Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
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.
Paradoxically a Leave vote may lead to a surge in European migration in the 2 year window before Brexit happens.
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.
Yes it should be interesting, hopefully I can do a summary of the political aspects and the relevant economic aspects the same as I did with this one, it's not really for public consumption but I explained that it is for a bunch of political anoraks, many of whom will have access to similar information from other institutes.
@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.
No worries, I got onto a 2016 election as soon as I saw the draft yesterday!
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
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.
God give me strength.
Well I think the point is that the eventual superstate vote won't have an opt-out option, it will be join or fuck off, at which point the British public will choose the latter and the cost of separation will be significantly higher than it is today. There is also the fact that the same people in the remain campaign may try and browbeat us into the superstate and having seen how close the current vote is will only offer a heads I win, tails you lose referendum.
From the man who predicted Mitt Romney would defeat Obama in 2012? Forgive me if I'm not wholly bowled over by Tim Stanley's surgical analysis of the stats.
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.
Point of order. The paradoxical effect of a incoming migration freeze is a short-medium term (2-5yrs) increase in migration. The reason is linked to the news item yesterday, where much of the "unexplained" migration numbers were short-term migrants.
Broadly speaking, migrants circulate. They come in, stay for a while, then go back. Some of them keep cycling repeatedly, some do it just once. Even those who stay for decades may send their kids back to stay with their grans for a while to pick up the local culture. Imposition of migrant freezes prevent them from circulating out (in case they can't get back in), and encourage some to enter quickly (before the banhammer comes down). Hence the paradoxical increase in numbers over the 2-5yr range.
Please note that I'm not stopping you from thinking that freeze are the way to reduce migration: long-term, plainly they are. I am telling you that they cause a paradoxical increase in the shortmedium term.
If you don't believe me you can check this with the Migration Observatory at Oxford, who noted the phenomenon some years back.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I'll put it to the group since this is just the first draft, but we're just about to start working on the EU response to Brexit so hopefully we can cover it there.
I don't expect a leave vote to have much, if any, impact in the short term. In the long term it will unquestionably lead to a higher standard of living and an increase in GDP per capita. Leave need to keep on hammering home the impact a stay vote will have on wages, job competition, housing and public services pressures.
I would also trust a retired BofE Governor than one who is still in the job, beholden to others and potential future lucrative job offers.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I don't expect a leave vote to have much, if any, impact in the short term. In the long term it will unquestionably lead to a higher standard of living and an increase in GDP per capita.
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.
God give me strength.
You are clearly confused. Have a lie down then try again.
here is the hint. It is the difference between a not being in a treaty and being in a treaty. As long as we are inside the TFEU we have no protection against the terms of that treaty.
@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.
My view is long term it should sort the wheat from the chaff. I got my £3.12 I was allowed on
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.
Point of order. The paradoxical effect of a incoming migration freeze is a short-medium term (2-5yrs) increase in migration. The reason is linked to the news item yesterday, where much of the "unexplained" migration numbers were short-term migrants.
Broadly speaking, migrants circulate. They come in, stay for a while, then go back. Some of them keep cycling repeatedly, some do it just once. Even those who stay for decades may send their kids back to stay with their grans for a while to pick up the local culture. Imposition of migrant freezes prevent them from circulating out (in case they can't get back in), and encourage some to enter quickly (before the banhammer comes down). Hence the paradoxical increase in numbers over the 2-5yr range.
Please note that I'm not stopping you from thinking that freeze are the way to reduce migration: long-term, plainly they are. I am telling you that they cause a paradoxical increase in the shortmedium term.
If you don't believe me you can check this with the Migration Observatory at Oxford, who noted the phenomenon some years back.
Yeah, I don't really hold much value in the immigration modelling, some of it for the reasons you mention.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Of course there would be a reaction.
Most of the proclaimed downsides also have potential upsides though, whether on a broad level or on an individual level for citizens.
Some people will gain if house prices fall as OKC pointed out earlier. Some businesses and economic sectors will gain if the currency falls. Some employees will gain from changed labour market conditions. Some individual families will gain if housing pressures decrease.
@Pulpstar - you can get the same odds with Ladbrokes (and a bigger sum on, I expect). I'm on at 20/1 from earlier in the year and not topping up just now.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Indeed, and many of us have. For me, making our regulatory environment more business friendly and globally aware, rather than EU-centric, would have considerable medium- to long-term benefits for growth and productivity. So yes, the obvious short-term shock will be worth it.
But I also think that the short-term shock has been grossly overplayed. I pretty much expect markets to bounce back most of the way once they realize that, in the very short term, nothing much is different.
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
Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.
Wrong.
I would suggest you educate yourself on the basis of national sovereignty by looking up "Westphalian Sovereignty". This is the underlying principle of national sovereignty and underpins the basis of the nation state today. All experts are clear that organisations like the EU which can directly interfere with the laws of a state remove national sovereignty.
And before you try to claim this is somehow an outdatedconcept, it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
From the man who predicted Mitt Romney would defeat Obama in 2012? Forgive me if I'm not wholly bowled over by Tim Stanley's surgical analysis of the stats.
It's encouraging for Leave but only means something if put next to money lost, and then made into a forced choice.
Personally, I think there are people who will want to Leave but are too scared to do it, but won't be able to bring themselves to vote for the EU, so will just abstain.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
Isn't the current text something like "free movement for those looking for work..."
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
The German contingency plan is indeed being openly discussed in knowledgeable circles.
It shouldn't be a surprise. Even the arch-Federalist Jacques Delors offered the UK a 'privileged partnership' based on trade many years ago.
The resistance to this kind of deal comes not from the side of our European neighbours, as the REMAIN side always claims, but rather from the UK political elite and bureaucracy - which want continued political integration even if they are loathe to say so publicly.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
The problem is, it's a self-serving model. It's also the one that certain papers were trying to make out Cameron had already ditched...
It is the elephant in the room of this referendum.
Look how few people change their minds, more like.
10% of people switching to Leave in the extreme scenario would be something like a 4% swing, which would be referendum winning territory. Also, if we count that the "unsure" people are either less likely to turn up or are more likely to switch it could be an additional 2-3% swing to Leave.
Also, it is much easier for the Leave side to say that Remain will result in a rise in immigration than it is for Remain to say it will result in a fall in immigration of over 100k that is required to bring them a 3-5% swing. If Leave were to hammer home the current extra 200,000 migrants per year that haven't been included in the official stats plus more in the event of Remain then it could win the referendum, there is up to an 8% swing there IMO for Leave to grab.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
In what way would or could that be different from EEA membership?
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Of course there would be a reaction.
Most of the proclaimed downsides also have potential upsides though, whether on a broad level or on an individual level for citizens.
Some people will gain if house prices fall as OKC pointed out earlier. Some businesses and economic sectors will gain if the currency falls. Some employees will gain from changed labour market conditions. Some individual families will gain if housing pressures decrease.
Me thinks Major's speech and Lagard will be squished by judgment on term time holidays.
I'm delighted for those with children.
The drawback, of course, is that it makes teaching an even more difficult job, thus exacerbating staffing difficulties and leading to a reduction in teaching quality.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Yawn, Richard N does this kind of dreary triangulation much better than you.
But don't listen to me. Listen to Ashoka Mody, a former senior IMF official -
'Echoing Cameron, proponents for Europe say that Britain will incur severe economic costs by leaving the European Union. Britain’s trade with Europe will collapse, they say, and the City of London will lose its preeminence. Claims of dire consequences by business executives are particularly unreliable. In 1999, Adair Turner, then director general of the Confederation of Business and Industry supported Britain joining the euro. Now the number crunchers torture the data to show that British productivity could decline precipitously. This is economic nonsense.'
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
Isn't the current text something like "free movement for those looking for work..."
could be wrong. It's happened.
That sounds about right, the problem is the "looking for work" part. It should be "for those who have jobs already" or something a little bit more elegant. That change plus mandatory health insurance (purchased from the NHS or a private company) and a minimum 12 month contribution required for access to benefits would probably lower immigration figures into Dave's "tens of thousands" target, but unfortunately he didn't ask for it. Though the last one is something that could and should be fixed at Westminster.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
Isn't the current text something like "free movement for those looking for work..."
could be wrong. It's happened.
Article 21 of TFEU refers to free movement of EU citizens and Article 45 to free movement of workers.
The Sovereign will of the British People is about to be expressed in a referendum.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
And again you show you don't understand the words you are attempting to use. You do make yourself look very foolish by persisting with such wilful ignorance.
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.
God give me strength.
You are clearly confused. Have a lie down then try again.
here is the hint. It is the difference between a not being in a treaty and being in a treaty. As long as we are inside the TFEU we have no protection against the terms of that treaty.
Don't we get a(nother) referendum on treaty change?
Regardless, we just play our "ah but that's Ever Closer Union" joker.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Indeed, and many of us have. For me, making our regulatory environment more business friendly and globally aware, rather than EU-centric, would have considerable medium- to long-term benefits for growth and productivity. So yes, the obvious short-term shock will be worth it.
But I also think that the short-term shock has been grossly overplayed. I pretty much expect markets to bounce back most of the way once they realize that, in the very short term, nothing much is different.
Agree completely, and it's interesting to note that most commenters here that live outside the EU share the sentiment.
Me thinks Major's speech and Lagard will be squished by judgment on term time holidays.
I'm delighted for those with children.
The drawback, of course, is that it makes teaching an even more difficult job, thus exacerbating staffing difficulties and leading to a reduction in teaching quality.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
This sounds like what Boris Johnson was trying to argue when he first came out for the Leave campaign. Is he your senior source? For me, that would be the ideal situation. I just don't know whether to believe it as it could be wishful thinking or self-serving propaganda.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
Of course there will be a deal on the table pretty quickly if we vote to leave, as it will be in everyone's interest to sort something out in short order.
Me thinks Major's speech and Lagard will be squished by judgment on term time holidays.
I'm delighted for those with children.
The drawback, of course, is that it makes teaching an even more difficult job, thus exacerbating staffing difficulties and leading to a reduction in teaching quality.
Rubbish.
Why? Isn't it obvious that having kids coming and going throughout the term is going to make it trickier to teach them? It may be a price worth paying, but there is a price.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
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.
Paradoxically a Leave vote may lead to a surge in European migration in the 2 year window before Brexit happens.
Really? I thought the British economy was supposed to collapse the day after Brexit.
Someone clearly isn't swallowing the Remain propaganda whole.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
Wasn't the Commission on the Rhine a supranational body dating back almostthat far?
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
The Holy Roman Empire was a supranational body of sorts? Also the Catholic Church.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
Wasn't the Commission on the Rhine a supranational body dating back almostthat far?
Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
Over a number of years I had to take my children out of school during term time..I always arranged with the Headmaster and their form teachers for the advance schedule and every evening after a day on the beach or whatever we were doing we would spend several hours doing lessons..they hated it and it was time consuming..but when they returned they were at the same level as their classmates..no problem
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
6. It is a fact that nearly every economist supported ERM membership and most (though a lower number) supported euro membership. We took their advice on the first but not on the second. In both cases the eurosceptic viewpoint was vindicated. 7. Not only were they wrong before but if you used these gravity models today they would point to the conclusion that the UK should today join the euro. That means the model is problematic 8. The economic analysis in support of Remain excludes the risk of a massive Eurozone shock, e.g. Italy banks defaulting is not in their base case. Now, maybe that’s fair for a base case. But in considering what may happen it is worth accounting for whether we would rather be in or out of the EU should the Eurozone go really wrong (we’d be affected either way but would have more control over our response if out) 9. Most of the economic analysis underplays the gains from Remain, e.g. by simply ignoring the potential from deregulation. (Open Europe – which is roughly netural on economics overall – is an exception, in including these gains) 10. Most of the economic analysis in favour of Remain either ignores or is very pessimistic on the chances of the UK striking trade deals with third countries. That is a point of view but let’s not call it economic – it is political. Personally I feel that the UK would do well here, as one of the most free traded minded countries in the world 11. Finally, the analysis fails the smell test. The EU is struggling economically and those countries outside it are doing well. This doesn’t necessarily mean that is because they are not in the EU, but at the very least it suggests membership is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for prosperity
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
I think it did: Henry VIII got a bit frustrated by it and invoked the mediaeval equivalent of Article 50.
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
I would welcome that if we can get it, but the EU mindset no longer allows for it. THe free movement of people now flows, in its mind, directly from the Treaties, even pre-Maastricht. The package of rights is, well, a package.
I was also told Merkel has a contingency plan for Brexit involving offering the UK a form of associate membership. Cameron will fly out there within days to save his job. The US will help broker with the rest of the EU.
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
This sounds like what Boris Johnson was trying to argue when he first came out for the Leave campaign. Is he your senior source? For me, that would be the ideal situation. I just don't know whether to believe it as it could be wishful thinking or self-serving propaganda.
I won't reveal my source, but i'm not lying as to what he told me.
You will have to take your own view as to whether Britain will be high & dry (a clean, but dramatic, break) or whether the EU and HMG will look for a practical, but politically sustainable, alternative on the table.
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
I think it did: Henry VIII got a bit frustrated by it and invoked the mediaeval equivalent of Article 50.
Hmmmm... I guess it had a supranational role qua marriages.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
The Holy Roman Empire was a supranational body of sorts? Also the Catholic Church.
Yes - why do you think
a) German princely states tried very hard over the centuries to whittle away the Holy Roman Empire's authority over them (and successfully did so - there was a long process of 'HREXIT')?
b) Medieval kings frequently got very angry with the Catholic church, and Henry VIII of England angry enough to split from it entirely.
Because, inter alia, these bodies reduced their effective sovereignty and ability to enforce a consistent system of justice and even obstructed crucially important dynastic decisions.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Of course there would be a reaction.
Most of the proclaimed downsides also have potential upsides though, whether on a broad level or on an individual level for citizens.
Some people will gain if house prices fall as OKC pointed out earlier. Some businesses and economic sectors will gain if the currency falls. Some employees will gain from changed labour market conditions. Some individual families will gain if housing pressures decrease.
Remain should acknowledge that.
"In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Most studies suggest that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
The Holy Roman Empire was a supranational body of sorts? Also the Catholic Church.
Yes - why do you think
a) German princely states tried very hard over the centuries to whittle away the Holy Roman Empire's authority over them (and successfully did so - there was a long process of 'HREXIT')?
b) Medieval kings frequently got very angry with the Catholic church, and Henry VIII of England angry enough to split from it entirely.
Because, inter alia, these bodies reduced their effective sovereignty and ability to enforce a consistent system of justice and even obstructed crucially important dynastic decisions.
Although the Holy Roman Empire effectively became Germany - albeit on a 300 year view - so I'm not 100% comfortable with that analogy.
You are making an assumption that Great Britain PLC will be undervalued after the Brexit shock. Supposing it's not, supposing we just become poorer and then have to live again with stagflation.
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
I'm not sure your recollection re ERM membership is correct. I have a collection of essays on the subject from 1990, with pieces by Sir Alan Walters and others. The collection was split 50:50.
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
I think it did: Henry VIII got a bit frustrated by it and invoked the mediaeval equivalent of Article 50.
Cardinal Wolsey was even worse at renegotiations than Cameron.
John Harris stuff on the GE last year was very good. This seems good piece for those that actually visit "real" America, especially middle America, not NY or Disneyland, or worse still think they know America while living 99.9% of their lives in Islington.
You are making an assumption that Great Britain PLC will be undervalued after the Brexit shock. Supposing it's not, supposing we just become poorer and then have to live again with stagflation.
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
Re; The IMF claims today and the BoE Governor yesterday....it doesn't take a leading economist to understand that a Brexit vote would severely harm the economy in the short term.
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
And if that were to happen, others would see things were getting undervalued, and buy. It's called the market, you might wish to familiarise yourself with it.
I'm saying that the market will establish the true value of UK PLC, whether we Leave or Remain. That's not a risk, it's a certainty.
4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20%
Your responses are interesting, and make a fair case.
However, I don't think the specific point I've quoted holds up. The financial markets almost certainly think the probability of a Leave result is lower than 33%, and in any case the 20% Goldman Sachs figure was their worst-case forecast, not a central forecast. The market falls to date and typical predictions of a 10% to 15% fall in sterling on a Leave result look very consistent.
it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
So we are a Sovereign Nation (glad we got that cleared up) but there is a very specific definition of sovereignty that you want to change.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
Nope. That is not what it says at all. The fact that a supranational body interferes in the legal process of our own country clearly indicates that - as far as the founding principle of nation states is concerned - we are not currently sovereign.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Did the Westphalian treaties say anything at all about supranational bodies? The concept didn't exist at the time.
Wasn't the Commission on the Rhine a supranational body dating back almostthat far?
Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't believe the Catholic Church had the right to overrule governments, but the Commission on the Rhine certainly did. (Albeit within a very narrow remit.)
The Investiture Controversy and related conflicts saw both sides claim the right to meddle in each others' affairs.
While the Church didn't claim a direct right to overrule governments (except in matters that affected the church itself), the threat and use of excommunication were potent weapons with which to influence policy and appointments indirectly.
There deserves to be an answer to those who ask why Leave is going against expert opinion:
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty 2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers 3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit 4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20% 5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
I think you will find the EU is currently not in recession. Britain has entered its third since 2009.
Comments
Economics is about sentiment...it is a social science that lends as much to psychology than it does to mathematics. Of course global economic sentiments would blow against the UK for a while after a Brexit vote- causing a withdrawal from sterling and UK stocks and the UK to be poorer which will impact on economic growth and employment.
What no-one can say is how long such a shock will last, but outers have to at least recognise the reality of the situation and say that this is a price worth paying.
Paradoxically a Leave vote may lead to a surge in European migration in the 2 year window before Brexit happens.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/731098229404778496
Plan 1 only works if something is offered on migration.
I spoke to a senior member of Vote Leave about this. I suggested a reversion to the pre-Maastrict situation of free movement for workers, but not citizens. We could also introduce some form of registration charge as rcs has suggested in the past, plus an emergency brake as Norway already has with the EEA (but has never used)
He agreed.
PS. He told me the Swiss will get some form of a deal on free migration with the EU too but only after the Brexit vote.
Broadly speaking, migrants circulate. They come in, stay for a while, then go back. Some of them keep cycling repeatedly, some do it just once. Even those who stay for decades may send their kids back to stay with their grans for a while to pick up the local culture. Imposition of migrant freezes prevent them from circulating out (in case they can't get back in), and encourage some to enter quickly (before the banhammer comes down). Hence the paradoxical increase in numbers over the 2-5yr range.
Please note that I'm not stopping you from thinking that freeze are the way to reduce migration: long-term, plainly they are. I am telling you that they cause a paradoxical increase in the shortmedium term.
If you don't believe me you can check this with the Migration Observatory at Oxford, who noted the phenomenon some years back.
I would also trust a retired BofE Governor than one who is still in the job, beholden to others and potential future lucrative job offers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3587921/The-15th-century-apocalypse-map-hell-revealed-Long-forgotten-manuscript-makes-terrifying-predictions-doomsday.html
Tomorrows claim for what will happen if we vote for BREXIT...
here is the hint. It is the difference between a not being in a treaty and being in a treaty. As long as we are inside the TFEU we have no protection against the terms of that treaty.
Most of the proclaimed downsides also have potential upsides though, whether on a broad level or on an individual level for citizens.
Some people will gain if house prices fall as OKC pointed out earlier.
Some businesses and economic sectors will gain if the currency falls.
Some employees will gain from changed labour market conditions.
Some individual families will gain if housing pressures decrease.
Remain should acknowledge that.
But I also think that the short-term shock has been grossly overplayed. I pretty much expect markets to bounce back most of the way once they realize that, in the very short term, nothing much is different.
I would suggest you educate yourself on the basis of national sovereignty by looking up "Westphalian Sovereignty". This is the underlying principle of national sovereignty and underpins the basis of the nation state today. All experts are clear that organisations like the EU which can directly interfere with the laws of a state remove national sovereignty.
And before you try to claim this is somehow an outdatedconcept, it is the very foundation of the existence of nation states as they are recognised in treaties.
Personally, I think there are people who will want to Leave but are too scared to do it, but won't be able to bring themselves to vote for the EU, so will just abstain.
@JohnRentoul: Groupthink and confirmation bias https://t.co/2cRs8A66hK
Take it as you will but I heard this from a well informed very senior member of VL.
could be wrong. It's happened.
Well, the Sovereign will of the British people will be expressed soon enough
I'm delighted for those with children.
Iceland, out of the EU and thriving.
It shouldn't be a surprise. Even the arch-Federalist Jacques Delors offered the UK a 'privileged partnership' based on trade many years ago.
The resistance to this kind of deal comes not from the side of our European neighbours, as the REMAIN side always claims, but rather from the UK political elite and bureaucracy - which want continued political integration even if they are loathe to say so publicly.
Also, it is much easier for the Leave side to say that Remain will result in a rise in immigration than it is for Remain to say it will result in a fall in immigration of over 100k that is required to bring them a 3-5% swing. If Leave were to hammer home the current extra 200,000 migrants per year that haven't been included in the official stats plus more in the event of Remain then it could win the referendum, there is up to an 8% swing there IMO for Leave to grab.
I assume you are having difficulty understanding some of these basic concepts, hence your rather ill informed claims.
Oh, wait...
The Sovereign will of the British People is about to be expressed in a referendum.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
and @MTimtT too- good reply too
But don't listen to me. Listen to Ashoka Mody, a former senior IMF official -
'Echoing Cameron, proponents for Europe say that Britain will incur severe economic costs by leaving the European Union. Britain’s trade with Europe will collapse, they say, and the City of London will lose its preeminence. Claims of dire consequences by business executives are particularly unreliable. In 1999, Adair Turner, then director general of the Confederation of Business and Industry supported Britain joining the euro. Now the number crunchers torture the data to show that British productivity could decline precipitously. This is economic nonsense.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/Leading_business_story/why-boris-johnson-is-right-about-europe-a6909811.html
Former would be scrapped.and latter caveated.
Regardless, we just play our "ah but that's Ever Closer Union" joker.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/05/lord-ashcroft-my-eu-referendum-focus-groups-visit-nottingham-loughborough-and-southampton.html
Summary - no one is coming out of this with much credit (except perhaps Mark Carney).
I think there's a fool here and it's not Richard Tyndall.
Thanks for the reply.
An honest man.
We could have a referendum on EU membership, or Arsene Wenger's ennoblement, every fourth Thursday if we wanted to.
If Richard was right (he's not) the referendum would make no difference as our Supra-natural masters would still be in control
That is such patent nonsense I am bored of discussing it now
Optimistic, I think!
Someone clearly isn't swallowing the Remain propaganda whole.
Edit: Beaten to the draw by @Wanderer!
1. The ‘experts’ are largely only talking about economics. Some are about talking about security (and those are more split) but none are talking about immigration, democracy or sovereignty
2. Even if the economic analysis which is down on Brexit is true, it is not all that significant. HMT’s report said we would grow by ~30% to 2030 versus ~36%. It is very understandable that people would think that’s a worthwhile trade off if it means we can control immigration and regain sovereignty. It is the rhetoric of the likes of Lagarde and Carney which has run ahead of the numbers
3. But it is actually not the case that all economic analysis has come out for Remain. Most has but not all. The IEA, Open Europe, CEBR, Capital Economics and Europe Economics all have positive scenarios for Brexit
4. Furthermore the actual behaviour of people in the market doesn’t support the wilder claims. The Bank of England yesterday said that half of the pound’s 9% devaluation since November could be explained by Brexit anxiety. That’s 4.5%. That’s at a time when the markets think it’s 33% likely we’ll exit, so the total ‘devaluation’ would be 13.5%. Not Goldman’s 20%
5. Those experts who are more vocal about Brexit are more likely to be from institutions that can reasonably be seen as part of the international elite. People who work in the IMF, OECD, LSE, Bank, Goldmans… are quite interchangeable with the types who work in the EU. This doesn’t mean their analysis carries no weight but it is wrong as well to see them as 100% objective. I have met many academics but very few who I would consider fully put aside their politics. And most of these people are politically committed to the EU as a project, including its associations with internationalisation and cross border migration. (This is before we even got on the the tens of millions of funding that the likes of PWC and LSE have received from the EU)
6. It is a fact that nearly every economist supported ERM membership and most (though a lower number) supported euro membership. We took their advice on the first but not on the second. In both cases the eurosceptic viewpoint was vindicated.
7. Not only were they wrong before but if you used these gravity models today they would point to the conclusion that the UK should today join the euro. That means the model is problematic
8. The economic analysis in support of Remain excludes the risk of a massive Eurozone shock, e.g. Italy banks defaulting is not in their base case. Now, maybe that’s fair for a base case. But in considering what may happen it is worth accounting for whether we would rather be in or out of the EU should the Eurozone go really wrong (we’d be affected either way but would have more control over our response if out)
9. Most of the economic analysis underplays the gains from Remain, e.g. by simply ignoring the potential from deregulation. (Open Europe – which is roughly netural on economics overall – is an exception, in including these gains)
10. Most of the economic analysis in favour of Remain either ignores or is very pessimistic on the chances of the UK striking trade deals with third countries. That is a point of view but let’s not call it economic – it is political. Personally I feel that the UK would do well here, as one of the most free traded minded countries in the world
11. Finally, the analysis fails the smell test. The EU is struggling economically and those countries outside it are doing well. This doesn’t necessarily mean that is because they are not in the EU, but at the very least it suggests membership is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for prosperity
You will have to take your own view as to whether Britain will be high & dry (a clean, but dramatic, break) or whether the EU and HMG will look for a practical, but politically sustainable, alternative on the table.
I have my own view.
Don't let anyone from Goldman Sachs hear you compare them to EU beauracrats!
a) German princely states tried very hard over the centuries to whittle away the Holy Roman Empire's authority over them (and successfully did so - there was a long process of 'HREXIT')?
b) Medieval kings frequently got very angry with the Catholic church, and Henry VIII of England angry enough to split from it entirely.
Because, inter alia, these bodies reduced their effective sovereignty and ability to enforce a consistent system of justice and even obstructed crucially important dynastic decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
Or do you mean parliament is sovereign, not the people?
For me it's a risk I'd rather not take. I've already lost a shed of load of cash on currency transactions because of this damned vote, I don't particularly want to take the chance with the rest of my assets thank you very much.
I'm not sure your recollection re ERM membership is correct. I have a collection of essays on the subject from 1990, with pieces by Sir Alan Walters and others. The collection was split 50:50.
http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/tribunal-fines-barrister-pestered-women-chambers-summer-party
John Harris stuff on the GE last year was very good. This seems good piece for those that actually visit "real" America, especially middle America, not NY or Disneyland, or worse still think they know America while living 99.9% of their lives in Islington.
However, I don't think the specific point I've quoted holds up. The financial markets almost certainly think the probability of a Leave result is lower than 33%, and in any case the 20% Goldman Sachs figure was their worst-case forecast, not a central forecast. The market falls to date and typical predictions of a 10% to 15% fall in sterling on a Leave result look very consistent.
While the Church didn't claim a direct right to overrule governments (except in matters that affected the church itself), the threat and use of excommunication were potent weapons with which to influence policy and appointments indirectly.