Mr. Betting, well, we'll see (or not, I still expect Remain to win). He's been dodgy so far, I don't expect that to change.
Mr. Taffys, last night saw that the BBC's business editor (Kamal Ahmed, I think) asked a horrendously leading question of Carney, something like: "If we vote to leave, can you rule out a recession?"
There's only one answer to that because, unless you're a demented vainglorious cretin, everyone knows the business cycle means there's *always* another recession coming down the track.
Why hasn't Carney been challenged on the point he has no skin in the UK game. Lord King is far more agnostic on Brexit and at least he's a British citizen.
I bet Carney's eye is on his next extremely lucrative position (maybe Lagarde's?) and he ain't gonna get that until he plays the establishment game.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
I don't know that. In fact I don't think that. The IMF and the OECD represent the world order and the status quo. They see Brexit as a risk to the world order, which is their main interest. Logically any such Brexit risk affects Britain even more. They are not discredited in saying so, even if they don't really care about us. My personal opinion.
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
I suspect the IMF is only significant with those who already have entrenched views on Brexit. To be really familiar with the IMF and hence deem its views relevant, you almost by definition have some macro- and international economics familiarity. Such people are what - 5-10% of the population and either interested in politics or engaged in finance. IMO, those people have long since - years ago - come to a considered view on Brexit based on their own analysis of the facts, an analysis that no matter of wheeling out of big names will impact because the facts have no changed.
Those who concluded we should remain will be convinced that the IMF intervention is important because it confirms their own view.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc... If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49. There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit. The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain. It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party. In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref. .....
So this would be a form of a coalition coupon election with in most cases 2 candidates. Candidate 1 = For this plan and Candidate 2 =Stick to referendum result. Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
That's why the report says the government will eventually respect the will of the people. The expectation is that the Tories, after some recriminations, will run as the party who will respect the will of the people.
The report also says even if the nation votes in favour of Brexit, Scotland will vote for Remain, creating a new constitutional crisis which the SNP will try and exploit for a second indyref, which they still wouldn't win because the underlying problems for "Yes" haven't been solved and EU membership would require them to commit to joining the Euro which they couldn't do if they took up Sterling unilaterally.
Mr. Betting, well, we'll see (or not, I still expect Remain to win). He's been dodgy so far, I don't expect that to change.
Mr. Taffys, last night saw that the BBC's business editor (Kamal Ahmed, I think) asked a horrendously leading question of Carney, something like: "If we vote to leave, can you rule out a recession?"
There's only one answer to that because, unless you're a demented vainglorious cretin, everyone knows the business cycle means there's *always* another recession coming down the track.
Perhaps Kamal Ahmed should have asked if we vote REMAIN can you rule out a recession?
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
The ones that predicted the 2008 banking crash.
Wait a minute. There weren't any. There weren't any 'expert' economists either. Or central bankers. Or politicians. Or supranational institutions. Or regulators.
And when it happened they all stood around looking at each other, and p8ssing their pants.
Didn't those rabid leavers Ken Clarke and Vince Cable predict something of the sort? Just saying...
Really? I'd like to see a link for that. The only economist who spotted it was a guy called Nouriel Roubini. And he'd been a serial cassandra for a long time.
Economists have predicted 20 of the last 3 recessions - or some such.
Unlike the Treasury which has predicted none.
The problem with recessions is that they're a bit like earthquakes: we know they'll happen but knowing precisely when is much more an art than a science.
That said, I've long been of the view that the Treasury forecasting models should automatically build in one recession in the next 10 years.
Next 1-2 years in my book; even ignoring the Brexit result.
The news from China is that their bubble is over. The steel glut is just one of many indicators.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Top work - congratulations.
One quibble: I can't see political parties campaigning to overturn the vote so soon after it has taken place.
I can see Cameron screwing up negotiations, offering us a terrible deal and then getting us to vote on Remain or the terribly negotiated new deal.
Cameron will play no role after a LEAVE vote. Too much bad blood spilled and he has lost the trust of the country and his party.
He may have lost your trust but what evidence do you have that he has lost the trust of the membership. You also seem to forget that more than half the tory mps are for remain
You know what they say ask 3 economists get 5 predictions , it was 4 but they later revises them up.
I'm amazed people think we should pay attention to Carney, who after he takes our hugely substantial bucks will presumably go back to living in the type of independent self determining country he is advising us not to become (ie Canada).
Britain's clearly no more than a giant intellectual playground for him, he has not stake here and should be completely disregarded.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Nice. V sensible. An interesting exercise for us all to do, regardless of whether it has applicability to our own situations.
What were some of the reactions?
Well the report comes out and says the position is reluctant support for remain, i.e. we wouldn't have started in this position. I think that's the general consensus as well from people who contributed and from people reading it today. I was probably one a only a handful of people in favour of leave who contributed, though I did try and go for the dispassionate view. It was my suggestion that closed borders would at least cost the financial services passport.
MaxPB
Thanks that is very helpful. My main challenge to the analysis is the conclusion that the second referendum would lead to open borders (option 1).
I would have thought that if Leave wins then that is primary because of the immigration argument. As such the political climate would be immense to go for option 2. I would not see buyers remorse (option 1) as likely.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
I don't know that. In fact I don't think that. The IMF and the OECD represent the world order and the status quo. They see Brexit as a risk to the world order, which is their main interest. Logically any such Brexit risk affects Britain even more. They are not discredited in saying so, even if they don't really care about us. My personal opinion.
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
I suspect the IMF is only significant with those who already have entrenched views on Brexit. To be really familiar with the IMF and hence deem its views relevant, you almost by definition have some macro- and international economics familiarity. Such people are what - 5-10% of the population and either interested in politics or engaged in finance. IMO, those people have long since - years ago - come to a considered view on Brexit based on their own analysis of the facts, an analysis that no matter of wheeling out of big names will impact because the facts have no changed.
Those who concluded we should remain will be convinced that the IMF intervention is important because it confirms their own view.
You don't think people would know of the IMF as the organisation, which gets involved in countries that are in a bad way? When voters hear them predicting dire consequences for the UK under Brexit, they will think, "Don't go there!" ...
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc... If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49. There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit. The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain. It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party. In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref. .....
So this would be a form of a coalition coupon election with in most cases 2 candidates. Candidate 1 = For this plan and Candidate 2 =Stick to referendum result. Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
That's why the report says the government will eventually respect the will of the people. The expectation is that the Tories, after some recriminations, will run as the party who will respect the will of the people.
The report also says even if the nation votes in favour of Brexit, Scotland will vote for Remain, creating a new constitutional crisis which the SNP will try and exploit for a second indyref, which they still wouldn't win because the underlying problems for "Yes" haven't been solved and EU membership would require them to commit to joining the Euro which they couldn't do if they took up Sterling unilaterally.
That's not far away from what I've seen in terms of predictions from other institutions and mezz houses. There's an add that an out vote will be thoroughly destabilising even if ultimately your option 1 is taken. Option 2 is interesting in that it doesn't mention IRs. I'd have thought that a significant devaluation could create an inflation risk (certainly in those goods whose base price is USD). An IR rise risk in those circumstances would be unhelpful. I think we might see the BoEs inflation target flexed.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Top work - congratulations.
One quibble: I can't see political parties campaigning to overturn the vote so soon after it has taken place.
It was not my contribution, but the gist is that there will be a huge argument within Labour and the Lib Dems who's membership and voters will have voted massively in favour of Remain to campaign on trying to overturn the result based on an argument of legitimacy that 33% of voters are deciding the fate of 100% of the people. I think you are probably right, but I could see it happen, especially for the Lib Dems who are massively europhile.
As a former LibDem member, and still a voter, I’ve a lot of sympathy with Stodge’s view. However, it seeems to me that the problem isn’t whether or not we’re members of the EU; it’s our attitude to it. As Stodge rightly says "Britain will continue to snipe and sneer from the sidelines yet get dragged along like a petulant child in time. “ It’s no good being in such a club if one doesn’t particpate! I’m sure we can all think of societies to which we as individuals belong where, for example, getting a committee together is easier than drawing hens teeth, but where there’s always a groundswell of grumbling from a few when any change is made.
And that, it appears to me, is how Britain’s relationship with the EU is conducted. My hope is that as a result of a Remain victory we abandon this childish behaviour and help to keep the thing working.
I don't think our attitudfe will change, nor will the EUs, that's the problem. They are sick of our moaning, as they continually remind us, and like stodge I no longer believe the EU is capable of reforming itself - I simply do not think there is any desire to do so out side of marginal, superficial changes to head of trouble, rather than a recognition there is any problem. It is not good for those who want the project to continue on to have us in dragging them back, and it isn't good for us to vote remain but still drag our heels and moan, it just impacts upon both sides poorly. Better for both to split. Maybe they'll be proved right and our lack of enthusiasm for the project will come to hurt us, but that's the only way we'll learn to get on board with the idea, until then even if we vote remain we'll not be as keen, and bitterness will only increase.
What a shame, as the Scott Trust Chair I’d hoped Rusbridger would wreak the same financial havoc as he did at the Guardian. - P45s all round @ Kings Place Towers.
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
I don't know that. In fact I don't think that. The IMF and the OECD represent the world order and the status quo. They see Brexit as a risk to the world order, which is their main interest. Logically any such Brexit risk affects Britain even more. They are not discredited in saying so, even if they don't really care about us. My personal opinion.
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
I suspect the IMF is only significant with those who already have entrenched views on Brexit. To be really familiar with the IMF and hence deem its views relevant, you almost by definition have some macro- and international economics familiarity. Such people are what - 5-10% of the population and either interested in politics or engaged in finance. IMO, those people have long since - years ago - come to a considered view on Brexit based on their own analysis of the facts, an analysis that no matter of wheeling out of big names will impact because the facts have no changed.
Those who concluded we should remain will be convinced that the IMF intervention is important because it confirms their own view.
While only a small section of the electorate is familiar with the work of organisations such as the IMF, there's got to be quite a few people who are aware that these organisations exist and are important in some way, even if they don't really know why. Perhaps these are the people that the name-dropping is aimed at?
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Nice. V sensible. An interesting exercise for us all to do, regardless of whether it has applicability to our own situations.
What were some of the reactions?
Well the report comes out and says the position is reluctant support for remain, i.e. we wouldn't have started in this position. I think that's the general consensus as well from people who contributed and from people reading it today. I was probably one a only a handful of people in favour of leave who contributed, though I did try and go for the dispassionate view. It was my suggestion that closed borders would at least cost the financial services passport.
MaxPB
Thanks that is very helpful. My main challenge to the analysis is the conclusion that the second referendum would lead to open borders (option 1).
I would have thought that if Leave wins then that is primary because of the immigration argument. As such the political climate would be immense to go for option 2. I would not see buyers remorse (option 1) as likely.
We have evidence which shows a majority of people are in favour of "keeping our terms of trade the same even if it means open borders". The conclusion is based on this.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc...
If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.
The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain.
It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party.
In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
In any case, the government will "respect the will of the people" but caveat it and say that the opinion of all British people must be sought on what to do next, two plans must be presented.
Plan 1 will be open borders and staying in the single market, plan 2 will be closed borders and limited single market access, losing passport rights for the financial services industry for sure.
The report expects that plan 1 would receive majority support in a second referendum and the government will then seek a settlement which will maintain the four freedoms, the economic change is negligible.
If plan 2 wins the report expects there to be an immediate drop in GDP of around 3% over two years, a short to medium term widening of the trade deficit and a short term widening of the current account deficit to around 8% of GDP for a couple of years, Sterling will fall by around 10-12 points vs USD and EUR.
Top work - congratulations.
One quibble: I can't see political parties campaigning to overturn the vote so soon after it has taken place.
What do you think will happen politically? Leave are a section of the ruling party with virtually no Leave representation amongst other parties at Westminster. Would the Leave rump in the Conservatives run with the exit project? Will they have rows about options 1 and 2? Will they call new elections which may deliver a Remain faction majority? And if it does, would this faction carry on with the two options?
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater. His two face to face TV events with Nick Clegg in 2014 showed just how effective he can be."
His general election performances were crap, though. It may be the subject matter but it's probably also the number of people involved.
It's the subject matter. Arguments against the EU are, by and large, simple, play into general public dislike of the EU even if they are not leavers, and he is more passionate on the subject. Arguments in defence of the EU are often more technical, or explaining away the things people dislike, and is just all around a more difficult job.
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc... If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49. There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit. The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain. It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party. In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref. .....
So this would be a form of a coalition coupon election with in most cases 2 candidates. Candidate 1 = For this plan and Candidate 2 =Stick to referendum result. Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
That's why the report says the government will eventually respect the will of the people. The expectation is that the Tories, after some recriminations, will run as the party who will respect the will of the people.
The report also says even if the nation votes in favour of Brexit, Scotland will vote for Remain, creating a new constitutional crisis which the SNP will try and exploit for a second indyref, which they still wouldn't win because the underlying problems for "Yes" haven't been solved and EU membership would require them to commit to joining the Euro which they couldn't do if they took up Sterling unilaterally.
That's not far away from what I've seen in terms of predictions from other institutions and mezz houses. There's an add that an out vote will be thoroughly destabilising even if ultimately your option 1 is taken. Option 2 is interesting in that it doesn't mention IRs. I'd have thought that a significant devaluation could create an inflation risk (certainly in those goods whose base price is USD). An IR rise risk in those circumstances would be unhelpful. I think we might see the BoEs inflation target flexed.
It does, I just didn't go into that much detail, inflation is expected to rise anyway. Interest rates may be up to 1 principal point higher under plan 2.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
You don't see something of a logical inconsistency in otoh campaigning to reverse a referendum result that provides the justification for a second indy ref while on the other campaigning for a second indy ref that depends on the EU result standing?
I'll give you a clue.
'We respect that the English people have expressed their settled will upon EU membership, and ask for a reciprocal respect regarding Scotland's place in Europe.'
I'm going to summarise the political insights in our Brexit contingency plan, what we expect to happen etc... If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49. There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit. The government will be in turmoil because the official stance is for remain. It may lead to an election and major recriminations within the Conservative party. In the election it is expected that Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref. .....
So this would be a form of a coalition coupon election with in most cases 2 candidates. Candidate 1 = For this plan and Candidate 2 =Stick to referendum result. Candidate 2s would walk it. Voters do not like their wishes overturned. Just look at that Winchester election re-run.
That's why the report says the government will eventually respect the will of the people. The expectation is that the Tories, after some recriminations, will run as the party who will respect the will of the people.
The report also says even if the nation votes in favour of Brexit, Scotland will vote for Remain, creating a new constitutional crisis which the SNP will try and exploit for a second indyref, which they still wouldn't win because the underlying problems for "Yes" haven't been solved and EU membership would require them to commit to joining the Euro which they couldn't do if they took up Sterling unilaterally.
Several polls have had the UK voting Remain but England voting Leave so it could also work the other way too
By 'OK names' you presumably mean the IMF/OECD etc.
There is not a chance in hell they would publicly support something like Brexit even if they thought it was economically OK. That is not the way these organisations work - they are creatures of the governments that fund them. I'm sure you know that.
I don't know that. In fact I don't think that. The IMF and the OECD represent the world order and the status quo. They see Brexit as a risk to the world order, which is their main interest. Logically any such Brexit risk affects Britain even more. They are not discredited in saying so, even if they don't really care about us. My personal opinion.
Leave have to get or keep the economics on a "no change" keel, in my judgment. The other side will bombard voters with "Think about the risk. Think about the risk." The moment voters do start thinking about the risk, Leave is sunk, also IMJ.
The IMF intervention is a lot more significant than Obama's for this reason.
I suspect the IMF is only significant with those who already have entrenched views on Brexit. To be really familiar with the IMF and hence deem its views relevant, you almost by definition have some macro- and international economics familiarity. Such people are what - 5-10% of the population and either interested in politics or engaged in finance. IMO, those people have long since - years ago - come to a considered view on Brexit based on their own analysis of the facts, an analysis that no matter of wheeling out of big names will impact because the facts have no changed.
Those who concluded we should remain will be convinced that the IMF intervention is important because it confirms their own view.
Of course one of the groups in our society most familiar with the IMF are the Guardianistas...
...who usually see it as evil incarnate, doing down developing countries in the most horrible ways
I wonder if their views will be different in this case?
We have evidence which shows a majority of people are in favour of "keeping our terms of trade the same even if it means open borders". The conclusion is based on this.
I understand and would agree with the evidence. However I think that the conclusion does not give sufficient weight to the strong anti immigration pressures that a Leave vote would unleash.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
Crucial bit...It isn't a "Scotland" centric one,
"Audience members will be under 30 and representative of the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland."
Its for the yuff....Wonder why they invited Farage, that famously popular politician among 18-30's.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
That will be top draw - Nicola will make mincemeat of him
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
So in broad summary your report coincides with the argument that we Remainers have been advancing here on PB on balance in terms of cost/benefit.
Yes, economically I've never made the case that leaving would be better. There are only downsides, but as I have said on many, many occasions, for me it isn't about whether or not we have 3% more GDP or even 10% more GDP in 2018 or 2030. I have said time and again, it is about this country being in control of its own destiny and not being forced into a European superstate which is what a Remain vote clears the way for.
We're also going to be doing a report on what happens in the EU in the event of Brexit soon, I'll see if I can post that summary as well once we have the draft ready.
We have evidence which shows a majority of people are in favour of "keeping our terms of trade the same even if it means open borders". The conclusion is based on this.
I understand and would agree with the evidence. However I think that the conclusion does not give sufficient weight to the strong anti immigration pressures that a Leave vote would unleash.
Do some deal with the EU that has a figleaf of "immigration control". David Cameron isn't the only leader than can enter into meaningless negotiations for the sake of saying "I've got something."
So in broad summary your report coincides with the argument that we Remainers have been advancing here on PB on balance in terms of cost/benefit.
Yes, economically I've never made the case that leaving would be better. There are only downsides, but as I have said on many, many occasions, for me it isn't about whether or not we have 3% more GDP or even 10% more GDP in 2018 or 2030. I have said time and again, it is about this country being in control of its own destiny and not being forced into a European superstate which is what a Remain vote clears the way for.
We're also going to be doing a report on what happens in the EU in the event of Brexit soon, I'll see if I can post that summary as well once we have the draft ready.
That's great and would be really interesting thanks
Who helped Lagarde get the IMF job? Answer Osborne.
Seriously? The site is totally overwhelmed by this sort of unmitigated crap in place of any sense of rational argument. If mother Theresa backed 'Remain' you'd be demanding the Pope excommunicates her.
While only a small section of the electorate is familiar with the work of organisations such as the IMF, there's got to be quite a few people who are aware that these organisations exist and are important in some way, even if they don't really know why. Perhaps these are the people that the name-dropping is aimed at?
Generally speaking, if people want guidance on issues they can't be bothered/are unable to do the research on themselves, they go to someone they know and trust. That is why public information messages have to use multiple 'champions' to reach the various audiences out there. One group might consider the Kardashian's a trusted source or opinion, while the rest of us roll our eyes.
So no, I don't think the views of an unknown authority figure will have much effect at all on that demographic. And those who know and trust Lagarde have long since come to a view. A tiny fraction of those, already on the fence, may be moved. But as we have seen already, there's no guarantee in which direction.
Two other factors why the views of international institutions are not that relevant to the voter:
1. As in all complex issues, there are factors arguing for both sides. Where we come done in the end is more to do with our values and personality, than it has to do with a cost benefit analysis. International institutions do not factor in voter values, just the cost benefit. So naturally their interests will always diverge from a large part of the voter populations in every country;
2. For the IMF, OECD and other international institutions, there are two sets of drivers of behaviour - those emanating from the interests of the organization, and those from the personal interests of the international civil servants. The latter will be strongly incentivized against Brexit (extra work and, worse, a requirement to think); the organizational interests are also nearly all stacked in the one direction, Remain. Not so for British voters (at least those who are both informed and honest to themselves) - even the most decided Leavers will see some benefits to remaining, and even the most ardent Remainers should also see that leaving could have many medium- to longer-term benefits. The overlap of IMF interests with those of the British voter are simply not correlated enough to warrant using the IMF's view as a guide to either voter or British interests.
Many on this site are quants and will try to come to some 'objective' cost benefit analysis and decide on that basis. They are fooling themselves. The data is simply too uncertain, incomplete and imperfect to allow any such calculation.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
That will be top draw - Nicola will make mincemeat of him
Quite possibly, but she's at a massive high watermark point in Scotland, and UKIP are nowhere. Therefore mathematically alone, Farage stands to gain a lot more by getting on an equal platform. No doubt Nicola wants to energise her base by focussing attention on 'the enemy', but it could backfire if Farage performs adequately and comes over as less of an ogre than people expect.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
That will be top draw - Nicola will make mincemeat of him
Well that's interesting, because sheer absurdity of the SNP position on the EU was exposed by a humble fisherman last night on QT.
Independent, but subservient to a giant monolith like the EU at the same time.
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater. His two face to face TV events with Nick Clegg in 2014 showed just how effective he can be."
His general election performances were crap, though. It may be the subject matter but it's probably also the number of people involved.
It's the subject matter. Arguments against the EU are, by and large, simple, play into general public dislike of the EU even if they are not leavers, and he is more passionate on the subject. Arguments in defence of the EU are often more technical, or explaining away the things people dislike, and is just all around a more difficult job.
Indeed. The EU membership is a far more difficult sell. Obviously, some do appreciate the intricacies and force of the membership argument, but this tends to be the preserve of experts and intellectuals. The man on the street - with his job to do and his bills to pay - will see things in starker terms. That's why I can be gloomy about Remain's prospects; it doesn't have the feel of a popular cause. The polling surprises me though - I thought Leave would have leads of 10, 15 even 20 points.
We have evidence which shows a majority of people are in favour of "keeping our terms of trade the same even if it means open borders". The conclusion is based on this.
I understand and would agree with the evidence. However I think that the conclusion does not give sufficient weight to the strong anti immigration pressures that a Leave vote would unleash.
I can't go into it too much, but we believe a vote would result in about 60% of people in favour of option one in a referendum.
While I don't believe in them, there were some models on immigration for both options and both options actually show a dip in immigration, even if we end up in EFTA under the same rules, the act of leaving the EU will make the UK seem more hostile to immigrants and will discourage some from coming while option two shows pretty large reductions after two years.
Another example of the way that if you put your head above the political parapet, everything you have ever said comes back to haunt you on social media (assisted by Mr Fawkes, of course):
As she admits, she once worded one sentence in a blog carelessly. And she's Jewish. Those are the only things that anyone seems to be abusing her about. She's not standing for President, she wants to be on a party committee.
Now clearly if you've said something with current dodgy resonance there is a question about whether you regret it, still half-believe it, etc., and it's reasonable to query it. Corbyn once referred to Hamas people at a meeting as friends - he's explained that he was being polite as usual and in reality disagrees with them, and people can accept it or not. Boris has had a variety of colourful incidents which could reasonably be asked about if he stands or leader.
But if we witch-hunt novices to political office with anything they ever said to anyone, then we simply discourage novices from taking part. There should, I think be an acceptance that most of us have said some silly once or twice in the past, and if we admit it and apologise and there's no evidence that we still think it, then we should be allowed to move on. Otherwise, ambitious young people are going to avoid politics altogether or turn into robots issuing cloned statements from age 12.
Do I practice what I preach? I try to. An opponent once employed someone who had posed on Facebook in a Nazi uniform with what appeared to be a real (and hence illegal) handgun in the picture. I admit I was very tempted, but in the end we decided it was (a) probably past and (b) personal, so we didn't try to embarrass either of them.
I don't think people should be sacked or resign over stupid things they may once have said or believed, and I think that will become ever more important in a social media age. As you say it is reasonable to see if people still believe whatever stupid thing they may have said, though it is relevant to know how long ago it was and how credible any protestations they have changed are in my view. But we do need to be more flexible about things. It won't bee easy, as parties will find something on their opponents and will want to use it, and they won't always hold back as you did on that occasion, and the danger is people will be forced out of positions in the initial furore, forced to apologise, even if they really did nothing wrong. We the public need to stop getting so worked up over every little stupidity - unless it is truly severe, part of a demonstrable pattern, that sort of thing. I don't see that happening though.
the other thinking is presumably that something befalls Hillary but to be honest, Sanders is still doing that well that he'd almost certainly win the nomination now if she withdrew, no matter what other mainstream candidate might consider filling the gap.
Trump must now be wishing the FBI hold off for a bit. He'd much prefer to be facing Hilary than Bernie.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
I don't respect any. I accept it is probably ignorant of me, but economic forecasting seems mostly nonsense, so if there is good trustworthy forecasting out there it is lost amidst the smoke and mirrors to the point I wouldn't notice it anyway.
I don't think people should be sacked or resign over stupid things they may once have said or believed, and I think that will become ever more important in a social media age. As you say it is reasonable to see if people still believe whatever stupid thing they may have said, though it is relevant to know how long ago it was and how credible any protestations they have changed are in my view. But we do need to be more flexible about things. It won't bee easy, as parties will find something on their opponents and will want to use it, and they won't always hold back as you did on that occasion, and the danger is people will be forced out of positions in the initial furore, forced to apologise, even if they really did nothing wrong. We the public need to stop getting so worked up over every little stupidity - unless it is truly severe, part of a demonstrable pattern, that sort of thing. I don't see that happening though.
The only way to learn is to make mistakes. We just need to make the mistakes small enough that we survive, and get everyone to agree that progress is not made without mistakes.
the SNP would campaign to overturn the referendum result, the SNP would campaign on a second Indy Ref.
You don't see something of a logical inconsistency in otoh campaigning to reverse a referendum result that provides the justification for a second indy ref while on the other campaigning for a second indy ref that depends on the EU result standing?
I'll give you a clue.
'We respect that the English people have expressed their settled will upon EU membership, and ask for a reciprocal respect regarding Scotland's place in Europe.'
Well again, I didn't write the whole thing, however, the gist is that indyref2 still isn't winnable EU membership or not, it's not something that moves the dial more than one or two points so the SNP will campaign in Westminster to overturn the result, fail, and then say "look they didn't listen to us again, lets go for another referendum" which the report says won't be won because EU membership isn't actually that big of a deal.
Perhaps our Leavers would care to point to those economic institutions they do respect. Just so we know which ones to listen to.
I don't respect any. I accept it is probably ignorant of me, but economic forecasting seems mostly nonsense, so if there is good trustworthy forecasting out there it is lost amidst the smoke and mirrors to the point I wouldn't notice it anyway.
Indeed, as I posted a little earlier, there are very good reasons why we should not, as voters, listen to any of the international institutions. The interests of both the institutions and the individuals who staff them are not sufficiently aligned with those of the British voter to be relevant.
So in broad summary your report coincides with the argument that we Remainers have been advancing here on PB on balance in terms of cost/benefit.
Yes, economically I've never made the case that leaving would be better. There are only downsides, but as I have said on many, many occasions, for me it isn't about whether or not we have 3% more GDP or even 10% more GDP in 2018 or 2030. I have said time and again, it is about this country being in control of its own destiny and not being forced into a European superstate which is what a Remain vote clears the way for.
We're also going to be doing a report on what happens in the EU in the event of Brexit soon, I'll see if I can post that summary as well once we have the draft ready.
I agree with that. And the real argument for remaining is the one that David Cameron put forward the other day and got derided for, which is that it's better for European countries to have a forum in which to sort out their differences. Everything else, immigration control, market access and peace etc,is at best a consequence of these two opposing principles. But because controlling your destiny and teaming up with other nations are abstract concepts with unprovable benefits, the debate focuses on proxies such as immigration and the economy. People are understandably struggling with these because they are not the fundamental issues.
A new “T-Charge” could be introduced for vehicles belching out the most toxic fumes in central London next year, Sadiq Khan announced today.
The toxicity levy would be on top of the Congestion Charge, cover the same area and use its network of cameras to identifying the very worst polluting vehicles entering the zone.
They are expected to include cars, vans and lorries.
Mayor of London Mr Khan also proposed today a dramatic extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone which is planned for the city centre in 2020.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
That will be top draw - Nicola will make mincemeat of him
Well that's interesting, because sheer absurdity of the SNP position on the EU was exposed by a humble fisherman last night on QT.
Independent, but subservient to a giant monolith like the EU at the same time.
She could end up in the interesting position of winning the EU debate vs Farage, but seeing support for indyref2 dropping as people see the absurdities exposed.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
No we really can't. The deal is worthless as I am afraid you will quickly find out if we vote Remain.
We did with the fiscal compact, why can't we in future?
The Fiscal Compact was a treaty we refused to sign up to. The February 'deal' is not a treaty and is meaningless in terms of keeping us out of further integration.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Matthew Elliott, heads up Vote Leave. He has won the northern referendum and AV. So maybe he knows what he is doing?
She could end up in the interesting position of winning the EU debate vs Farage, but seeing support for indyref2 dropping as people see the absurdities exposed.
Yes and no.
There is no shortage of material already where Nicola argues for the benefits of the Union (just not THAT Union...) but hypocrisy and logical fallacy have never hurt the SNP poll numbers
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
That's true. But I actually see Farage as a good asset for Leave now. There's something rustic, wholesome and sincere about the man. If anything, the hard-right Leave Tories are dragging the cause down. It's obvious that, for them, EU membership is something of a peripheral concern - this is all about jostling for position, providing an outlet for their Cameron issues and general wind and fury. After all that Farage seems like a blessed relief.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Cummings has had success with the £350m and the NHS lines, plus warnings of extra migration to come.
The trouble with both him and Elliot is that they are clever strategists and intellectuals, but seem to lack some basic people skills.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
That will be top draw - Nicola will make mincemeat of him
Well that's interesting, because sheer absurdity of the SNP position on the EU was exposed by a humble fisherman last night on QT.
Independent, but subservient to a giant monolith like the EU at the same time.
My late Father in law and most of my wife's family have been North East Scotland fishermen and they are humble and are very good business men
Brexit would boost SEXISM! Harriet Harman says leaving EU would be 'major step back'
The ridiculous claims just keep getting more ridiculous.
No, it's true, I made a sexist joke just the other day and plan to make more if Leave wins.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of hyperbole and histrionics on all sides, but some claims are clearly worse than others. A colleague of mine expressed concern to an EU citizen colleague (resident for 20 years and married to British citizen) that they could be deported within weeks of a Leave win, which is an extreme I don't think I've even seen the Remain campaign suggest.
Generally speaking, if people want guidance on issues they can't be bothered/are unable to do the research on themselves, they go to someone they know and trust. That is why public information messages have to use multiple 'champions' to reach the various audiences out there. One group might consider the Kardashian's a trusted source or opinion, while the rest of us roll our eyes.
So no, I don't think the views of an unknown authority figure will have much effect at all on that demographic. And those who know and trust Lagarde have long since come to a view. A tiny fraction of those, already on the fence, may be moved. But as we have seen already, there's no guarantee in which direction.
Two other factors why the views of international institutions are not that relevant to the voter:
1. As in all complex issues, there are factors arguing for both sides. Where we come done in the end is more to do with our values and personality, than it has to do with a cost benefit analysis. International institutions do not factor in voter values, just the cost benefit. So naturally their interests will always diverge from a large part of the voter populations in every country;
2. For the IMF, OECD and other international institutions, there are two sets of drivers of behaviour - those emanating from the interests of the organization, and those from the personal interests of the international civil servants. The latter will be strongly incentivized against Brexit (extra work and, worse, a requirement to think); the organizational interests are also nearly all stacked in the one direction, Remain. Not so for British voters (at least those who are both informed and honest to themselves) - even the most decided Leavers will see some benefits to remaining, and even the most ardent Remainers should also see that leaving could have many medium- to longer-term benefits. The overlap of IMF interests with those of the British voter are simply not correlated enough to warrant using the IMF's view as a guide to either voter or British interests.
Many on this site are quants and will try to come to some 'objective' cost benefit analysis and decide on that basis. They are fooling themselves. The data is simply too uncertain, incomplete and imperfect to allow any such calculation.
Thanks for your detailed answer. I can't help thinking you're over-analysing, though. While you may be right in asserting that the interests of the apolitical voter and the IMF may well be divergent, said floating voter isn't going to stop and think about that.
Rather than "Hmm, does the IMF reflect my particular interests? Maybe not, so I won't listen to them," it may be a case of "The IMF? Aren't they really important money people? Didn't we once have to go cap-in-hand to them? Maybe I should take them seriously."
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
You're just quibbling over the word 'open'. The fact is that under Carswell's vision there'd be as much, if not more, immigration than we have now - albeit from places like India, China, Pakistan and Russia as well as Europe. There would have to be; otherwise Leave would have to admit that Brexit would necessitate an economic slump. Actually, this is an intellectually sound position. What is dubious is Leave's playing the raise-the-drawbridge card for the Little Englanders whilst suggesting the economics can all be jolly and nice.
How did the economy grow so much faster from 1970 - 2000 than it has since 2000, when levels of immigration were much lower?
I'm not particularly decrying or praising immigration either way. My complaint is Leave's milking anti-immigration sentiment, whilst its leaders have other plans for us entirely. In fairness, Richard Tyndall seems to concede that we'll just be replacing one set of immigrants with another (or adding one set to another) but other Leavers are more cynical.
I think we need to remind ourselves again that Leave are not campaigning to run the country. They are campaigning for us to leave the EU. All we would be doing is giving ourselves a free hand on the sort of immigration policy we want. What would that mean? It would depend on the government of the day.
Brexit would boost SEXISM! Harriet Harman says leaving EU would be 'major step back'
The ridiculous claims just keep getting more ridiculous.
No, it's true, I made a sexist joke just the other day and plan to make more if Leave wins.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of hyperbole and histrionics on all sides, but some claims are clearly worse than others. A colleague of mine expressed concern to an EU citizen colleague (resident for 20 years and married to British citizen) that they could be deported within weeks of a Leave win, which is an extreme I don't think I've even seen the Remain campaign suggest.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Matthew Elliott, heads up Vote Leave. He has won the northern referendum and AV. So maybe he knows what he is doing?
Given the latest polling after all of the salvos from Remain, he's not doing a bad job either. Though I do wish they wouldn't make it so hard to pitch EFTA as a realistic option for middle ground Tories.
We're also going to be doing a report on what happens in the EU in the event of Brexit soon, I'll see if I can post that summary as well once we have the draft ready.
That will be very interesting indeed - I look forward to seeing your summary. It's an aspect which hasn't received enough attention.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Cummings has had success with the £350m and the NHS lines, plus warnings of extra migration to come.
The trouble with both him and Elliot is that they are clever strategists and intellectuals, but seem to lack some basic people skills.
Indeed neither are great at motivating the Leave core to get out
Brexit would boost SEXISM! Harriet Harman says leaving EU would be 'major step back'
The ridiculous claims just keep getting more ridiculous.
No, it's true, I made a sexist joke just the other day and plan to make more if Leave wins.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of hyperbole and histrionics on all sides, but some claims are clearly worse than others. A colleague of mine expressed concern to an EU citizen colleague (resident for 20 years and married to British citizen) that they could be deported within weeks of a Leave win, which is an extreme I don't think I've even seen the Remain campaign suggest.
Someone in Remain claimed British tourists wouldn't be allowed back into the UK after 23 June.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Matthew Elliott, heads up Vote Leave. He has won the northern referendum and AV. So maybe he knows what he is doing?
Hardly the same, he had Cameron behind him in the AV referendum
If we were a Sovereign Nation we could hold a referendum and sign article 50, but sadly our European overlords prevent either of those things from happening.
Free for all on when you can take your kids on holibobs....
The problem is travel agents almost double their prices in school holidays hopefully this ruling will see demand for holidays abroad in that period collapse forcing them to cut prices
Since you clearly do not understand the basic meaning of sovereignty it is not surprising you do not value it.
Anyone who claims we don't have it now is a fool.
Right., let's limit the number of Europeans who are entitled to set up home in our country. Let's filter them by qualifications.
Oh.
We can't.
If we really wanted to, we could leave the EU and do it. The fact that we have the option means that we are sovereign. The fact that we haven't (yet) means that we are happy (so far) with the trade-offs involved.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"Farage, let us remember, is a very good debater."
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
That's true. But I actually see Farage as a good asset for Leave now. There's something rustic, wholesome and sincere about the man. If anything, the hard-right Leave Tories are dragging the cause down. It's obvious that, for them, EU membership is something of a peripheral concern - this is all about jostling for position, providing an outlet for their Cameron issues and general wind and fury. After all that Farage seems like a blessed relief.
Indeed Farage is far more likely to win swing voters than Gove, IDS, Grayling and Lawson
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most people on PB, but most people in the country) it's about immigration. Pollsters may say that "the economy" or "jobs" or whatever silly answers they get to their silly questions are more important in the population's minds, but for all their focusing on people who spend a lot of time on the internet or who are the kind of people to give box-ticky opinions to people who phone them up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"F"
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Matthew Elliott, heads up Vote Leave. He has won the northern referendum and AV. So maybe he knows what he is doing?
Hardly the same, he had Cameron behind him in the AV referendum
Yup. These guys work best with photogenic, credible politicians at the front (and also behind the scenes to build cross-party links, providing you don't piss them off)
I can only imagine how some of the conversations between Banks/Cummings must have gone behind the scenes.
If we really wanted to, we could leave the EU and do it. The fact that we have the option means that we are sovereign. The fact that we haven't (yet) means that we are happy (so far) with the trade-offs involved.
Exactly
The British people have exercised their Sovereign will and elected a series of Governments who have over time traded free movement of people for economic prosperity.
The British people are about to express their Sovereign will in a referendum that may result in us forgoing prosperity in favour of closed borders.
In either case the British people, have been, are and will always be Sovereign
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
No we really can't. The deal is worthless as I am afraid you will quickly find out if we vote Remain.
We did with the fiscal compact, why can't we in future?
The Fiscal Compact was a treaty we refused to sign up to. The February 'deal' is not a treaty and is meaningless in terms of keeping us out of further integration.
So we didn't have a deal but could opt out (or not sign - same thing) of one EU initiative but with a deal we wouldn't be able to opt out of other EU initiatives.
"The whole strategy of the designated OUT campaign, Vote LEAVE, has been to isolate Farage because it believes that the UKIP leader would be a negative for them."
Or maybe they don't "believe" it and they have been ratf*cked, to use a Nixonian expression. Who could believe something that is patently obviously untrue?
This referendum is not party politics. For most people (not most em up, I'm telling you that this referendum is about immigration.
"It’s now being reported that it is planning to go to the courts to block the ITV programme. Maybe they are right but it was always going to be tricky trying to isolate the leader of the party that won the 2014 Euro elections and whose rise in 2012/13 was the reason why Cameron agreed to the referendum in the first place."
"F"
Exactly. Isn't it a bit odd for a team to want to keep their best player off the pitch?
PS The biggest chance of a major split in the Tory party - I mean with large numbers of politicians, organisers and members leaving to join another party - comes if Remain wins, not if Leave wins. If Leave wins, Cameron resigns and the new leader "speaks for the base" of the party. UKIP probably won't get many seats out of it, either on local councils or in the Commons. If Remain wins (and few think they will get more than 50-something percent of the vote), watch out!
Vote Leave largely see UKIP voters as peasants and Farage as an uncouth drunk and would far rather just focus on Tories if they could, plus a few acceptable Labour MPs like Hoey and Field. The GO campaign has been much broader
Vote Leave are useless.
Indeed, Remain are lucky Vote Leave is the official campaign for Out and not GO, the more Leave is run by Cummings and the less by Farage the better Remain will do
Matthew Elliott, heads up Vote Leave. He has won the northern referendum and AV. So maybe he knows what he is doing?
Hardly the same, he had Cameron behind him in the AV referendum
Yup. These guys work best with photogenic, credible politicians at the front (and also behind the scenes to build cross-party links, providing you don't piss them off)
I can only imagine how some of the conversations between Banks/Cummings must have gone behind the scenes.
Yes would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall
@MaxPB Thanks for providing details of your company's wargaming of Brexit.
As I have pointed out several times, you can back a general election in 2016 at favourable odds - 16/1 with Sky Bet. I know that @Pulpstar likes to keep note of tips so he might want to add that one to his spreadsheet.
Comments
I bet Carney's eye is on his next extremely lucrative position (maybe Lagarde's?) and he ain't gonna get that until he plays the establishment game.
Those who concluded we should remain will be convinced that the IMF intervention is important because it confirms their own view.
The report also says even if the nation votes in favour of Brexit, Scotland will vote for Remain, creating a new constitutional crisis which the SNP will try and exploit for a second indyref, which they still wouldn't win because the underlying problems for "Yes" haven't been solved and EU membership would require them to commit to joining the Euro which they couldn't do if they took up Sterling unilaterally.
'Like Bryan Adams fronting Rainbow’
‘Repetitive, child-like lyrics that sound like they were lifted from Liam Gallagher’s ‘maybe’ pile’
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/13/like-bryan-adams-fronting-rainbow-the-stone-roses-all-for-one-reader-review
The news from China is that their bubble is over. The steel glut is just one of many indicators.
One quibble: I can't see political parties campaigning to overturn the vote so soon after it has taken place.
http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/lagarde-thanks-treasury-for-help-on-independent-eu-report/
The first album is a great piece of music.
Thanks that is very helpful. My main challenge to the analysis is the conclusion that the second referendum would lead to open borders (option 1).
I would have thought that if Leave wins then that is primary because of the immigration argument. As such the political climate would be immense to go for option 2. I would not see buyers remorse (option 1) as likely.
Guido - The BBC has invited Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage to take part in a head-to-head referendum debate in Glasgow. The hour-long face-off is due to take place on May 26 on BBC1 at 8pm.
I'll give you a clue.
'We respect that the English people have expressed their settled will upon EU membership, and ask for a reciprocal respect regarding Scotland's place in Europe.'
So in broad summary your report coincides with the argument that we Remainers have been advancing here on PB on balance in terms of cost/benefit.
...who usually see it as evil incarnate, doing down developing countries in the most horrible ways
I wonder if their views will be different in this case?
"Audience members will be under 30 and representative of the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland."
Its for the yuff....Wonder why they invited Farage, that famously popular politician among 18-30's.
We're also going to be doing a report on what happens in the EU in the event of Brexit soon, I'll see if I can post that summary as well once we have the draft ready.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11829351/Ignore-the-histrionics-Cameron-cant-bothered-to-take-on-the-BBC.html
So no, I don't think the views of an unknown authority figure will have much effect at all on that demographic. And those who know and trust Lagarde have long since come to a view. A tiny fraction of those, already on the fence, may be moved. But as we have seen already, there's no guarantee in which direction.
Two other factors why the views of international institutions are not that relevant to the voter:
1. As in all complex issues, there are factors arguing for both sides. Where we come done in the end is more to do with our values and personality, than it has to do with a cost benefit analysis. International institutions do not factor in voter values, just the cost benefit. So naturally their interests will always diverge from a large part of the voter populations in every country;
2. For the IMF, OECD and other international institutions, there are two sets of drivers of behaviour - those emanating from the interests of the organization, and those from the personal interests of the international civil servants. The latter will be strongly incentivized against Brexit (extra work and, worse, a requirement to think); the organizational interests are also nearly all stacked in the one direction, Remain. Not so for British voters (at least those who are both informed and honest to themselves) - even the most decided Leavers will see some benefits to remaining, and even the most ardent Remainers should also see that leaving could have many medium- to longer-term benefits. The overlap of IMF interests with those of the British voter are simply not correlated enough to warrant using the IMF's view as a guide to either voter or British interests.
Many on this site are quants and will try to come to some 'objective' cost benefit analysis and decide on that basis. They are fooling themselves. The data is simply too uncertain, incomplete and imperfect to allow any such calculation.
Well that's interesting, because sheer absurdity of the SNP position on the EU was exposed by a humble fisherman last night on QT.
Independent, but subservient to a giant monolith like the EU at the same time.
Suspect Remain / Downing St are seeing £350m moving the dial privately, hence the sustained heat on it. https://t.co/k04qAerLLx
While I don't believe in them, there were some models on immigration for both options and both options actually show a dip in immigration, even if we end up in EFTA under the same rules, the act of leaving the EU will make the UK seem more hostile to immigrants and will discourage some from coming while option two shows pretty large reductions after two years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36284200
I am a Unionist Scot, and a European Brit.
I don't think we (Scots or Brits) are living under the cruel yolk of an oppressive foreign regime, nor do I think we lack any degree of Sovereignty.
People who espouse those views (either Nicola or Nigel) I find abhorrent, and I oppose them all.
Petty Nationalism (UKIP and UKIP in Kilts) is a toxic creed and I reject it completely.
https://t.co/GH376GnGaR
The toxicity levy would be on top of the Congestion Charge, cover the same area and use its network of cameras to identifying the very worst polluting vehicles entering the zone.
They are expected to include cars, vans and lorries.
Mayor of London Mr Khan also proposed today a dramatic extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone which is planned for the city centre in 2020.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-plans-new-t-charge-for-vehicles-that-spew-toxic-fumes-a3247126.html
The ridiculous claims just keep getting more ridiculous.
There is no shortage of material already where Nicola argues for the benefits of the Union (just not THAT Union...) but hypocrisy and logical fallacy have never hurt the SNP poll numbers
The trouble with both him and Elliot is that they are clever strategists and intellectuals, but seem to lack some basic people skills.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of hyperbole and histrionics on all sides, but some claims are clearly worse than others. A colleague of mine expressed concern to an EU citizen colleague (resident for 20 years and married to British citizen) that they could be deported within weeks of a Leave win, which is an extreme I don't think I've even seen the Remain campaign suggest.
Rather than "Hmm, does the IMF reflect my particular interests? Maybe not, so I won't listen to them," it may be a case of "The IMF? Aren't they really important money people? Didn't we once have to go cap-in-hand to them? Maybe I should take them seriously."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-kind-of-voter-is-most-susceptible-when-pols-pile-it-high-and-deep/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScientificAmerican-News+(Content:+News)
'If it is Brexit it will be a close vote, possibly as close as 51-49.
There will be questions over its legitimacy since turnout will be less than 65% which means just 33% of people will have voted in favour of Brexit.'
If it's 51 - 49 Remain with a similar turnout will there also be a question of legitimacy ?
Oh.
We can't.
@MarkUrban01: @BethRigby nice scoop! So who steps in now? What about the Eye tip of Seumas Milne?
@BethRigby: Milne's name has been mooted for the chair of Scott Trust https://t.co/U9Tz81coTV
LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36277940
Free for all on when you can take your kids on holibobs....
If we were a Sovereign Nation we could hold a referendum and sign article 50, but sadly our European overlords prevent either of those things from happening.
Oh, wait...
I can only imagine how some of the conversations between Banks/Cummings must have gone behind the scenes.
The British people have exercised their Sovereign will and elected a series of Governments who have over time traded free movement of people for economic prosperity.
The British people are about to express their Sovereign will in a referendum that may result in us forgoing prosperity in favour of closed borders.
In either case the British people, have been, are and will always be Sovereign
Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.
God give me strength.
@AhirShah: This has been retweeted by an actual Vote Leave account
As I have pointed out several times, you can back a general election in 2016 at favourable odds - 16/1 with Sky Bet. I know that @Pulpstar likes to keep note of tips so he might want to add that one to his spreadsheet.