Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
That was all about breaking up our very nationhood. This referendum on the other hand is about leaving an exceedingly expensive and bureaucratic club ..... not the same thing at all and none of the same passion involved. Hence the much lower turnout of ..... I would say between cough 60.5% - 63.5%.
Invoking Article 50 itself does not require a parliamentary vote, but that the (inevitable and ultimate) repeal of the European Communities Act does.
If Cameron did not invoke Article 50 within - say - 10 days, does anyone think he would avoid a challenge? And survive a challenge?
You are right that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the Conservative government not accepting the result of the referendum. The party has been split for years, has agreed to disagree, and has ended up with everyone accepting that the only way to resolve the issue is through the referendum. Whichever side they are on, pretty much everyone is going to accept the result - as you rightly point out, it would be electoral suicide not to to do so (not to mention impossible within the party itself). For that matter, I think MPs from other parties would mostly agree.
Whether Article 50 would be invoked as quickly as you suggest is less clear to me. I don't think there would be a long delay (because apart from anything else, we'd need to get this over with before bumping up against the next election). On the other hand, there's a strong argument for allowing a bit of time for preliminary discussions with out EU friends, and for discussions with the government, party and country at large as to what sort of deal we should be seeking. The two-year deadline is already tight.
Yep.
Discussions with countries outside the EU that we need trade agreements with, then preliminary ones with EU itself, then invoke Article 50 at least two years before General Election due.
'cept the UK will have two years to discuss new terms; everything can and would come out during that time. I don't think the electorate would stand for negotiations about negotiations; they would see it as a weasel.
I don't think they will care.
If the PM flies off to Berlin for a discussion, whether preliminary or not, then they will be ok. They won't bother about whether Article 50 has been invoked or not.
I think following a Leave vote, the press will be full of and will dissect Article 50, its whys and wherefores and nothing else.
In that environment I think the PM will be under pressure.
May be. But it doesn't really matter.
If they have a deal 95% done after 2 years, they will extend the negotiation period in order to finish it.
I've participated in a 60 day negotiation that took 18 months before...
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
I'd never thought of Richard Nixon as a political betting pundit, but I think he was spot-on in this quote (about the attempts to prevent Barry Goldwater becoming GOP nominee in 1964):
It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, "Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X."
chestnut - noted the 10/10 certainty but these are AFAIK self certifying so an optimistic young person says 10/10 "I will vote" whereas in reality they are closer to a 1 in 3 chance of voting. Or do you see it differently?
They all use different scales to assess likelihood so it's hard to read across. ORB has 52% (Very likely/definite) but only 22% (definite) among 18-24 year olds. TNS is lower on both markers, while ICM have 42% at 10/10 on the net. It's a game of assumption.
Thanks, that ORB 52% for 18-24 is optimistic/wrong!
BBC in full on naval gazing mode on R5....Considering 6 proposals involving news, in which one is to merge two rolling 24hr new channels into 1 is NOT the #1 news story going on in the world today.
Oh and all the food recipe nonsense...they are going to put them on their BBC Good Food commercial site...it is all posturing.
I never thought I would say this but I'm warming to Boris. I don't know who is writing his jokes but they are quite funny and this campaign desperately needs a little humour. I see he has smartened himself up and even his hair looks tidier. No wonder No 10 were spitting with fury when he went for OUT. REMAIN would be so far in front now had he led that campaign and the PM could have stayed on the sidelines and not get his hands dirty.
If they have a deal 95% done after 2 years, they will extend the negotiation period in order to finish it.
I wouldn't be 100% sure of that. Some of the 27 other countries whose consent is required would be certain to want a chunky price. Greece in particular could use it as a great extortion tool.
On the remain side, how about a poster campaign showing beautiful parts of Europe with the slogan 'Your EU'?
What about something depicting EU members as members of a family, who fall out, squabble and generally annoy each other, but ultimately rely on one another and stick together in the face of adversity? Blood is thicker than water, and all that. I'm struggling to put this into pictorial form though!
As a question, not entirely innocent, how close does the brains trust think is the correlation between turnout and result in the referendum? ie can Remain win on a turnout of 55%? Can Leave win on a turnout of 65%?
Not straightforward in my view. The most relevant demographic scales, I think, are age and social class. Older people (very strong Leave) are more likely to vote than younger people (strong Remain). AB social classes (strong Remain) are more likely to vote than CDE's (strong Leave). It comes down to whether more 25 - 40 year old Mums and Dads (Remain) vote than social class C supposed Daily Mail readers (Leave).
A problem for both sides in this area is that overblown statements have become the norm. Any poster saying Beware X will need to overcome the fact that people think both sides are exaggerating a best and plain lying at worst.
On the remain side, how about a poster campaign showing beautiful parts of Europe with the slogan 'Your EU'?
What about something depicting EU members as members of a family, who fall out, squabble and generally annoy each other, but ultimately rely on one another and stick together in the face of adversity? Blood is thicker than water, and all that. I'm struggling to put this into pictorial form though!
The BES were the only one to correctly predict the 2015 GE (they do face-to-face interviews and repeatedly contact everyone in their original sample, which gets over most pollsters' problems with disinterested voters not answering requests).
This will go down to the wire.
There are very good reasons for ethnic minority voters to vote Leave.
I never thought I would say this but I'm warming to Boris. I don't know who is writing his jokes but they are quite funny and this campaign desperately needs a little humour. I see he has smartened himself up and even his hair looks tidier. No wonder No 10 were spitting with fury when he went for OUT. REMAIN would be so far in front now had he led that campaign and the PM could have stayed on the sidelines and not get his hands dirty.
We are pleased to confirm that the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru groups have today contacted the Presiding Officer in order to recall the Assembly tomorrow, and proceed with the nomination procedure for First Minister. This will allow the successful nomination of Carwyn Jones as First Minister, and the establishment of a Labour Minority Administration.
This follows constructive and positive talks about the parties’ shared priorities for the coming Assembly, and future working arrangements.
The First Minister will set out tomorrow the next Government’s intentions for the first 100 days, including a commitment to prioritise those areas that enjoy support from across most of the Assembly.
If they have a deal 95% done after 2 years, they will extend the negotiation period in order to finish it.
I wouldn't be 100% sure of that. Some of the 27 other countries whose consent is required would be certain to want a chunky price. Greece in particular could use it as a great extortion tool.
I agree. The guillotine will happen after two years because it will be too difficult to stop it. That doesn't prevent loose ends being wrapped up in a protocol, the Eurocrat's favourite tool.
I could see Cameron firing off Article 50 and then jumping out the way.
And over on BBC news......tumbleweed....unless you dig right down into the depths of the website to find "PM and Boris at odds over business backing"
It's a really feeble story, a total yawn. 'PM seeks business backing from lots of companies for his position. A lot of them agree with him. Boris come up with a good joke.' Yeah, right, I'm sure that's really going to shake up the contest in Leave's favour.
The fact that some Leavers are getting excited about this nonsense is another interesting manifestation of what by now is the familiar phenomenon of them losing their sense of perspective.
Mr. K, if those trust stats are accurate (a significant 'if') that's pretty bad for Remain, and could explain figures which earlier suggested the uncertain are splitting more heavily for Leave.
Mr. K, if those trust stats are accurate (a significant 'if') that's pretty bad for Remain, and could explain figures which earlier suggested the uncertain are splitting more heavily for Leave.
I can't imagine why people wouldn't trust such an upstanding character as George Osborne.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Just been reading the newest draft, some of the GDP section has been filled out, this was the most interesting part.
Three scenarios of "completely out" have been modelled.
A Labour victory (1)
A continuation of the Conservative government under DC (2)
A Conservative government led by a new leader with a new mandate from the people (3)
Under all scenarios there is an immediate 3% GDP drop over two years.
1 - after the two year period, the economy will stabilise but we're still out of the EU and the Labour government won't take us back in and neither would it seek EEA membership having lost that vote as well. We don't expect that Labour will be aggressive in chasing trade liberalisation and we expect the unions to push for more protectionism for their members, overall trend growth under this scenario falls from 2.5% (current) to 1.9% as the EU retaliates to Labour's protectionism.
2 - there will be a big government stimulus to support the economy, Dave's government will be timid in securing new trade deals with Asia and other emerging markets, but Dave feels he has to make the best of a bad situation and resolves to restore free trade in goods and services with the EU, but with no say over single market rules in return for the restrictive immigration policy that the public voted in favour of. Essentially Single Market "Observer" status. Trend growth returns to about 2.5%.
3 - we have written in Boris as the PM but it could well be anyone else. Under this scenario the PM is highly aggressive in chasing down and winning new trade deals across emerging markets but basically ignores EU trade as they are unwilling to offer free trade to the new Leave PM at all. The UK economy becomes more like an Asian city state economy, open to the whims of global growth, so we benefit more when global GDP rises, but suffer more when it falls or stagnates. Under this scenario we don't restore normal/current trading relations with the EU for around 8-10 years and we agree a deal similar to Switzerland in the end, but with better terms on migration than the Swiss. Trend growth is around 2.5% also in this scenario. We also have the smallest modelled current account deficit under this model.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt as it is all theoretical and modelled under "ideal" circumstances. Overall it is interesting, vastly different to the Treasury model. Under no scenario do we lose £200bn in trade or £200bn in investment, even in the least good scenario we still do pretty well.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
It's the highest turnout in Britain since universal sufferage.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Most recent Turkish general election just edged above it, but I don't know what the franchise is in Turkey.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
A good poster would be of all the politicians, FTSE supporters, CBI and TUC pointing and laughing at a common script and chinking champagne glasses next to some normal people who look dejected, and defeated.
Caption: "Your future, or theirs?"
#Vote Leave
They should engage Marf, who used to do cartoons here regularly. I remember her classic one after the banking bailout which stands the test of time. Two suave, pleasant-looking bankers are sitting in armchairs, sipping champagne. One says, "I've never actually met a taxpayer, but I must say they're jolly generous."
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Gibraltar 88% in 2002 Falklands 91% in 2013 Crimea 97% in 2014 (controversial!!)
Places with more than 3 people living it and without guns pointed at heads for preference.
Good stuff Roger. The advertising slant really provides a different angle to think about it. The foresight of the Saatchi focus group with the Demon Eyes- how prescient.
The world would be a lot different if we had not helped destabilise both Iraq and Libya. Just think no Isis, no migrant issue. If we could turn the clock back we would have continued to arm both Saddam and Gaddafi instead of get rid of them
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Gibraltar 88% in 2002 Falklands 91% in 2013 Crimea 97% in 2014 (controversial!!)
Places with more than 3 people living it and without guns pointed at heads for preference.
oops. looked in the wrong column for Crimea - was more like 83%.
Re: Turnout at the referendum - worth a thread or two to debate it Moderators
Oct 1974 GE = 72.8% 1975 referendum = 65% May 2015 GE = 66.4%. 2016 referendum = ??
Now why are people expecting something close to GE2015's 66%? 1/10 less would take it down to 60%.
In late June more folk are away on holiday than early May and uni students are (mainly) away from their uni accomodation and back home or on hols themselves.
The recent May 2016 scottish parliament vote was just 55.6% and Scots in recent times have been voting above UK levels of turnout.
But in September 2014, Scots turnout was massive 81%?
85%
Whoa that's high!
I'd love to know what the theoretical highest turnout could have been. With double registrations due to students and the like, deaths between registration and voting day and other reasons I wonder how close to 100% we could have got.
Does anyone here know of a higher turnout recorded anywhere outside North Korea? Given the variables of deaths, double registrations, people moving house etc. is it possible to get a higher turnout in a genuinely democratic country?
Most recent Turkish general election just edged above it, but I don't know what the franchise is in Turkey.
Just been reading the newest draft, some of the GDP section has been filled out, this was the most interesting part.
Three scenarios of "completely out" have been modelled.
A Labour victory (1)
A continuation of the Conservative government under DC (2)
A Conservative government led by a new leader with a new mandate from the people (3)
Under all scenarios there is an immediate 3% GDP drop over two years.
1 - after the two year period, the economy will stabilise but we're still out of the EU and the Labour government won't take us back in and neither would it seek EEA membership having lost that vote as well. We don't expect that Labour will be aggressive in chasing trade liberalisation and we expect the unions to push for more protectionism for their members, overall trend growth under this scenario falls from 2.5% (current) to 1.9% as the EU retaliates to Labour's protectionism.
2 - there will be a big government stimulus to support the economy, Dave's government will be timid in securing new trade deals with Asia and other emerging markets, but Dave feels he has to make the best of a bad situation and resolves to restore free trade in goods and services with the EU, but with no say over single market rules in return for the restrictive immigration policy that the public voted in favour of. Essentially Single Market "Observer" status. Trend growth returns to about 2.5%.
3 - we have written in Boris as the PM but it could well be anyone else. Under this scenario the PM is highly aggressive in chasing down and winning new trade deals across emerging markets but basically ignores EU trade as they are unwilling to offer free trade to the new Leave PM at all. The UK economy becomes more like an Asian city state economy, open to the whims of global growth, so we benefit more when global GDP rises, but suffer more when it falls or stagnates. Under this scenario we don't restore normal/current trading relations with the EU for around 8-10 years and we agree a deal similar to Switzerland in the end, but with better terms on migration than the Swiss. Trend growth is around 2.5% also in this scenario. We also have the smallest modelled current account deficit under this model.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt as it is all theoretical and modelled under "ideal" circumstances. Overall it is interesting, vastly different to the Treasury model. Under no scenario do we lose £200bn in trade or £200bn in investment, even in the least good scenario we still do pretty well.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
For those who have not yet seen it, a good article on the difficulties of polling the US Presidential election with the Trump effect - inter alia, if he is brining new voters to the polls (both to vote for him and against him), how do you capture and weight that?
Miss Vance, seeking agreement doesn't require EU membership. That's like arguing having sex requires a wedding. Not only is it not necessary for frisky time to occur, it actually means the other person might just say no but you don't get to go and enjoy yourself with someone else [a slightly tortured metaphor for trade agreements].
It's like the Remain comments about travel, or intra-continental trade. The idea the EU is necessary for these things to exist is palpable nonsense, but the implication is left hanging there by some on the Remain side.
That, and overblown comments that are hastily rewritten in speeches to try and stop people laughing at the speaker, just mean people have less faith in the veracity of other claims.
I do hope that Roger is taking notes on how he might better do his job. The level of knowledge on what makes an effective advertisement is remarkable. Clearly, like teaching, it's something anybody can do well.
They say everyone wants to direct. I suspect it's more true to say everyone wants to be in control. I get a script and try to make it look good and make sense. The brief and the the idea are the work of the agency planners and creatives.
I can spot a good script and I can spot a bad one and being a director I get listened to. But they're the ones who start with a blank piece of paper and just reading through this thread shows that it isn't easy. Some people just have an ability to see things outside of the box. Someone on here posted the Cadbury Smash Martian ad the other day. Not the kind of thing that just floats into your head when you're having a shower
Just been reading the newest draft, some of the GDP section has been filled out, this was the most interesting part.
Three scenarios of "completely out" have been modelled.
A Labour victory (1)
A continuation of the Conservative government under DC (2)
A Conservative government led by a new leader with a new mandate from the people (3)
Under all scenarios there is an immediate 3% GDP drop over two years.
1 - after the two year period, the economy will stabilise but we're still out of the EU and the Labour government won't take us back in and neither would it seek EEA membership having lost that vote as well. We don't expect that Labour will be aggressive in chasing trade liberalisation and we expect the unions to push for more protectionism for their members, overall trend growth under this scenario falls from 2.5% (current) to 1.9% as the EU retaliates to Labour's protectionism.
2 - there will be a big government stimulus to support the economy, Dave's government will be timid in securing new trade deals with Asia and other emerging markets, but Dave feels he has to make the best of a bad situation and resolves to restore free trade in goods and services with the EU, but with no say over single market rules in return for the restrictive immigration policy that the public voted in favour of. Essentially Single Market "Observer" status. Trend growth returns to about 2.5%.
3 - we have written in Boris as the PM but it could well be anyone else. Under this scenario the PM is highly aggressive in chasing down and winning new trade deals across emerging markets but basically ignores EU trade as they are unwilling to offer free trade to the new Leave PM at all. The UK economy becomes more like an Asian city state economy, open to the whims of global growth, so we benefit more when global GDP rises, but suffer more when it falls or stagnates. Under this scenario we don't restore normal/current trading relations with the EU for around 8-10 years and we agree a deal similar to Switzerland in the end, but with better terms on migration than the Swiss. Trend growth is around 2.5% also in this scenario. We also have the smallest modelled current account deficit under this model.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt as it is all theoretical and modelled under "ideal" circumstances. Overall it is interesting, vastly different to the Treasury model. Under no scenario do we lose £200bn in trade or £200bn in investment, even in the least good scenario we still do pretty well.
How is the modelling being done, Max?
I'm not sure, I just have the draft report with the findings rather than the model.
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
Thought you where against project fear tactics.
Project Fear is saying that LEAVING would be an unmitigated disaster.
Would it still be Project Fear if it proves to be an accurate assessment, or is that possibility entirely discounted by Leavers?
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
On the remain side, how about a poster campaign showing beautiful parts of Europe with the slogan 'Your EU'?
We're not leaving Europe, just the the EU.
Maybe but it would make all those places just a bit more 'foreign' than they are if your passport says European Union on it. They will be 'theirs' not 'ours'. It's an emotional appeal.
I'm dusting off my old British passport.
It has a lifelong USA visa which could be useful too.
A good poster would be of all the politicians, FTSE supporters, CBI and TUC pointing and laughing at a common script and chinking champagne glasses next to some normal people who look dejected, and defeated.
Caption: "Your future, or theirs?"
#Vote Leave
They should engage Marf, who used to do cartoons here regularly. I remember her classic one after the banking bailout which stands the test of time. Two suave, pleasant-looking bankers are sitting in armchairs, sipping champagne. One says, "I've never actually met a taxpayer, but I must say they're jolly generous."
Did she reprint and reword it slightly at the time of the MP's expenses?
Miss Vance, seeking agreement doesn't require EU membership. That's like arguing having sex requires a wedding. Not only is it not necessary for frisky time to occur, it actually means the other person might just say no but you don't get to go and enjoy yourself with someone else [a slightly tortured metaphor for trade agreements].
It's like the Remain comments about travel, or intra-continental trade. The idea the EU is necessary for these things to exist is palpable nonsense, but the implication is left hanging there by some on the Remain side.
That, and overblown comments that are hastily rewritten in speeches to try and stop people laughing at the speaker, just mean people have less faith in the veracity of other claims.
Mr. T, quite. The undertone of suggesting those who have the temerity to hold the wrong view only do so because they don't understand the real world is especially charming.
Edited extra bit: thanks, Miss Plato. Just rewriting some Sir Edric stuff (which tends to have quite a lot of frisky metaphors and so forth).
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
I suspect that Tomkins adheres to the Blair doctrine of a post Westphalian world. It is a not a view that most people subscribe to. Nor does sovereignty preclude agreement. All it says is that the decision on agreement ultimately rests with the nation state not with a supra-national body.
So I would suggest it is Tomkins who misunderstands the nature of sovereignty - or rather he chooses to interpret it in a particular way to suit his world view. .
Procedural question. Is the Article 50 notification something that actually needs to be voted on in Parliament, or is it something the govt can declare?
They can declare it, but there seems some doubt on whether they'd do so right away. Say Cameron resigns immediately. There is then a caretaker government (still led by Cameron maybe - who is his deputy?). There will be a new government after the Tory leadership election, but that will take months. Should Cameron or his deputy really start the process and begin negotiations on something they oppose? Would anyone (including the EU partners) trust them to make appropriate decisions that wouldn't be reversed by the successor?
It seems more reasonable to set up a big working group to prepare the ground for the incoming PM, listing all the decisions to be made and issues to be resolved.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
Yes - it's really remarkable how difficult people find it to understand this very basic point. Including people who claim to have a scientific background.
Back to the referendum, and I had a chat with a REMAINish client this week who wanted to quiz me on the Treasury study.
'Aren't their results coming from their economic models?' he asked.
'How seriously would you take a model that could produce a result of 0% trade growth or 200%, depending on quite small changes to how you set things up' I replied.
Bit rich considering that Nevada's inability to arrange a caucus may have denied Sanders a crucial win early on. (It probably didn't but the margin would certainly have been closer had all those who wanted to attend been able to).
Just been reading the newest draft, some of the GDP section has been filled out, this was the most interesting part.
Three scenarios of "completely out" have been modelled.
A Labour victory (1)
A continuation of the Conservative government under DC (2)
A Conservative government led by a new leader with a new mandate from the people (3)
Under all scenarios there is an immediate 3% GDP drop over two years.
1 - after the two year period, the economy will stabilise but we're still out of the EU and the Labour government won't take us back in and neither would it seek EEA membership having lost that vote as well. We don't expect that Labour will be aggressive in chasing trade liberalisation and we expect the unions to push for more protectionism for their members, overall trend growth under this scenario falls from 2.5% (current) to 1.9% as the EU retaliates to Labour's protectionism.
2 - there will be a big government stimulus to support the economy, Dave's government will be timid in securing new trade deals with Asia and other emerging markets, but Dave feels he has to make the best of a bad situation and resolves to restore free trade in goods and services with the EU, but with no say over single market rules in return for the restrictive immigration policy that the public voted in favour of. Essentially Single Market "Observer" status. Trend growth returns to about 2.5%.
3 - we have written in Boris as the PM but it could well be anyone else. Under this scenario the PM is highly aggressive in chasing down and winning new trade deals across emerging markets but basically ignores EU trade as they are unwilling to offer free trade to the new Leave PM at all. The UK economy becomes more like an Asian city state economy, open to the whims of global growth, so we benefit more when global GDP rises, but suffer more when it falls or stagnates. Under this scenario we don't restore normal/current trading relations with the EU for around 8-10 years and we agree a deal similar to Switzerland in the end, but with better terms on migration than the Swiss. Trend growth is around 2.5% also in this scenario. We also have the smallest modelled current account deficit under this model.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt as it is all theoretical and modelled under "ideal" circumstances. Overall it is interesting, vastly different to the Treasury model. Under no scenario do we lose £200bn in trade or £200bn in investment, even in the least good scenario we still do pretty well.
How is the modelling being done, Max?
I'm not sure, I just have the draft report with the findings rather than the model.
OK - will this end up in the public domain at all?
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Good stuff Roger. The advertising slant really provides a different angle to think about it. The foresight of the Saatchi focus group with the Demon Eyes- how prescient.
The world would be a lot different if we had not helped destabilise both Iraq and Libya. Just think no Isis, no migrant issue. If we could turn the clock back we would have continued to arm both Saddam and Gaddafi instead of get rid of them
Thanks tyson. Funnily enough when I first wrote that thing about 'Demon Eyes' I started out by saying it proved another advertising truth. Timing is everything.
10 years late and it would have been an award winner
The trouble with the assorted: -EU is crap -EU is bureaucratic -EU has our politicians by the short and curlies and even -EU is costly poster ideas is IMO that people already think these things. Even most convinced Remainers think these things. So there seems little point in posters to further convince people. The aim needs to be to turn these notions into the act of voting (or not voting for your opponent). How do these things affect me? How will they affect me in the future?
It needs to appeal to their cuddly side - what harm it's done to youth employment et al. And how reluctant Remainers are dogs-in-the-manger stopping keen EU countries from fully merging. It's essentially selfish and obstructive.
How about a series:
a photo of riots in Greece with the message "1 in 2 young Greeks are unemployed. Thank EU."
and then follow up with similar messages
That's the sort of thing, emotive and personal. IMO Leave aren't playing this riff nearly enough - too much about us/technical.
Thought you where against project fear tactics.
Project Fear is saying that LEAVING would be an unmitigated disaster.
Would it still be Project Fear if it proves to be an accurate assessment, or is that possibility entirely discounted by Leavers?
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
And it took the bloodiest war in US history to enforce the dominant view.
Procedural question. Is the Article 50 notification something that actually needs to be voted on in Parliament, or is it something the govt can declare?
They can declare it, but there seems some doubt on whether they'd do so right away. Say Cameron resigns immediately. There is then a caretaker government (still led by Cameron maybe - who is his deputy?). There will be a new government after the Tory leadership election, but that will take months. Should Cameron or his deputy really start the process and begin negotiations on something they oppose? Would anyone (including the EU partners) trust them to make appropriate decisions that wouldn't be reversed by the successor?
It seems more reasonable to set up a big working group to prepare the ground for the incoming PM, listing all the decisions to be made and issues to be resolved.
Assuming Cameron resigns as Tory leader if it's a Leave (which isn't guaranteed but surely highly likely), he'd almost certainly make some formal move towards exit almost immediately. Whether that would actually be invoking Article 50, I'd doubt. I agree that it'd be difficult to negotiate as an outgoing administration. More likely would be a formal letter to the EU, notifying it of Britain's intention to invoke the Article later this year and requesting that they put their procedures in place to enable negotiations to commence once a new government is in place.
Cameron's deputy in the government is Osborne. Some sources list him as Deputy Leader too but I don't think that's right. Either way, I can't see him becoming acting leader in that scenario.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
Um no.
Please understand I do know a bit about this given that the man who discovered those basic principles was my ancestor and I have many of his original notes and books that were handed down through the family or I have collected over the years. Were I not several hundred miles away from my library at the moment I could quote you directly from his notes.
What you are ignoring (and what he did not) was that he was dealing with the absorption of energy in a closed system with no feedback mechanisms.
Indeed no serious climate scientist even argues about the basic absorption properties of gases like CO2 or water vapour in a closed system. What all the arguments on both sides revolve around is the part played by positive and negative feedback mechanisms in nature - outside of that bell jar that John Tyndall was observing. The various forcings and their impact on global temperatures are the main source of disagreement.
The rise in temperatures over the last few decades are by no means unique. I have just been part of a team publishing a paper on early occupation in the Late Upper Palaeolithic - a period that exhibited far faster changes in temperature both positive and negative. There are plenty of occasions in the recent historic and prehistoric past (recent for geologists and archaeologists anyway) when temperatures have risen both further and faster than today.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
He seems to not understand Article 50 of TFEU and thinks that the EU is already a country:
"The UK cannot just walk away from the EU regardless of the rights and interests of the other 27 Member States, just as Québec has no unilateral right to secede from Canada."
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Yes it's just the same old sophistry on this issue we have had for forty years.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
I'd agree with all that. There is a reason that the Supreme Court in the USA is so called. Sovereignty can be divided and the US constitution does reserve very significant powers to the states (though in practice, these are a good deal more limited due to the ultimate power of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation), but while there is an argument that the collective arrangement that the American states entered into grew their sovereignty as a whole - e.g. vis a vis European powers' ability to meddle in the continent - it nonetheless involved a sacrifice of sovereignty to the centre.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
I'm not sure that the Hillary-Trump polling is very meaningful at the moment, given that Sanders hasn't yet dropped out.
Nor has Trump yet unified the RNC.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
There's a lot that's good on Watts Up, and a lot that is ill-informed pseudoscientific gibberish. Being popular is no guarantee of accuracy.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
But where does he say that they weren't sacrificing sovereignty? I have read it several times and I can see no reference to that.
This referendum shows that we remain sovereign. For that reason I would strongly dispute the use of the word "sacrifice". But I guess that's because I am a Remainer.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
May I suggest that you obtain your information about AGW from actual scientific websites, such as those run by NASA, the Royal Society, the American National Academy of Sciences or, indeed, any other scientific organisation rather than a fossil-fuel funded denialist blog.
Comments
This referendum on the other hand is about leaving an exceedingly expensive and bureaucratic club ..... not the same thing at all and none of the same passion involved.
Hence the much lower turnout of ..... I would say between cough 60.5% - 63.5%.
If they have a deal 95% done after 2 years, they will extend the negotiation period in order to finish it.
I've participated in a 60 day negotiation that took 18 months before...
It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, "Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/17/is_mitt_on_a_suicide_mission_130582.html
Oh and all the food recipe nonsense...they are going to put them on their BBC Good Food commercial site...it is all posturing.
A problem for both sides in this area is that overblown statements have become the norm. Any poster saying Beware X will need to overcome the fact that people think both sides are exaggerating a best and plain lying at worst.
First cousin marriages in Pakistani communities leading to 'appalling' disabilities among children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html
We are pleased to confirm that the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru groups have today contacted the Presiding Officer in order to recall the Assembly tomorrow, and proceed with the nomination procedure for First Minister. This will allow the successful nomination of Carwyn Jones as First Minister, and the establishment of a Labour Minority Administration.
This follows constructive and positive talks about the parties’ shared priorities for the coming Assembly, and future working arrangements.
The First Minister will set out tomorrow the next Government’s intentions for the first 100 days, including a commitment to prioritise those areas that enjoy support from across most of the Assembly.
Yesterday, did Cambridge to Stowmarket, though that's in Suffolk.
https://twitter.com/WomenforBritain/status/732526001524211712
A Brexit risk could be based upon Newt's prophetic words:
"We'd better get back, 'cause it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night... mostly."
So far every manner of conceivable ill has been touted as about to befall us if we Leave...
"Mrs. Merkel's Boys?"
Very good.
I could see Cameron firing off Article 50 and then jumping out the way.
The fact that some Leavers are getting excited about this nonsense is another interesting manifestation of what by now is the familiar phenomenon of them losing their sense of perspective.
Most punters just pick up their winnings but you picked up crabs too !! ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36314814
He needs to up his game. No mention of global war. Not even a mention of Hitler.
Edited extra bit: sorry, posted after just reading the headline.
He does mention Hitler.
Three scenarios of "completely out" have been modelled.
A Labour victory (1)
A continuation of the Conservative government under DC (2)
A Conservative government led by a new leader with a new mandate from the people (3)
Under all scenarios there is an immediate 3% GDP drop over two years.
1 - after the two year period, the economy will stabilise but we're still out of the EU and the Labour government won't take us back in and neither would it seek EEA membership having lost that vote as well. We don't expect that Labour will be aggressive in chasing trade liberalisation and we expect the unions to push for more protectionism for their members, overall trend growth under this scenario falls from 2.5% (current) to 1.9% as the EU retaliates to Labour's protectionism.
2 - there will be a big government stimulus to support the economy, Dave's government will be timid in securing new trade deals with Asia and other emerging markets, but Dave feels he has to make the best of a bad situation and resolves to restore free trade in goods and services with the EU, but with no say over single market rules in return for the restrictive immigration policy that the public voted in favour of. Essentially Single Market "Observer" status. Trend growth returns to about 2.5%.
3 - we have written in Boris as the PM but it could well be anyone else. Under this scenario the PM is highly aggressive in chasing down and winning new trade deals across emerging markets but basically ignores EU trade as they are unwilling to offer free trade to the new Leave PM at all. The UK economy becomes more like an Asian city state economy, open to the whims of global growth, so we benefit more when global GDP rises, but suffer more when it falls or stagnates. Under this scenario we don't restore normal/current trading relations with the EU for around 8-10 years and we agree a deal similar to Switzerland in the end, but with better terms on migration than the Swiss. Trend growth is around 2.5% also in this scenario. We also have the smallest modelled current account deficit under this model.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt as it is all theoretical and modelled under "ideal" circumstances. Overall it is interesting, vastly different to the Treasury model. Under no scenario do we lose £200bn in trade or £200bn in investment, even in the least good scenario we still do pretty well.
Falklands 91% in 2013
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/on-sovereignty/
The world would be a lot different if we had not helped destabilise both Iraq and Libya. Just think no Isis, no migrant issue. If we could turn the clock back we would have continued to arm both Saddam and Gaddafi instead of get rid of them
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/are-pollsters-ready-for-donald-trump-223240
It's like the Remain comments about travel, or intra-continental trade. The idea the EU is necessary for these things to exist is palpable nonsense, but the implication is left hanging there by some on the Remain side.
That, and overblown comments that are hastily rewritten in speeches to try and stop people laughing at the speaker, just mean people have less faith in the veracity of other claims.
[Not all Remain, of course].
I can spot a good script and I can spot a bad one and being a director I get listened to. But they're the ones who start with a blank piece of paper and just reading through this thread shows that it isn't easy. Some people just have an ability to see things outside of the box. Someone on here posted the Cadbury Smash Martian ad the other day. Not the kind of thing that just floats into your head when you're having a shower
I'm dusting off my old British passport.
It has a lifelong USA visa which could be useful too.
Edited extra bit: thanks, Miss Plato. Just rewriting some Sir Edric stuff (which tends to have quite a lot of frisky metaphors and so forth).
So I would suggest it is Tomkins who misunderstands the nature of sovereignty - or rather he chooses to interpret it in a particular way to suit his world view. .
It seems more reasonable to set up a big working group to prepare the ground for the incoming PM, listing all the decisions to be made and issues to be resolved.
Back to the referendum, and I had a chat with a REMAINish client this week who wanted to quiz me on the Treasury study.
'Aren't their results coming from their economic models?' he asked.
'How seriously would you take a model that could produce a result of 0% trade growth or 200%, depending on quite small changes to how you set things up' I replied.
'Hmmm'
10 years late and it would have been an award winner
It was 7.0% a week ago...
The latest two polls have it at 2% and 3%.
Cameron's deputy in the government is Osborne. Some sources list him as Deputy Leader too but I don't think that's right. Either way, I can't see him becoming acting leader in that scenario.
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE SEX
and
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE MARRIED TO THE EU TO TRADE WITH IT
Plus a suitable image.
(Acknowledgements to Morris Dancer)
Please understand I do know a bit about this given that the man who discovered those basic principles was my ancestor and I have many of his original notes and books that were handed down through the family or I have collected over the years. Were I not several hundred miles away from my library at the moment I could quote you directly from his notes.
What you are ignoring (and what he did not) was that he was dealing with the absorption of energy in a closed system with no feedback mechanisms.
Indeed no serious climate scientist even argues about the basic absorption properties of gases like CO2 or water vapour in a closed system. What all the arguments on both sides revolve around is the part played by positive and negative feedback mechanisms in nature - outside of that bell jar that John Tyndall was observing. The various forcings and their impact on global temperatures are the main source of disagreement.
The rise in temperatures over the last few decades are by no means unique. I have just been part of a team publishing a paper on early occupation in the Late Upper Palaeolithic - a period that exhibited far faster changes in temperature both positive and negative. There are plenty of occasions in the recent historic and prehistoric past (recent for geologists and archaeologists anyway) when temperatures have risen both further and faster than today.
So no. Your points are not correct.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
Having seen their Boris Downfall video I'm not sure if there are any sharks left in the sea for Newsnight to jump.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a major BBC current affairs program did a Downfall video featuring Jeremy Corbyn.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
"The UK cannot just walk away from the EU regardless of the rights and interests of the other 27 Member States, just as Québec has no unilateral right to secede from Canada."
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
This referendum shows that we remain sovereign. For that reason I would strongly dispute the use of the word "sacrifice". But I guess that's because I am a Remainer.