot on.
companies can't forecast much beyond 3 years ( and even then it's usually wrong ) so 14 years out is a nice exercise but shouldn't be taken as fact,
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
I haven't reviewed the Treasury workings.
But do you really think that it is *plausible* that every family will be £4,300 worse off* as the Beeb is reporting? It seems well out of line with what everyone else is saying and, in my view, overeggs what they need to do and risks credibility
* I believe this is by 2030.
All forecasts require margins of error so insanely wide as to make the predictions largely pointless.
Could we all be 4k worse off? Yes. Could we all be 4k bettwe off? Yes.
Is there any way to test? No.
Short of sawing the country in half, and allowing half of it to remain in the EU, and half to leave, all these are forecasts are untestable and should be ignored. (Perhaps we should saw it in three thirds: EU, EFTA/EEA, and CO.)
I know. But my point was I think they have been too extreme to serve their own cause & are actively harming it.
If they had said £800 or £1,200 people might have believed them. But this just looks silly.
I see the latest Leave position is that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about economic forecasts because economics is bunk. I suppose that, their having dispensed with geography as a science, we could expect them to work their way through the curriculum. I'm looking forward to the assault on theoretical physics.
Oh dear, you've reverted. I thought the old Alastair might be back.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
Well I ask you, what do you expect other than mockery for those who decide that long range economic forecasts are to be completely discounted?
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
That's just not true. Look at Open Europe or Capital Economics forecasts from before this febrile campaign.
They both showed anything from a small negative of -2% GDP to a net positive of +2% GDP depending on what policy approach we adopted post Brexif. Some forecasts from Adam Smith Institue have it even higher.
In the short term there may well be a small economic hit; in the long term it will make little difference but gives us the policy tools to make it an even greater success.
Any argument that Brexit will be positive in the long term for Britain is based around Britain taking brave long term policy positions in the wake of leaving. Is there anything, anything at all, in the Leave campaign, that gives us any reason to hope that those advocating Leave could construct a coherent politically-brave policy mix geared towards long term success? It's mainly characterised by incoherent and shambolic populism.
Given the evidence that we are 'shackled by Europe' seems thin on the ground, the view that we will suddenly discover entrepreneurial and innovative zeal having left the EU seems charmingly optimistic. Especially if one of our major entrepreneurial and innovative sectors - financial services runs the risk of being shut out of the EU.....
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT - and this is why Remain will win as it stands - there is no coherent rebuttal story from "Leave", no alternative narrative whereby we retain the benefits (or even admit they exist) but lose the bad bits of EU membership.
A once in a lifetime opportunity for Leave, and they are making a mess of it. Where is the vision? The Leadership? The hope, the story, the alternative future?
@Runnymede I certainly don't take economic forecasting too seriously. That's a different thing from discounting it completely simply because it is inconvenient.
Many Leave campaigners complain that Remain spends a lot of time arguing by appeals to authority, and there is quite a bit of truth in that. However, in response Leavers have started arguing against authority, seeking to discredit evidence simply because it comes from people who they disapprove of. How many times, for example, have careful arguments been dismissed with "didn't they support the UK joining the Euro?" (whether or not it's true, incidentally). You're indulging in that yourself when you say that the Treasury forecast is simply a propaganda effort. It's more than that and you have to do better than that.
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
this "poor people don;t get into good primary schools" story. Surely cart before horse?
in a world where all primary schools are identical, but one is filled with children of rich successful people, and another by children of poorer children - nobody will be surprised in ON AVEAGE the former gets better results surely?
Then by the current measures, the first schools is "better".
weakish correlation maybe, and lots of exceptions on an individual basis, but this is not a surprise.
Mr. Meeks, if people have been fundamentally wrong on the euro it's legitimate to point that out when considering whether to give their words weight on EU membership.
@Runnymede I certainly don't take economic forecasting too seriously. That's a different thing from discounting it completely simply because it is inconvenient.
Many Leave campaigners complain that Remain spends a lot of time arguing by appeals to authority, and there is quite a bit of truth in that. However, in response Leavers have started arguing against authority, seeking to discredit evidence simply because it comes from people who they disapprove of. How many times, for example, have careful arguments been dismissed with "didn't they support the UK joining the Euro?" (whether or not it's true, incidentally). You're indulging in that yourself when you say that the Treasury forecast is simply a propaganda effort. It's more than that and you have to do better than that.
But then what do you expect ?
Since the bulk of "authority" is controlled by remain to accept "authority's" view is to slit your own throat. So why would they do that ?
As for the Treasury well let's just say Osborne's recent record on forecasting has inspired confidence.
Comments
LEAVE has a monopoly on patriotism. LEAVE has a monopoly on democracy. I know this because you lot say so.
If I go out shortly, as I shall, and whilst I am out I find a REMAINDER and kick them to death, will all the LEAVERS here go into the witness box to back up my plea of "justifiable homicide"?
No? Thought not. All talk and no do, the pack of you.
DC 'why aren't people scared by our numbers?'
GO 'they aren't big enough'
DC 'Why can't we make the numbers bigger?'
GO 'Let's take whatever estimates we can find and double them, or triple them!'
HMT 'OK'
Nor is George Osborne, of course, but he has recognised this, which is why he is trying to play the ball.
The Euro is of course a completely different beast.
@BBCNormanS: I"m guessing it's only a matter of time before @StrongerIn produce "I'm part of the Conspiracy" badges #gaffe #gift4Remain
@BBCNormanS: "They are all in a conspiracy to keep us in the EU" - John Redwood @BBCr4today
'I largely agree with that but I think some of our younger readers may struggle to recall a time when UK inflation was a persistent and serious threat to our economic performance. The peg was sought because the argument was that we could not simply allow our currency to depreciate against the mighty deutschmark indefinitely as this was at least one of the reasons that inflation was so endemic. The irony was that on the back of the boom the government was struggling to control the upward pressure on sterling which was something of a petro-currency at the time.
The Euro is of course a completely different beast.'
It was a flawed analysis. The exchange rate was not the cause of the inflation in the late 80s/early 90s - excessively loose monetary policy was.
And that looseness resulted in large part from the mistaken policy of Deutschemark shadowing that preceded joining the ERM.
So the idea that 'importing' German monetary policy via an exchange rate link could solve the inflation problem was illogical when it was exactly such a link that had contributed to the initial problem. German policy settings might suit the UK sometimes, but at other times they would be quite inappropriate.
The inflation problems of that period were used as a lever to get the UK into the ERM. Politics driving economics again.
I am increasingly coming round to your idea.
Some LEAVErs are perfectly happy with the Four Freedoms (the EFTA ones, who've thought it through)
Others are gloriously vague and say 'its up to the government to negotiate after a LEAVE vote.'
Given the UKIP LEAVErs are primarily motivated by immigration - I suspect a lot of them are going to be very upset by the EFTA/4 Freedoms result of any LEAVE vote, as the government will prioritise the economy & employment., accepting the Four Freedoms as the price for EFTA membership.
What's the official LEAVE position - the document you linked to earlier was gloriously ambiguous?
So you have the text outlining no ECU and also saying it will soon be written into the Treaties.
The question is will, at the new Treaties ratification stage, the other EU members then vote against the text which they all agreed on in February? Not impossible, but IMO unlikely and although as you say it's all just words, my inclination is to take them at face value.
However, long-term is crystal ball gazing - although personally i think we'd be economically better off out - and your figures would be just as accurate if you held a seance to find them.
Hound getting worse with the towel (having her paws wiped), after some progress in recent days. Might try another approach, removing it and just making her wait whenever she goes mad with it. Had grumbly dogs with towels before, but not one so manic. I'm sure it's partly age-related (she's nearly one) but can't just wait for her to grow out of it.
So, any suggestions welcome.
F1: my post-race ramble is here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/china-post-race-analysis-2016.html
On-topic: I wonder whether people will take the claim we'll all be £43,000 worse off a year seriously. If they do, then £430,000 is a lot of money so it'll be a huge win for Remain. But if people don't believe they'll be £4.3m a year worse off out of the EU then it'll only further damage the Remain campaign's credibility.
In particular, there are suggestions that there will be huge drops in FDI which will in turn lead to massive declines in productivity growth. Both parts of this particular claim are very dubious both in terms of the historical record and the (cherry-picked) empirical studies which supposedly underlie them (where as you rightly say the margins of error are often extremely wide).
"Don't know what I want but I know how to get it."
John Redwood is good in two places: when writing in think-tank publications, and in the chamber of the House during debates.
Little elsewhere.
George Osborne is too clever to be seen to be playing the man.
@SamCoatesTimes: The problem for the Leave campaign over the Treasury doc is that Boris Johnson leapt on the Canadian EU deal as a model despite shortcomings
What various people want, what the eu may do to prevent that and if others may think it a good idea to prevent will differ, but the take control message can apply without variation tall sorts of concerns.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/04/thin-controller
The only pandering Downing Street does, is to the EU and all it's foibles. Cameron has been well and truly marked by the Brussels Oligarchy; even if remain win, he is a dead duck.
"Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishment...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs - to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves - can become assets - citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption [July, 2015]
Sums it up perfectly.
@politicshome: George Osborne: "Where is a single ally or credible international organisation that thinks it is a good idea for Britain to leave the EU?"
The 'deal' is, as was obvious from the first moment, a worthless piece of paper.
That is why the government is not bothering to campaign on it, but is inventing big scare stories about the economy instead.
I'm still surprised the polling's so tight. But, as the election showed, months of tight polling doesn't necessarily mean a tight result.
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, why would a country's people making a decision on sovereignty give a damn about whether it's approved of or in the interests of other countries?
I don't care if our staying or going helps out France or the US or the Central African Republic. My concern is the British interest.
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14433571.Labour_brand_now_toxic_in_Scotland__poll_reveals/
Did you get my vanilla mail?
Honestly, economic predictions won't sway anyone, so lack if a document on that score won't hurt leave, since we all know how badly governments are at predicting such things.
A much better attack against leave is about how we will get what we want from other nations. That we will negotiate us certain, but remain are correct at least that many things done in leave want are not in our own gift, and odds are we don't get everything we want from others.
Leave seems to be ....Not sure what will happen when we leave but it's better than staying in a dysfunctional relationship.
The optimal positions should be ... Remaining has problems but we've identified them and can fix them, and we won't be sucked into a political union cos Dave is a man of his word.
Leaving gives us the chance to take back control and not be bossed around by faceless unelected bureaucrats who have no particular love for us.
It could be folorn: but that's why I'd vote for him as leader. He isn't particularly popular amongst voters at large but I think if he had a different platform, and people could see him as a successful PM, that could be change.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2002/05/09/verywellalone.jpg
Edit: I appreciate you are describing the Leave position, which may not be your own.
Shame. Back off to disengaging I go then.
I personally think it is pretty good - sums up the key message (at least for me). But I'm not a marketing guy - why do you think it is so bad?
If they had said £800 or £1,200 people might have believed them. But this just looks silly.
Are they going to be super-accurate? Of course not. But it is possible to make loose assessments of the likely long term effects of individual policies, all other things being equal. If, for example, we were having a referendum about adopting a North Korean style autarkic economic system, we could have a fairly high degree of confidence in the likely effect.
There are a wide range of possible outcomes following Brexit but the emerging consensus does indeed seem to be that the central point for Brexit is at least mildly negative. If Leavers want to run around shouting "la la la, I'm not listening", that is their right. But they would do rather better engaging with the argument and explaining why this emerging consensus is wrong.
I haven't chased them yet (I've heard nothing) but will do so today
They both showed anything from a small negative of -2% GDP to a net positive of +2% GDP depending on what policy approach we adopted post Brexif. Some forecasts from Adam Smith Institue have it even higher.
In the short term there may well be a small economic hit; in the long term it will make little difference but gives us the policy tools to make it an even greater success.
When do any international institutions advocate such bodies becoming significantly smaller? Never. Such institutions are dedicated to growing and increasing their powers. If a country can leave the EU, and succeed, other countries might take note and question their own position in similar institutions.
International organisations don't want international organisation to become smaller is unsurprising.
Mind you, I am concerned at the Government forecasts we'll all be £43m worse off a year if we leave.
Any argument that Brexit will be positive in the long term for Britain is based around Britain taking brave long term policy positions in the wake of leaving. Is there anything, anything at all, in the Leave campaign, that gives us any reason to hope that those advocating Leave could construct a coherent politically-brave policy mix geared towards long term success? It's mainly characterised by incoherent and shambolic populism.
Especially when they are produced as part of a propaganda effort.
We are better looking at historic evidence on these kinds of matters. And the evidence there, while clearly incomplete, points towards the Remain side's efforts being bullsh*t.
For example, let's consider the notion that the EU has led to massive inward flows of FDI which in turn have boosted productivity growth. Here are some numbers:
Inward FDI as % of UK GDP, av. p.a Productivity growth, av p.a
1973-1985 2.5 1.9
1986-1996 3.8 2.0
1997-2008 11.2 1.6
So as we can see, the modest pick-up in inward FDI from 1973-1985 to 1986-1996 had no discernible impact on productivity growth. And the much bigger pick-up between 1997-2008 coincided with a period of slower productivity growth.
Now of course you can pick your subperiods carefully...so let's just consider the period of strong productivity growth from 1982-1988, where it averaged 2.8% p.a. Surely FDI played a big role here? Well in this period inward flows were not very strong, only 2.1% of GDP per year.
companies can't forecast much beyond 3 years ( and even then it's usually wrong ) so 14 years out is a nice exercise but shouldn't be taken as fact,
Bernard Jenkin was surprisingly good at knocking it down. It's clearly a scaremongering trap Osborne is trying to lay.
Anyone with eyes can see it. I hope Leave treat it accordingly
BUT - and this is why Remain will win as it stands - there is no coherent rebuttal story from "Leave", no alternative narrative whereby we retain the benefits (or even admit they exist) but lose the bad bits of EU membership.
A once in a lifetime opportunity for Leave, and they are making a mess of it. Where is the vision? The Leadership? The hope, the story, the alternative future?
Bah
Many Leave campaigners complain that Remain spends a lot of time arguing by appeals to authority, and there is quite a bit of truth in that. However, in response Leavers have started arguing against authority, seeking to discredit evidence simply because it comes from people who they disapprove of. How many times, for example, have careful arguments been dismissed with "didn't they support the UK joining the Euro?" (whether or not it's true, incidentally). You're indulging in that yourself when you say that the Treasury forecast is simply a propaganda effort. It's more than that and you have to do better than that.
this "poor people don;t get into good primary schools" story. Surely cart before horse?
in a world where all primary schools are identical, but one is filled with children of rich successful people, and another by children of poorer children - nobody will be surprised in ON AVEAGE the former gets better results surely?
Then by the current measures, the first schools is "better".
weakish correlation maybe, and lots of exceptions on an individual basis, but this is not a surprise.
Since the bulk of "authority" is controlled by remain to accept "authority's" view is to slit your own throat. So why would they do that ?
As for the Treasury well let's just say Osborne's recent record on forecasting has inspired confidence.