Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
If all models have the same flaw then they are all going to produce the same results. Witness the IPCC. We have a name for that: GIGO. What we want is to look at their previous predictions and compare the predictions with the actual results. Mene Mene Tekul Upharsim
What if the models are producing the correct results though? Thats the big advantage Remain has. I'm no fan of the EU but as its impossible for Leave to prove that I'm not going to be worse off and my house value isn't going to fall of a cliff whats my motivation to take the risk?
The fact that you may well be worse off and your house value fall off a cliff if you stay in?
@Plato_SaysHave you threatened to leave? That often works wonders. If only David Cameron understood that!
I hope Hannan's article will put an end to the single market tripe coming from Remainers such as Osborne “We have had the Leave campaign admit this morning that Britain would leave the single market – that is the largest free trade area in the world – that would be catastrophic for people’s jobs, incomes and livelihoods”. Dear God.
That, though, is not how they responded to Michael Gove. Instead, quite deliberately distorting the meaning of “single market”, they tried to suggest that he was calling for tariffs between the EU and Britain.
If we leave the single market, with its dreaded "common set of technical standards" (the horror), we will need to put something in place instead. If we are eschewing the free trade area route (EFTA/EEA), which we cannot join, then we would most likely begin trading on WTO terms, as leading Vote Leave economists advocate. WTO trade terms involve tariffs.
Now, we might be able to negotiate tariff-free access to the single market but it is likely that the quid pro quo will be FMOP. Which we of course (or rather which VL) don't want.
At some point VL has to take control and accept responsibility for what its proponents and members are actually saying.
And on our current trade the cost of all of the WTO tariffs put together would still be substantially less than the amount we pay for access to the Single Market.
It's not just about tariffs, it's about the ease and speed of doing business. Try opening an office in the US as compared to one in any EU member state. You very soon see a major difference.
Well if you are now accepting that tariffs are a red herring that is at least a start.
@Plato_SaysHave you threatened to leave? That often works wonders. If only David Cameron understood that!
I hope Hannan's article will put an end to the single market tripe coming from Remainers such as Osborne “We have had the Leave campaign admit this morning that Britain would leave the single market – that is the largest free trade area in the world – that would be catastrophic for people’s jobs, incomes and livelihoods”. Dear God.
That, though, is not how they responded to Michael Gove. Instead, quite deliberately distorting the meaning of “single market”, they tried to suggest that he was calling for tariffs between the EU and Britain.
If we leave the single market, with its dreaded "common set of technical standards" (the horror), we will need to put something in place instead. If we are eschewing the free trade area route (EFTA/EEA), which we cannot join, then we would most likely begin trading on WTO terms, as leading Vote Leave economists advocate. WTO trade terms involve tariffs.
Now, we might be able to negotiate tariff-free access to the single market but it is likely that the quid pro quo will be FMOP. Which we of course (or rather which VL) don't want.
At some point VL has to take control and accept responsibility for what its proponents and members are actually saying.
And on our current trade the cost of all of the WTO tariffs put together would still be substantially less than the amount we pay for access to the Single Market.
It's not just about tariffs, it's about the ease and speed of doing business. Try opening an office in the US as compared to one in any EU member state. You very soon see a major difference.
Well if you are now accepting that tariffs are a red herring that is at least a start.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Ah but it paved the way for the Glorious Revolt and the start of proper Parliamentary democracy. Plus it reminded the knobs they were not appointed by God and could get their heads chopped off. No bad thing at all.
I’ve realised that there is a gargantuan misunderstanding at the heart of the referendum debate – a misunderstanding to which commentators and MPs are as prone as anyone else. It concerns the phrase “single market”.
Whether by accident or by design, the authors of the EU’s single market gave it a misleading title. What most people understand by the words “single market” is a free trade area – a zone within which goods, and possibly services, can circulate without barriers. But that isn’t what the EU’s single market is. The EU’s single market is a single regulatory regime. Membership of it doesn’t mean that you can sell your products into it: pretty much the whole world can do that. Membership means, rather, that you accept a common set of technical standards, and that you submit yourself to the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
How many times has the treasury economic model predicted a recession? Nada Zilch zero! And then you use this to base projections on leaving the EU. Utterly laughable!
It's got a better record in predicting recessions in the last five years than some amateur commentators who've predicted Armageddon on a regular basis during that period.
Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
If all models have the same flaw then they are all going to produce the same results. Witness the IPCC. We have a name for that: GIGO. What we want is to look at their previous predictions and compare the predictions with the actual results. Mene Mene Tekul Upharsim
What if the models are producing the correct results though? Thats the big advantage Remain has. I'm no fan of the EU but as its impossible for Leave to prove that I'm not going to be worse off and my house value isn't going to fall of a cliff whats my motivation to take the risk?
The fact that you may well be worse off and your house value fall off a cliff if you stay in?
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
There are five pollsters in the bar chart. Four of them have UKIP correct to within 1.5%.
Listing Yougov 6 times doesn't make Yougov six pollsters.
Good catch.
So Matt is making two really very basic analytical mistakes - assuming voting patterns in locals will be the same as for the UKIP-inspired referendum, and selective presentation of the data in a way biased to his viewpoint. Good to know he is an unbiased analyst ...
I’ve realised that there is a gargantuan misunderstanding at the heart of the referendum debate – a misunderstanding to which commentators and MPs are as prone as anyone else. It concerns the phrase “single market”.
Whether by accident or by design, the authors of the EU’s single market gave it a misleading title. What most people understand by the words “single market” is a free trade area – a zone within which goods, and possibly services, can circulate without barriers. But that isn’t what the EU’s single market is. The EU’s single market is a single regulatory regime. Membership of it doesn’t mean that you can sell your products into it: pretty much the whole world can do that. Membership means, rather, that you accept a common set of technical standards, and that you submit yourself to the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
What a strange article by Dan Hannan. I'm not quite clear what point he's trying to make. He seems to be setting up an entirely academic straw man based on niggling about terminology, and then rather unconvincingly attacking it.
I think this must mean that he thinks Leave are losing the economic argument; he's usually much more coherent. Obviously he knows as well as anyone that the issue is not whether we can sell into the Single Market, but on what terms.
@Plato_SaysHave you threatened to leave? That often works wonders. If only David Cameron understood that!
I hope Hannan's article will put an end to the single market tripe coming from Remainers such as Osborne “We have had the Leave campaign admit this morning that Britain would leave the single market – that is the largest free trade area in the world – that would be catastrophic for people’s jobs, incomes and livelihoods”. Dear God.
That, though, is not how they responded to Michael Gove. Instead, quite deliberately distorting the meaning of “single market”, they tried to suggest that he was calling for tariffs between the EU and Britain.
If we leave the single market, with its dreaded "common set of technical standards" (the horror), we will need to put something in place instead. If we are eschewing the free trade area route (EFTA/EEA), which we cannot join, then we would most likely begin trading on WTO terms, as leading Vote Leave economists advocate. WTO trade terms involve tariffs.
Now, we might be able to negotiate tariff-free access to the single market but it is likely that the quid pro quo will be FMOP. Which we of course (or rather which VL) don't want.
At some point VL has to take control and accept responsibility for what its proponents and members are actually saying.
And on our current trade the cost of all of the WTO tariffs put together would still be substantially less than the amount we pay for access to the Single Market.
It's not just about tariffs, it's about the ease and speed of doing business. Try opening an office in the US as compared to one in any EU member state. You very soon see a major difference.
Well if you are now accepting that tariffs are a red herring that is at least a start.
I am just saying they are not the full story.
Southam is quite right, non-tariff barriers to trade are more important. And the EU erects some quite substantial ones against the rest of the world.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
If all models have the same flaw then they are all going to produce the same results. Witness the IPCC. We have a name for that: GIGO. What we want is to look at their previous predictions and compare the predictions with the actual results. Mene Mene Tekul Upharsim
What if the models are producing the correct results though? Thats the big advantage Remain has. I'm no fan of the EU but as its impossible for Leave to prove that I'm not going to be worse off and my house value isn't going to fall of a cliff whats my motivation to take the risk?
The fact that you may well be worse off and your house value fall off a cliff if you stay in?
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
The long-term risks are far higher in Remain in my view. This of course is disputed by others. But an organization that nearly a decade out still has not properly addressed the Greece problem is in no way fit for purpose to compete in a rapidly changing global economic environment. If we stay in, our economy will have to drag that anchor with it.
@IanDunt: What was it Corbyn intended to achieve when he walked into the Commons today?
He wants to indicate the issues that he sees as vitally important. Whether the average voter does seems to be irrelevant.
"My belief is that winning 2020 should not be the priority of the Labour Party." Leading candidate for NEC and Corbyn supporter.
I suspect the feeling is that it will take 10 years to 'rebuild' Labour in the correct way. Before he can change the country, Corbyn first has to change the Labour party.
If leave are clever (which is not a given) they will win labour voters over by campaiging on the fact companies can have workers from eastern europe who are paid the same wage as their home countries, and have rights that are the same as their home countries. The minimum wage does not exist in reality.
That, though, is not how they responded to Michael Gove. Instead, quite deliberately distorting the meaning of “single market”, they tried to suggest that he was calling for tariffs between the EU and Britain.
If we leave the single market, with its dreaded "common set of technical standards" (the horror), we will need to put something in place instead. If we are eschewing the free trade area route (EFTA/EEA), which we cannot join, then we would most likely begin trading on WTO terms, as leading Vote Leave economists advocate. WTO trade terms involve tariffs.
Now, we might be able to negotiate tariff-free access to the single market but it is likely that the quid pro quo will be FMOP. Which we of course (or rather which VL) don't want.
At some point VL has to take control and accept responsibility for what its proponents and members are actually saying.
And on our current trade the cost of all of the WTO tariffs put together would still be substantially less than the amount we pay for access to the Single Market.
It's not just about tariffs, it's about the ease and speed of doing business. Try opening an office in the US as compared to one in any EU member state. You very soon see a major difference.
Well if you are now accepting that tariffs are a red herring that is at least a start.
I am just saying they are not the full story.
Southam is quite right, non-tariff barriers to trade are more important. And the EU erects some quite substantial ones against the rest of the world.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
The problem - and this is a general point rather than an EU specific one - is that eliminating non-tariff barriers through treaties means constraining the ability of national parliaments to pass laws they see fit. Want to change intellectual property laws: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Want to enforce minimum standards on people offering medical advice: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Those very treaties that open up markets by reducing NTBs, denude parliaments of sovereignty.
Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
If all models have the same flaw then they are all going to produce the same results. Witness the IPCC. We have a name for that: GIGO. What we want is to look at their previous predictions and compare the predictions with the actual results. Mene Mene Tekul Upharsim
What if the models are producing the correct results though? Thats the big advantage Remain has. I'm no fan of the EU but as its impossible for Leave to prove that I'm not going to be worse off and my house value isn't going to fall of a cliff whats my motivation to take the risk?
The fact that you may well be worse off and your house value fall off a cliff if you stay in?
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
The long-term risks are far higher in Remain in my view. This of course is disputed by others. But an organization that nearly a decade out still has not properly addressed the Greece problem is in no way fit for purpose to compete in a rapidly changing global economic environment. If we stay in, our economy will have to drag that anchor with it.
Long-term predictions of risk or reward are basically just guesses though. We can't say with any confidence what will produce the best outcome in 2030. Meanwhile even Leavers seem to think there will be a short-term downside to Brexit.
Why do the Conservatives think that the unattractive John Hayes MP is a suitable person for tv on the Daily Politics today?
He looks as though he lost the use of half his face from a stroke.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Do you guys want politics to be restricted to beautiful people?
No. But that is a different issue from whom you want as your messenger. If you want people to concentrate on your message, you want to remove all noise that can detract from it. Perceived ugliness in a speaker is noise. If someone is fascinated by the wart on the end of your nose, the probability is that they are not hearing your message, let alone being persuaded by it.
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Ah but it paved the way for the Glorious Revolt and the start of proper Parliamentary democracy. Plus it reminded the knobs they were not appointed by God and could get their heads chopped off. No bad thing at all.
I thought the advent of democracy was accompanied by a decline in head-chopping?
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
Amusing to see the amateur economists here giving all sorts of unquantified reasons why Leave isn't an economic risk.
Guys, all those factors are in the OECD, IMF, Treasury, NIESR, academic and investment bank models. Basically you are handwaving and saying that all the experts are wrong.
Maybe they are. Maybe.
If all models have the same flaw then they are all going to produce the same results. Witness the IPCC. We have a name for that: GIGO. What we want is to look at their previous predictions and compare the predictions with the actual results. Mene Mene Tekul Upharsim
What if the models are producing the correct results though? Thats the big advantage Remain has. I'm no fan of the EU but as its impossible for Leave to prove that I'm not going to be worse off and my house value isn't going to fall of a cliff whats my motivation to take the risk?
The fact that you may well be worse off and your house value fall off a cliff if you stay in?
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
The long-term risks are far higher in Remain in my view. This of course is disputed by others. But an organization that nearly a decade out still has not properly addressed the Greece problem is in no way fit for purpose to compete in a rapidly changing global economic environment. If we stay in, our economy will have to drag that anchor with it.
Long-term predictions of risk or reward are basically just guesses though. We can't say with any confidence what will produce the best outcome in 2030. Meanwhile even Leavers seem to think there will be a short-term downside to Brexit.
But I am not talking about predictions, I am talking about the market conditions that are set by the EU, versus the market conditions we could set for ourselves.
My confidence in predicting the actual performance of the French economy 5 years out is very low. My confidence in predicting the overall performance of France over a 10 year period relative to the US over the same 10 year period, based on how business-friendly the regulatory environment is in both countries, is very much higher.
Why do the Conservatives think that the unattractive John Hayes MP is a suitable person for tv on the Daily Politics today?
He looks as though he lost the use of half his face from a stroke.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Do you guys want politics to be restricted to beautiful people?
No. But that is a different issue from whom you want as your messenger. If you want people to concentrate on your message, you want to remove all noise that can detract from it. Perceived ugliness in a speaker is noise. If someone is fascinated by the wart on the end of your nose, the probability is that they are not hearing your message, let alone being persuaded by it.
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
The bad tailoring of Corbyn's beige jacket is a classic example - everytime I see him in it, my eyes goes straight to the nasty pucker on the left shoulder. Or say Nicky Morgan's weird staring/rabbit-in-headlights look... and horrifically - the dimple in Tom Watson's chin, he always looks like he needs a good wash.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Ah but it paved the way for the Glorious Revolt and the start of proper Parliamentary democracy. Plus it reminded the knobs they were not appointed by God and could get their heads chopped off. No bad thing at all.
I thought the advent of democracy was accompanied by a decline in head-chopping?
Seeing as you're around: the spreadsheet is excellent. Just been looking at it.
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
That is exactly the point Sky were putting to Boris who really had no answer and virtually walked away
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and he Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Denmark is the slightly odd one, in that it is not a member of the Eurozone, but its currency is pegged (+/- 0.5%) to the Euro, and has fluctuated by barely half a Euro-cent over the last 16 years against it.
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
These alliances in both Remain and Leave are the modern day Molotov–Ribbentrop pacts
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
The balance of transfers between the UK and EU institutions (from the balance of payments stats) was -£11 billion in 2015.
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
These alliances in both Remain and Leave are the modern day Molotov–Ribbentrop pacts
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
The long-term risks are far higher in Remain in my view. This of course is disputed by others. But an organization that nearly a decade out still has not properly addressed the Greece problem is in no way fit for purpose to compete in a rapidly changing global economic environment. If we stay in, our economy will have to drag that anchor with it.
Fair enough, I can imagine that post Brexit things MIGHT improve in the long term but I don't know that for sure. There are a million reasons for leaving the EU but the economic risks just aren't worth it. I said this before and got a barrel load of abuse but it stands repeating. If Leave win it will be as a result of immigration, largely on the back of pensioners (understandable) fears. That is a shame as it will be the working population who will bear the brunt of any downside.
Today’s PMQs session saw the Labour leader cover David Attenborough (he’s a fan), agency workers in the EU (deserve more protection), the living wage (would be a fan if it wasn’t corrupted), offshore trusts (not a fan) and the child refugees (wants to help). To say he didn’t land a hit on any of them is the least of it. It was genuinely unclear which one he was talking about at any given moment. Questions started on one then drifted to another before fizzling out on a third. It required real mental effort to maintain concentration all the way through, and even then there was no guarantee you’d be able to figure out what he was asking.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Ah but it paved the way for the Glorious Revolt and the start of proper Parliamentary democracy. Plus it reminded the knobs they were not appointed by God and could get their heads chopped off. No bad thing at all.
I thought the advent of democracy was accompanied by a decline in head-chopping?
Seeing as you're around: the spreadsheet is excellent. Just been looking at it.
You're welcome. The CSS feeds are brilliant [when they're fully up to speed], and do all the heavy-lifting automatically.
There are five pollsters in the bar chart. Four of them have UKIP correct to within 1.5%.
Listing Yougov 6 times doesn't make Yougov six pollsters.
Good catch.
So Matt is making two really very basic analytical mistakes - assuming voting patterns in locals will be the same as for the UKIP-inspired referendum, and selective presentation of the data in a way biased to his viewpoint. Good to know he is an unbiased analyst ...
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe under the terms of their accession instruments, the Poles, Czechs and Magyars are all required to join the Euro at some point when their economies allow.
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and he Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Denmark is the slightly odd one, in that it is not a member of the Eurozone, but its currency is pegged (+/- 0.5%) to the Euro, and has fluctuated by barely half a Euro-cent over the last 16 years against it.
There may not be a huge difference between the Krone and the Euro but polls show Danes overwhelmingly opposed to adopting the single currency
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
That is exactly the point Sky were putting to Boris who really had no answer and virtually walked away
We gave India £279,000,000 in 2015. We gave the EU - net - £8,500,000,000 in 2015.
Roughly 30 times as much.
Each Indian got about 23p Each EU citizen got about £17.00
My confidence in predicting the actual performance of the French economy 5 years out is very low. My confidence in predicting the overall performance of France over a 10 year period relative to the US over the same 10 year period, based on how business-friendly the regulatory environment is in both countries, is very much higher.
Yes, precisely so. That's why those saying 'Pah! Those economic forecasts are garbage!' are missing the point; the forecasts are about the difference between being in and out of the Single Market, not the absolute level of growth 15 years in the future.
Doesn't mean they are right about the difference, of course. But, other than hand-waving, and the one counter-example of Patrick Minford's model (which requires some heroic political assumptions), they are all roughly in line with one another.
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
Southam is quite right, non-tariff barriers to trade are more important. And the EU erects some quite substantial ones against the rest of the world.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
The problem - and this is a general point rather than an EU specific one - is that eliminating non-tariff barriers through treaties means constraining the ability of national parliaments to pass laws they see fit. Want to change intellectual property laws: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Want to enforce minimum standards on people offering medical advice: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Those very treaties that open up markets by reducing NTBs, denude parliaments of sovereignty.
-----------------------------------
That's not necessarily the case in this context, Robert. For example quite a large chunk of the EU NTBs relates to anti-dumping actions (or the threat of them) by the EU against ROW suppliers.
Now a UK outside the EU would not necessarily invoke those anti-dumping investigations - as indeed it should not given quite a lot of them are bogus. That would mean cheaper imports.
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and he Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Denmark is the slightly odd one, in that it is not a member of the Eurozone, but its currency is pegged (+/- 0.5%) to the Euro, and has fluctuated by barely half a Euro-cent over the last 16 years against it.
Given the relatively divergent paths of the Eurozone and Denmark, why has it proved possible to maintain the peg? Or is Eurozone policy just so close to Germany's, and Germany's to Denmark, that it works?
Fuel costs hundreds of pounds higher if we leave? Struggling to fill the poster were you?
Just as validly, you could put out a poster saying hundreds of pounds lower if we leave. For example, how would we block an EU directive requiring an above-inflation fuel duty escalator?
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
Because they don't want to engage in any logic chopping for allowing the BT/EE deal and not this.
My confidence in predicting the actual performance of the French economy 5 years out is very low. My confidence in predicting the overall performance of France over a 10 year period relative to the US over the same 10 year period, based on how business-friendly the regulatory environment is in both countries, is very much higher.
Yes, precisely so. That's why those saying 'Pah! Those economic forecasts are garbage!' are missing the point; the forecasts are about the difference between being in and out of the Single Market, not the absolute level of growth 15 years in the future.
Doesn't mean they are right about the difference, of course. But, other than hand-waving, and the one counter-example of Patrick Minford's model (which requires some heroic political assumptions), they are all roughly in line with one another.
Off topic. Are REMAINers the equivalent of the King Charles I supporters and LEAVErs the elected parliamentarians? REMAINers back the status quo and oppose more democracy. LEAVErs wanting to change and have more democracy.
Not sure that Cromwell's state was any more democratic than Charles I's.
Ah but it paved the way for the Glorious Revolt and the start of proper Parliamentary democracy. Plus it reminded the knobs they were not appointed by God and could get their heads chopped off. No bad thing at all.
I thought the advent of democracy was accompanied by a decline in head-chopping?
Why do the Conservatives think that the unattractive John Hayes MP is a suitable person for tv on the Daily Politics today?
He looks as though he lost the use of half his face from a stroke.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Do you guys want politics to be restricted to beautiful people?
No. But that is a different issue from whom you want as your messenger. If you want people to concentrate on your message, you want to remove all noise that can detract from it. Perceived ugliness in a speaker is noise. If someone is fascinated by the wart on the end of your nose, the probability is that they are not hearing your message, let alone being persuaded by it.
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
Charisma is more important in politics than beauty, otherwise Zac would have beaten Sadiq by a landslide. There are a few politicians who have both, JFK, Justin Trudeau (Thatcher for a few older males) but it is rare. Beauty is an asset but not vital
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
That is exactly the point Sky were putting to Boris who really had no answer and virtually walked away
The gross contribution is paid out by Westminster from the budget, about £18bn over the coming year, of that Britain will receive a rebate worth 10% (down from 33% because a certain A. Blair) development grants and CAP subsidies worth around £6bn which will make our net contribution just over £10bn for the year. The problem is that we get told where to spend the £6bn or it is transferred directly. We may not choose to have such a generous and ill-fitting agricultural subsidies programme, we may not give funding to white elephant buildings in run down areas etc... The £16.2bn figure is fair, which is about £310m per week. To suggest that all of it could be spent on the NHS or some other such folly is incorrect as we would have to have our own agricultural subsidy programme and the university research grants would need replacing, but neither of those would cost £6bn put together, if we spent £6bn on new grants for universities we could probably do away with student loans entirely. Hold on a minute while I give Vote Leave a call!
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
Has anyone actually seen Galloway since that fateful rally where he was the "star guest speaker"?
FYI - Any Leavers want to come and abuse me in person, I shall be out campaigning for Remain on Saturday morning in Sheffield city centre
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
Well we seem to be losing alot of leave posters on here who are getting banned,so if you could help with me with the poster Watford who also seems to have vanished .
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
They don't have the balls after they allowed the much worse T-Mobile/Orange merger to go ahead.
Why do the Conservatives think that the unattractive John Hayes MP is a suitable person for tv on the Daily Politics today?
He looks as though he lost the use of half his face from a stroke.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Do you guys want politics to be restricted to beautiful people?
No. But that is a different issue from whom you want as your messenger. If you want people to concentrate on your message, you want to remove all noise that can detract from it. Perceived ugliness in a speaker is noise. If someone is fascinated by the wart on the end of your nose, the probability is that they are not hearing your message, let alone being persuaded by it.
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
Charisma is more important in politics than beauty, otherwise Zac would have beaten Sadiq by a landslide. There are a few politicians who have both, JFK, Justin Trudeau (Thatcher for a few older males) but it is rare. Beauty is an asset but not vital
Agreed. However, I was not talking about beauty, but perceived ugliness.
Boris having a car crash interview on Sky. Draws up with bus headlining 350 million saving to be spent on the NHS and the reporter saying that the Office of National statistics has said that it is wholly misleading and also Cornwall receives 600 million in aid from the EU.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU - £8.5 billion in 2015 NET, equivalent to £163 million a week.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
That is exactly the point Sky were putting to Boris who really had no answer and virtually walked away
The gross contribution is paid out by Westminster from the budget, about £18bn over the coming year, of that Britain will receive a rebate worth 10% (down from 33% because a certain A. Blair) development grants and CAP subsidies worth around £6bn which will make our net contribution just over £10bn for the year. The problem is that we get told where to spend the £6bn or it is transferred directly. We may not choose to have such a generous and ill-fitting agricultural subsidies programme, we may not give funding to white elephant buildings in run down areas etc... The £16.2bn figure is fair, which is about £310m per week. To suggest that all of it could be spent on the NHS or some other such folly is incorrect as we would have to have our own agricultural subsidy programme and the university research grants would need replacing, but neither of those would cost £6bn put together, if we spent £6bn on new grants for universities we could probably do away with student loans entirely. Hold on a minute while I give Vote Leave a call!
The Sunil on Sunday and its "Be LEAVE" campaign prefer to use the net figure of £8.5 billion to avoid REMAINER accusations of, ah, exaggeration.
Fair enough. I don't think that the UK can be forced into a superstate against its will, so I don't have your concerns on that front. But I do think that leaving the Single Market will be pretty damaging. That's why I will vote Remain.
No I don't think so either, but at that point the cost of separation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. Right now it is probably at an all time low because the EU is weak and divided. If we leave today there are 27 different nations that will be pitted against each other and eventually we can get what we want, if it happens in the future it will be one country with one agenda to punish those who seek to leave the USE to ensure no one else makes for the exit door.
But if we agree that we cannot be forced into a USE why would we want to leave in the future? A Single Market with one entity of 500 million people sounds like a superb opportunity to me.
Because in the future that option won't exist, it will be leave or become part of the USE. Remain is not the status quo.
That would see Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czechs leave too, all like us outside the Eurozone
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe under the terms of their accession instruments, the Poles, Czechs and Magyars are all required to join the Euro at some point when their economies allow.
More in theory than practice, the new Polish government and president are particularly Eurosceptic as is Viktor Orban in Hungary
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
Because they don't want to engage in any logic chopping for allowing the BT/EE deal and not this.
Indeed, if people didn't think Ofcom were in BT's pocket after they rejected the idea of spinning Openreach off or forcing EE to sell a decent portion of their spectrum then hopefully it is beginning to dawn on them how ineffective and possibly broken this regulator is.
Ofcom are holding back our economy more than leave or remain or anything in the EU at the moment.
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
Has anyone actually seen Galloway since that fateful rally where he was the "star guest speaker"?
I saw him campaigning for the London Mayoral election where got a little over 1% and finished behind the women's equality party.
Why has the House of Commons just spent three quarters of an hour discussing a White Paper the contents of which won't be known until tomorrow? It seems a very bizarre way of conducting business.
My confidence in predicting the actual performance of the French economy 5 years out is very low. My confidence in predicting the overall performance of France over a 10 year period relative to the US over the same 10 year period, based on how business-friendly the regulatory environment is in both countries, is very much higher.
Yes, precisely so. That's why those saying 'Pah! Those economic forecasts are garbage!' are missing the point; the forecasts are about the difference between being in and out of the Single Market, not the absolute level of growth 15 years in the future.
Doesn't mean they are right about the difference, of course. But, other than hand-waving, and the one counter-example of Patrick Minford's model (which requires some heroic political assumptions), they are all roughly in line with one another.
But Leavers know best, they tell us.
I believe that is known as being finessed or hoisted by your own petard! Chapeau, Richard. But I have not had the energy to go through those various predictions to pick apart their assumptions. My guess is that I'd disagree with a lot of them.
Fuel costs hundreds of pounds higher if we leave? Struggling to fill the poster were you?
Just as validly, you could put out a poster saying hundreds of pounds lower if we leave. For example, how would we block an EU directive requiring an above-inflation fuel duty escalator?
Pisspoor. C'mon Remain, is that the best you got?
One of the biggest lies currently being used by REMAIN is the suggestion that 'WTO rules' mean you have to impose swingeing tariffs on things. A bigger distortion of reality is hard to imagine.
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
Has anyone actually seen Galloway since that fateful rally where he was the "star guest speaker"?
I saw him campaigning for the London Mayoral election where got a little over 1% and finished behind the women's equality party.
I saw him on top of his campaign bus the day before polling day
That's not necessarily the case in this context, Robert. For example quite a large chunk of the EU NTBs relates to anti-dumping actions (or the threat of them) by the EU against ROW suppliers.
Now a UK outside the EU would not necessarily invoke those anti-dumping investigations - as indeed it should not given quite a lot of them are bogus. That would mean cheaper imports.
I may be being dim here, but aren't anti-dumping actions punitive tariffs and do not therefore fall under the NTBs?
Uneasy as I may be at being on the same side of the Referendum as Nigel Farage, I'm thinking that must be nothing to being shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown.
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
I see your Gordon Brown and raise you a George Galloway.
Has anyone actually seen Galloway since that fateful rally where he was the "star guest speaker"?
I saw him campaigning for the London Mayoral election where got a little over 1% and finished behind the women's equality party.
Yes, precisely so. That's why those saying 'Pah! Those economic forecasts are garbage!' are missing the point; the forecasts are about the difference between being in and out of the Single Market, not the absolute level of growth 15 years in the future.
Doesn't mean they are right about the difference, of course. But, other than hand-waving, and the one counter-example of Patrick Minford's model (which requires some heroic political assumptions), they are all roughly in line with one another.
But Leavers know best, they tell us.
And what do they all mean? 30% - 36% higher GDP by 2030 depending on the forecaster and scenario you favour. In no predicted outcome will we be worse off, in fact in all cases we will be significantly wealthier than today, if you believe a 14 year forecast is worth a damn.
I suspect there would be a hell of a big difference in the public perception of these claims if people were told they "they would be many thousands of pounds better off AND out", rather than "a few thousand pounds worse off than in".
I noted yesterday that NIESR didn't even quote the absolute figures in their press release. Only the differences. Personally I consider that a misleading way of presenting the information.
Fuel costs hundreds of pounds higher if we leave? Struggling to fill the poster were you?
Just as validly, you could put out a poster saying hundreds of pounds lower if we leave. For example, how would we block an EU directive requiring an above-inflation fuel duty escalator?
Pisspoor. C'mon Remain, is that the best you got?
One of the biggest lies currently being used by REMAIN is the suggestion that 'WTO rules' mean you have to impose swingeing tariffs on things. A bigger distortion of reality is hard to imagine.
Especially since the whole point of the WTO is to enable a reduction in tariffs and other barriers.
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
Because they don't want to engage in any logic chopping for allowing the BT/EE deal and not this.
Indeed, if people didn't think Ofcom were in BT's pocket after they rejected the idea of spinning Openreach off or forcing EE to sell a decent portion of their spectrum then hopefully it is beginning to dawn on them how ineffective and possibly broken this regulator is.
Ofcom are holding back our economy more than leave or remain or anything in the EU at the moment.
Their logic was BT was only a minor player in the mobile market and EE were only a minor player in broadband market, which kinda missed the point.
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
They don't have the balls after they allowed the much worse T-Mobile/Orange merger to go ahead.
It's slightly tangential, but I think the tendency of the British bureaucracy to try and keep their hands 'clean' by passing things off to Brussels is another insidious negative of EU membership.
(And - if true - the officials involved should be ashamed of themselves.)
FYI - Any Leavers want to come and abuse me in person, I shall be out campaigning for Remain on Saturday morning in Sheffield city centre
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
Well we seem to be losing alot of leave posters on here who are getting banned,so if you could help with me with the poster Watford who also seems to have vanished .
Banned or not ?
I wondered the same about Isam and NigelforEngland
Why do the Conservatives think that the unattractive John Hayes MP is a suitable person for tv on the Daily Politics today?
He looks as though he lost the use of half his face from a stroke.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Do you guys want politics to be restricted to beautiful people?
No. But that is a different issue from whom you want as your messenger. If you want people to concentrate on your message, you want to remove all noise that can detract from it. Perceived ugliness in a speaker is noise. If someone is fascinated by the wart on the end of your nose, the probability is that they are not hearing your message, let alone being persuaded by it.
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
Charisma is more important in politics than beauty, otherwise Zac would have beaten Sadiq by a landslide. There are a few politicians who have both, JFK, Justin Trudeau (Thatcher for a few older males) but it is rare. Beauty is an asset but not vital
Agreed. However, I was not talking about beauty, but perceived ugliness.
Being perceived as ugly did not do Ann Widdecombe much harm, though I suppose there is a limit!
Indeed, if people didn't think Ofcom were in BT's pocket after they rejected the idea of spinning Openreach off or forcing EE to sell a decent portion of their spectrum then hopefully it is beginning to dawn on them how ineffective and possibly broken this regulator is.
Ofcom are holding back our economy more than leave or remain or anything in the EU at the moment.
FYI - Any Leavers want to come and abuse me in person, I shall be out campaigning for Remain on Saturday morning in Sheffield city centre
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
Well we seem to be losing alot of leave posters on here who are getting banned,so if you could help with me with the poster Watford who also seems to have vanished .
Banned or not ?
I wondered the same about Isam and NigelforEngland
isam and Nigel have been banned, and I have been in contact with both.
FYI - Any Leavers want to come and abuse me in person, I shall be out campaigning for Remain on Saturday morning in Sheffield city centre
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
Well we seem to be losing alot of leave posters on here who are getting banned,so if you could help with me with the poster Watford who also seems to have vanished .
Banned or not ?
I wondered the same about Isam and NigelforEngland
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
They don't have the balls after they allowed the much worse T-Mobile/Orange merger to go ahead.
It's slightly tangential, but I think the tendency of the British bureaucracy to try and keep their hands 'clean' by passing things off to Brussels is another insidious negative of EU membership.
(And - if true - the officials involved should be ashamed of themselves.)
Yes you are right on the money there. And the same goes for politicians as well - the EU is a handy way of ducking responsibility.
Southam is quite right, non-tariff barriers to trade are more important. And the EU erects some quite substantial ones against the rest of the world.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
The problem - and this is a general point rather than an EU specific one - is that eliminating non-tariff barriers through treaties means constraining the ability of national parliaments to pass laws they see fit. Want to change intellectual property laws: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Want to enforce minimum standards on people offering medical advice: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Those very treaties that open up markets by reducing NTBs, denude parliaments of sovereignty.
-----------------------------------
That's not necessarily the case in this context, Robert. For example quite a large chunk of the EU NTBs relates to anti-dumping actions (or the threat of them) by the EU against ROW suppliers.
Now a UK outside the EU would not necessarily invoke those anti-dumping investigations - as indeed it should not given quite a lot of them are bogus. That would mean cheaper imports.
So you want to scrap import tariffs *and* allow cheaper imports via "dumping".
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
They don't have the balls after they allowed the much worse T-Mobile/Orange merger to go ahead.
It's slightly tangential, but I think the tendency of the British bureaucracy to try and keep their hands 'clean' by passing things off to Brussels is another insidious negative of EU membership.
(And - if true - the officials involved should be ashamed of themselves.)
FYI - Any Leavers want to come and abuse me in person, I shall be out campaigning for Remain on Saturday morning in Sheffield city centre
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
Well we seem to be losing alot of leave posters on here who are getting banned,so if you could help with me with the poster Watford who also seems to have vanished .
Banned or not ?
I wondered the same about Isam and NigelforEngland
isam and Nigel have been banned, and I have been in contact with both.
I don't know about Watford.
Anyone can check if someone is banned: type in their name, eg:
For those interested in the Hillary Trump match up, this is an amusing read. The NYP is a very right wing Murdoch rag, and Michael Goodwin wears his politics on his sleeves. Even so, he makes some very good points about why it is wrong to assume a Hillary landslide.
Just look at the numbers in Florida. It is often cited that 70-75% of women 'hate' Trump and so he cannot win. And yet .... and yet he is polling 35% of women in Florida to Hillary's 48%, or 40% of the Hillary/Trump total. Something is not jibing.
Bizarre story of the day: Ofcom has apparently requested that the EU competition authority blocks the 3 + O2 merger deal, rather than ruling against it themselves.
They don't have the balls after they allowed the much worse T-Mobile/Orange merger to go ahead.
It's slightly tangential, but I think the tendency of the British bureaucracy to try and keep their hands 'clean' by passing things off to Brussels is another insidious negative of EU membership.
(And - if true - the officials involved should be ashamed of themselves.)
Yes you are right on the money there. And the same goes for politicians as well - the EU is a handy way of ducking responsibility.
It may also be why there is greater annoyance at the EU.
If a regulation comes in, a UK civil servant can "gold plate" it and enjoy adding lots of pointless rules. If anyone complains - we have to do it because of the EU.
Comments
There are five pollsters in the bar chart. Four of them have UKIP correct to within 1.5%.
Listing Yougov 6 times doesn't make Yougov six pollsters.
Perhaps he should wear a Phantom of the Opera mask when on the telly?
Good catch.
So Matt is making two really very basic analytical mistakes - assuming voting patterns in locals will be the same as for the UKIP-inspired referendum, and selective presentation of the data in a way biased to his viewpoint. Good to know he is an unbiased analyst ...
Perhaps he could use this Guide to Bad Science - he seems to be in violation of most of the points: https://nodesci.net/blog/2016/05/01/nodes-of-science-skepic-digest-may-1-2016/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science-2015/
My favorite is #4 - the demise of pirates gave rise to global warming. Perhaps we should by funding the Somalis ...
Isn't that why it's called a "Single Market" and not a "Free Trade Area"?
I think this must mean that he thinks Leave are losing the economic argument; he's usually much more coherent. Obviously he knows as well as anyone that the issue is not whether we can sell into the Single Market, but on what terms.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
He suffered a serious head injury in his 20s and his facial expression is a result of that.
Doctors, teachers, housing officers and other officials who come across illegal immigrants should not report them to the Home Office, a Council of Europe anti-discrimination committee recommended yesterday. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gps-and-teachers-told-not-to-report-illegal-migrants-w97z6g552
If leave are clever (which is not a given) they will win labour voters over by campaiging on the fact companies can have workers from eastern europe who are paid the same wage as their home countries, and have rights that are the same as their home countries. The minimum wage does not exist in reality.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/730368579087020032
There is a reason that successful spokespeople around the world across all cultures tend to be attractive in both physical appearance and personality.
To paraphrase Maggie:
"There is no such thing as "EU Money". There is only taxpayer's money."
TSE and Gordon sitting in the tree,
K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
My confidence in predicting the actual performance of the French economy 5 years out is very low. My confidence in predicting the overall performance of France over a 10 year period relative to the US over the same 10 year period, based on how business-friendly the regulatory environment is in both countries, is very much higher.
These alliances in both Remain and Leave are the modern day Molotov–Ribbentrop pacts
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36266118
Seems to me that voting to leave increases the risk when even some of Leaves supporters acknowledge the short term risks. Staying doesn't. Try again
The long-term risks are far higher in Remain in my view. This of course is disputed by others. But an organization that nearly a decade out still has not properly addressed the Greece problem is in no way fit for purpose to compete in a rapidly changing global economic environment. If we stay in, our economy will have to drag that anchor with it.
Fair enough, I can imagine that post Brexit things MIGHT improve in the long term but I don't know that for sure. There are a million reasons for leaving the EU but the economic risks just aren't worth it.
I said this before and got a barrel load of abuse but it stands repeating. If Leave win it will be as a result of immigration, largely on the back of pensioners (understandable) fears. That is a shame as it will be the working population who will bear the brunt of any downside.
and possibly this evening in Manchester too.
I'm open to ideas for further enhancements.
We gave the EU - net - £8,500,000,000 in 2015.
Roughly 30 times as much.
Each Indian got about 23p
Each EU citizen got about £17.00
Doesn't mean they are right about the difference, of course. But, other than hand-waving, and the one counter-example of Patrick Minford's model (which requires some heroic political assumptions), they are all roughly in line with one another.
But Leavers know best, they tell us.
Southam is quite right, non-tariff barriers to trade are more important. And the EU erects some quite substantial ones against the rest of the world.
This is the main cause of the price gaps for key goods between the EU and lower cost locations like the US that I mentioned earlier. There's much to be gained from getting rid of some of these.
The problem - and this is a general point rather than an EU specific one - is that eliminating non-tariff barriers through treaties means constraining the ability of national parliaments to pass laws they see fit. Want to change intellectual property laws: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Want to enforce minimum standards on people offering medical advice: *beep* non-tariff barrier. Those very treaties that open up markets by reducing NTBs, denude parliaments of sovereignty.
-----------------------------------
That's not necessarily the case in this context, Robert. For example quite a large chunk of the EU NTBs relates to anti-dumping actions (or the threat of them) by the EU against ROW suppliers.
Now a UK outside the EU would not necessarily invoke those anti-dumping investigations - as indeed it should not given quite a lot of them are bogus. That would mean cheaper imports.
Just as validly, you could put out a poster saying hundreds of pounds lower if we leave. For example, how would we block an EU directive requiring an above-inflation fuel duty escalator?
Pisspoor. C'mon Remain, is that the best you got?
Threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Britain raised from moderate to substantial - Home Office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36267052
Banned or not ?
We get that figure from this URL:
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
Ofcom are holding back our economy more than leave or remain or anything in the EU at the moment.
As someone has already pointed out, GIGO.
I suspect there would be a hell of a big difference in the public perception of these claims if people were told they "they would be many thousands of pounds better off AND out", rather than "a few thousand pounds worse off than in".
I noted yesterday that NIESR didn't even quote the absolute figures in their press release. Only the differences. Personally I consider that a misleading way of presenting the information.
(And - if true - the officials involved should be ashamed of themselves.)
I don't know about Watford.
-----------------------------------
That's not necessarily the case in this context, Robert. For example quite a large chunk of the EU NTBs relates to anti-dumping actions (or the threat of them) by the EU against ROW suppliers.
Now a UK outside the EU would not necessarily invoke those anti-dumping investigations - as indeed it should not given quite a lot of them are bogus. That would mean cheaper imports.
So you want to scrap import tariffs *and* allow cheaper imports via "dumping".
The very definition of the word "brave".
@watford30
Then you can click on it to see their status.
You can do this in preview, without having to post the message.
Just look at the numbers in Florida. It is often cited that 70-75% of women 'hate' Trump and so he cannot win. And yet .... and yet he is polling 35% of women in Florida to Hillary's 48%, or 40% of the Hillary/Trump total. Something is not jibing.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/10/hillary-clinton-is-unraveling-quickly/
It may also be why there is greater annoyance at the EU.
If a regulation comes in, a UK civil servant can "gold plate" it and enjoy adding lots of pointless rules. If anyone complains - we have to do it because of the EU.
Sam Wang gives him currently a 30% chance [based on historical poll movements between now and November], which would imply he should be at 3.3.
DYOR