@BenedictWhite - Yes, that would be a sensible (if somewhat fingers-in-the-ears) response to the problem that nearly all experts agree.
But it's not the response the Leavers have made. Instead we have been treated to an ever-increasing and ever-more-ludicrous list of accusations of bad faith against the PM, the Chancellor, the Treasury, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, the NIESR, the G20 finance ministers, the President of the United States, an impressive list of former US treasury secretaries, all investment banks, most fund managers, the vast majority of academic economists, etc etc
Accusing that lot of being dishonest stooges is beyond stupid, because quite obviously they aren't. The politics of this isn't hard, surely?
No surprse that's to misunderstand the argument. The argument is that people who benefit from the status quo will advance reasons to protect it. They won;t advance arguments that benefit the losers.
You usually are. Like young Meeks you can't get inside the mind of a Leaver.
That's true. Well, at least it's true that I can't get inside the mind of the sort of Leaver who believes (and I'm sure that they honestly believe) that every single independent academic or institution who has warned of the economic risks is by definition an Osborne stooge or a liar or (most hilariously ludicrous of all) has been bought off by the EU.
I see BTW that the predicted blow has fallen. It didn't require much prescience to predict it, given that the previous Treasury report explicitly mentioned it. So presumably the Leave campaign have their rebuttal ready to go out, right?
it's a value issue Mr N. Your values are mostly money based, for leavers money is only one of a range of considerations and not necessarily the most important.
No. If that were true, they'd accept that there are economic risks, and argue that these are worth taking to get the other benefits. Of our distinguished Leavers here, only the excellent Sean Fear and a handful of others are honest and sensible enough to make that argument; most (and of course the entire official and unofficial Leave campaigns) answer every single economic argument by attempting to shoot the messenger.
I expect we are about to see a very fine example of that phenomenon.
Remainers seem to be possessed of the astonishing and delusional belief that the EU is some kind of economic powerhouse, as opposed to a vast zombie economy on the life suoport of negative interest rates via a desperate central bank.
The risks for remaining are gargantuan. We are clearly being tapped up to cushion the blow when the giant imbalances being built up inside the Eurozone explode.
You usually are. Like young Meeks you can't get inside the mind of a Leaver.
That's true. Well, at least it's true that I can't get inside the mind of the sort of Leaver who believes (and I'm sure that they honestly believe) that every single independent academic or institution who has warned of the economic risks is by definition an Osborne stooge or a liar or (most hilariously ludicrous of all) has been bought off by the EU.
I see BTW that the predicted blow has fallen. It didn't require much prescience to predict it, given that the previous Treasury report explicitly mentioned it. So presumably the Leave campaign have their rebuttal ready to go out, right?
it's a value issue Mr N. Your values are mostly money based, for leavers money is only one of a range of considerations and not necessarily the most important.
No. If that were true, they'd accept that there are economic risks, and argue that these are worth taking to get the other benefits. Of our distinguished Leavers here, only the excellent Sean Fear and a handful of others are honest and sensible enough to make that argument; most (and of course the entire official and unofficial Leave campaigns) answer every single economic argument by attempting to shoot the messenger.
I expect we are about to see a very fine example of that phenomenon.
A bunch of us have made precisely the argument that you say none of us make. My point has always been that the short-term risks (and they are just that, risks) are worth the medium- to longer-term greater flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing world, to which the EU is extraordinarily ill-equipped to do at a structural level.
@BenedictWhite - Yes, that would be a sensible (if somewhat fingers-in-the-ears) response to the problem that nearly all experts agree.
But it's not the response the Leavers have made. Instead we have been treated to an ever-increasing and ever-more-ludicrous list of accusations of bad faith against the PM, the Chancellor, the Treasury, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, the NIESR, the G20 finance ministers, the President of the United States, an impressive list of former US treasury secretaries, all investment banks, most fund managers, the vast majority of academic economists, etc etc
Accusing that lot of being dishonest stooges is beyond stupid, because quite obviously they aren't. The politics of this isn't hard, surely?
I don't agree with the first point but do the second. It's all a conspiracy isn't an attractive argument.
The fingers in the ears isn't justified. The assumptions made are not justifiable, It would not take long to negotiate free trade deals with many countries especially those with which the EU has a deal in part because we will not be carrying the others vested interests. Then there are those countries with whom the EU is negotiating but are being held back by other EU countries vested interests. Wouldn't take long to do that either.
Lastly the other argument not yet made is this:
The duty on our exports to them is around £5 billion whilst theirs is nearer £9 billion. We could stand WTO rules longer if we had to than they could.
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
No surprse that's to misunderstand the argument. The argument is that people who benefit from the status quo will advance reasons to protect it. They won;t advance arguments that benefit the losers.
Please yourself. I'm just saying how repeatedly shooting the messengers will look to the uncommitted votes who are the actual ones the Leave side should be trying to win over.
@BenedictWhite - Yes, that would be a sensible (if somewhat fingers-in-the-ears) response to the problem that nearly all experts agree.
But it's not the response the Leavers have made. Instead we have been treated to an ever-increasing and ever-more-ludicrous list of accusations of bad faith against the PM, the Chancellor, the Treasury, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, the NIESR, the G20 finance ministers, the President of the United States, an impressive list of former US treasury secretaries, all investment banks, most fund managers, the vast majority of academic economists, the ratings agencies, etc etc
Accusing that lot of being dishonest stooges is beyond stupid, because quite obviously they aren't. The politics of this isn't hard, surely?
The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agrees with X. There is a presumption that A is true.[10]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[10]
@BenedictWhite - Yes, that would be a sensible (if somewhat fingers-in-the-ears) response to the problem that nearly all experts agree.
But it's not the response the Leavers have made. Instead we have been treated to an ever-increasing and ever-more-ludicrous list of accusations of bad faith against the PM, the Chancellor, the Treasury, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors, the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, the NIESR, the G20 finance ministers, the President of the United States, an impressive list of former US treasury secretaries, all investment banks, most fund managers, the vast majority of academic economists, etc etc
Accusing that lot of being dishonest stooges is beyond stupid, because quite obviously they aren't. The politics of this isn't hard, surely?
David Cameron: "I will campaign to leave the EU if we don't get these really fundamental changes to benefit for part time Bulgarian street sweepers with three or more children"
That's your leader, that is. That's what he said. That's your leader. A smug, pungent, crapulous liar.
Fair enough.
And your views on Michael Gove, Penny Mordaunt, IDS and Nigel Farage are what, exactly? Or does your indignation flow in only one direction?
No surprse that's to misunderstand the argument. The argument is that people who benefit from the status quo will advance reasons to protect it. They won;t advance arguments that benefit the losers.
Please yourself. I'm just saying how repeatedly shooting the messengers will look to the uncommitted votes who are the actual ones the Leave side should be trying to win over.
Oh that I can see Richard, but equally why is remain wedded to ridiculous scaremongering when it risks pissing off the uncommitted in a plague on all your houses way, Remain needs turnout to be high to enure a win. It's positioning is just as inept as Leaves.
Right, so there were no searches of people and luggage flying into Belfast during the Troubles? And no exclusion orders for Gerry Adams and Martin Galvin?
I'm sorry, are you saying internal security appropriate to the Troubles is something LEAVE want to go back to?
Well, haven't you noticed the increase in terrorism? Wouldn't surprise me if you haven't as you seem so purblind to so much.
And yes, if we want immigration controls, then will need security checks between NI and the mainland as we will have an open border between the Irish Republic and NI.
If you have an open border between the Irish Republic and NI...then you haven't got immigration controls.
Blimey. Have you sunk to arguing this?
So, mainly agrarian Northern Ireland (which isn't that diverse) is going to be inundated with immigrants? Is it now?
I think the Northern Ireland Government is capable to finding such illegal immigration and expelling them, especially when they try to get a job, claim benefits, use the NHS (in NI) or enroll their children into schools.
Incidentally, I remember checks unique to Northern Ireland were introduced to stop voter fraud. Shows it can be done.
The FT headline has been foreshadowed for weeks. @RichardNabavi noted we could expect this at least three weeks ago.
Did he write it ?
I doubt it. It only took the ability to read to see what was coming.
If Leave aren't prepared for this, it is even more of a shambles than I thought.
If Leave aren't prepared for the forthcoming Remain campaign focus on the NHS, they are a right shambles
That's nearly as good as Scott's Lying Tory bastards posts.
if they're all such a shambles why aren#t Remain 40 points ahead ? Could it be they're also a shower of shite ?
Remain are making sure they aren't peaking too soon.
Nice try but if the omnishable Leave is so ridiculous why aren't you massively ahead ?
Why is it that a bunch of incoherent nutters is making your life difficult ?
Well if the phone polls are accurate, Remain are massively ahead, and generally speaking Don't Knows break for the status quo.
yeah but why aren't you 40 points ahead ? You sledge the opposition daily and yet they hang in their depite their obvious incoherence.
Well Dave won the AV referendum by 35%, so winning by 40% is unlikely.
TSE: What have I done?
Darth Gideon (aka Chancellor Osborne): You are fulfilling your destiny, TSE. Become my apprentice. Learn to use the Daft Side of the Force. There's no turning back now.
TSE: I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Theresa's political career. I can't live without her. If she resigns, I don't know what I will do.
Darth Gideon: To cheat political osbcurity is a power only one has achieved through centuries of the study of the Force. But if we work together, I know we can discover the secret to eternal AV Threads!
TSE: I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the REMAIN Campaign.
Darth Gideon: Good. Good! The Force is strong with you, TSE. A powerful REMAINER you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Eagles.
TSE: Thank you... my Master.
Darth Gideon: Lord Eagles... rise.
From that point it was around 25 years before Palpatine got his comeuppance... We won't have to wait that long for Darth Gideon to be thrown down the shaft will we?
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
If UK LEAVEs EU, then UK and Ireland don't just have to act sensibly, they have to act in lock-step. As I said below:
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)..."
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
If UK LEAVEs EU, then UK and Ireland don't just have to act sensibly, they have to act in lock-step. As I said below:
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)
It already does match the UK. That's why it's not in Schengen.
Oh that I can see Richard, but equally why is remain wedded to ridiculous scaremongering when it risks pissing off the uncommitted in a plague on all your houses way, Remain needs turnout to be high to enure a win. It's positioning is just as inept as Leaves.
Possibly, but I'm not sure of that. Voters are quite sensible, and will discount most of the more exaggerated claims from both sides.
But, as I've said before, the Remain side don't need to win the argument. They only need to sow enough doubt. It may be that they've over-done it, but if they have, it's not on the economic side.
No surprse that's to misunderstand the argument. The argument is that people who benefit from the status quo will advance reasons to protect it. They won;t advance arguments that benefit the losers.
Please yourself. I'm just saying how repeatedly shooting the messengers will look to the uncommitted votes who are the actual ones the Leave side should be trying to win over.
Oh that I can see Richard, but equally why is remain wedded to ridiculous scaremongering when it risks pissing off the uncommitted in a plague on all your houses way, Remain needs turnout to be high to enure a win. It's positioning is just as inept as Leaves.
That is an important point. I see the campaign as depressing turnout.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen
Schengen or no Schengen, EU citizens will continue to have a right to reside in the 26 counties if the Republic stays a member, and if the border with Britain is open then they can cross it.
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)..."
(emphasis added) In effect the Irish Republic already does operate a UK-border-by proxy. That, I think, was a condition of opening the Irish border. I mean, seriously, if they didn't, then flying to an Irish port, or sailing to one from France or Spain, and then going north would look a very juicy way to enter Britain for any terrorist based outside of Britain and Ireland.
Oh that I can see Richard, but equally why is remain wedded to ridiculous scaremongering when it risks pissing off the uncommitted in a plague on all your houses way, Remain needs turnout to be high to enure a win. It's positioning is just as inept as Leaves.
Possibly, but I'm not sure of that. Voters are quite sensible, and will discount most of the more exaggerated claims from both sides.
But, as I've said before, the Remain side don't need to win the argument. They only need to sow enough doubt. It may be that they've over-done it, but if they have, it's not on the economic side.
Well it's a view but when you call all Leave idiots the old adage does spring mind, They're dragging you down to their level and experience tells.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
Oh that I can see Richard, but equally why is remain wedded to ridiculous scaremongering when it risks pissing off the uncommitted in a plague on all your houses way, Remain needs turnout to be high to enure a win. It's positioning is just as inept as Leaves.
Possibly, but I'm not sure of that. Voters are quite sensible, and will discount most of the more exaggerated claims from both sides.
But, as I've said before, the Remain side don't need to win the argument. They only need to sow enough doubt. It may be that they've over-done it, but if they have, it's not on the economic side.
No they have overdone it on the economic side. The predictions on house prices, food prices, recession etc are cobblers.
What is worse, is that Cameron said he would campaign for this if he didn't get some very small beer.
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
If UK LEAVEs EU, then UK and Ireland don't just have to act sensibly, they have to act in lock-step. As I said below:
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)
It already does match the UK. That's why it's not in Schengen.
The point is not that UK&Ireland are not in Schengen, the point is that to keep the Ireland/NI border open the Ireland and UK entry policies have to be the same. Whilst in the EU this is not a problem, but if the UK leaves the EU then...well, see my original point ("...tune its entry policy...back to the beginning...")
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen
Schengen or no Schengen, EU citizens will continue to have a right to reside in the 26 counties if the Republic stays a member, and if the border with Britain is open then they can cross it.
so what ? People have been crossing the border for the last 100 years.
''If he remains in office a year or two, he will have to spend every week haplessly defending the EU from his infuriated backbenchers, if he quits very early he will be seen as the man that lied, then ran away. He's finished, and he will not be loved.''
It's difficult to disagree with this.
If if leave lose, they will retain millions of committed, passionate, largely right wing voters. UKIP alone have four million and counting.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain. I really can't see how anyone could claim that's not a positive argument. It might not be right, but it's cogent, positive, plausible, and supported by lots of independent and well-informed observers. With a bit of luck it will turn out to be wrong, if we leave, but I'm personally very far from convinced that it is wrong, and I'm certainly not going to be convinced by garbage such as the argument (put forward in all seriousness) that the IMF etc have been bought off by EU contributions or as a favour to Osborne.
You usually are. Like young Meeks you can't get inside the mind of a Leaver.
That's true. Well, at least it's true that I can't get inside the mind of the sort of Leaver who believes (and I'm sure that they honestly believe) that every single independent academic or institution who has warned of the economic risks is by definition an Osborne stooge or a liar or (most hilariously ludicrous of all) has been bought off by the EU.
So, how many of these august institutions receive no UK Government or EU funding?
I don't think the Bank of Japan is funded by the EU or the UK.
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
If UK LEAVEs EU, then UK and Ireland don't just have to act sensibly, they have to act in lock-step. As I said below:
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)
It already does match the UK. That's why it's not in Schengen.
The point is not that UK&Ireland are not in Schengen, the point is that to keep the Ireland/NI border open the Ireland and UK entry policies have to be the same. Whilst in the EU this is not a problem, but if the UK leaves the EU then...well, see my original point ("...tune its entry policy...back to the beginning...")
If the UK leaves the EU it can change its benefit system to make setting up in the UK less attratcive.
Once again in your anglocentric little England you haven't asked the obvious question of why doesn't Ireland have 1+ million immigrants ? It's english speaking, the economy is growing, GDP per head is 20% higher than the UK, theres; lots of land and loads of empty houses and it's EU friendly so why is immigration substantially less than here ?
I'd suggest it;s because the social security system is a lot harder ( for Irish citizens too ) so it's much harder to get established as an immigrant/
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain
Given the precariousness of the European economy, with 50% youth unemployment in many countries, negative interest rates, zombie companies and teetering banks, I reckon its in our economic interests to leave.
None of them is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Cameron has utterly demeaned himself. It is a saddening and wretched spectacle. It is difficult to see how he can possibly recover, no matter what the result of the vote.
If he remains in office a year or two, he will have to spend every week haplessly defending the EU from his infuriated backbenchers, if he quits very early he will be seen as the man that lied, then ran away. He's finished, and he will not be loved.
To an extent I agree. I think (assuming a Remain result) he'll leave office reasonably soon, having drawn some of the poison on to himself.
But we shouldn't exaggerate: the political landscape will look very different on June 24th. The People will have Spoken, for better or worse. Life will go on, under a new PM within at most a year or two.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain. I really can't see how anyone could claim that's not a positive argument. It might not be right, but it's cogent, positive, plausible, and supported by lots of independent and well-informed observers. With a bit of luck it will turn out to be wrong, if we leave, but I'm personally very far from convinced that it is wrong, and I'm certainly not going to be convinced by garbage such as the argument (put forward in all seriousness) that the IMF etc have been bought off by EU contributions or as a favour to Osborne.
It would be really helpful if they stopped that argument.
There are cogent economic arguments for Leave but wearing a tin foil hat whilst making it doesn't help.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain. I really can't see how anyone could claim that's not a positive argument. It might not be right, but it's cogent, positive, plausible, and supported by lots of independent and well-informed observers. With a bit of luck it will turn out to be wrong, if we leave, but I'm personally very far from convinced that it is wrong, and I'm certainly not going to be convinced by garbage such as the argument (put forward in all seriousness) that the IMF etc have been bought off by EU contributions or as a favour to Osborne.
So cogent no one knows what it is.
Remains arguments are all about what happens if we leave not what happens if we stay.
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
In Scotland, only one major party represented the defeated side of the 2014 referendum, and the defeated supporters coalesced around it. If LEAVE is defeated in the 2016 referendum, will the same thing happen to Ukip? Why, why not, and what does this signify about Leave versus Yes?
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain. I really can't see how anyone could claim that's not a positive argument. It might not be right, but it's cogent, positive, plausible, and supported by lots of independent and well-informed observers. With a bit of luck it will turn out to be wrong, if we leave, but I'm personally very far from convinced that it is wrong, and I'm certainly not going to be convinced by garbage such as the argument (put forward in all seriousness) that the IMF etc have been bought off by EU contributions or as a favour to Osborne.
So cogent no one knows what it is.
Remains arguments are all about what happens if we leave not what happens if we stay.
YOu could argue leave have not been apocalyptic enough.
Why not say it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions when the euro collapses?
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
No because ukip is not on the centre of British politics whereas the SNP is as they have very centrist policy platform in Scotland despite pretending to be a Left wing party.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave. So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
They have a very cogent argument: that it's in our economic interests to Remain. I really can't see how anyone could claim that's not a positive argument. It might not be right, but it's cogent, positive, plausible, and supported by lots of independent and well-informed observers. With a bit of luck it will turn out to be wrong, if we leave, but I'm personally very far from convinced that it is wrong, and I'm certainly not going to be convinced by garbage such as the argument (put forward in all seriousness) that the IMF etc have been bought off by EU contributions or as a favour to Osborne.
But is it in our political interests to Remain, Richard? That is the question the Remain campaign refuse to answer. Politics is about more than economics.
And on that question, Remain have had nothing to say, let alone anything cogent.
Britain will likely make a decision on the economics and then be surprised when the EU makes political decisions with all sorts of impacts on Britain. There is something somewhat small-minded and rather Marxist in thinking that economics is the be-all and end-all of such decisions.
You usually are. Like young Meeks you can't get inside the mind of a Leaver.
That's true. Well, at least it's true that I can't get inside the mind of the sort of Leaver who believes (and I'm sure that they honestly believe) that every single independent academic or institution who has warned of the economic risks is by definition an Osborne stooge or a liar or (most hilariously ludicrous of all) has been bought off by the EU.
So, how many of these august institutions receive no UK Government or EU funding?
I don't think the Bank of Japan is funded by the EU or the UK.
Hmm, I believe you, but perhaps their efforts should be directed closer to home, where they are sorely needed.
''If he remains in office a year or two, he will have to spend every week haplessly defending the EU from his infuriated backbenchers, if he quits very early he will be seen as the man that lied, then ran away. He's finished, and he will not be loved.''
It's difficult to disagree with this.
If if leave lose, they will retain millions of committed, passionate, largely right wing voters. UKIP alone have four million and counting.
There will be no need for Cameron to defend the EU if Remains wins. There are pros and cons to being in the EU and if Remain wins it will be seen that most votes accept that being in is the lesser evil than being out. The EU will continue to do things to infuriate even Remainers, but the long term fight for reform will have to be continued, even by Cameron.
The overwhelming Establishment consensus, in the UK, was FOR the Iraq war.
Yes, with people like IDS and Michael Gove strongly in favour, and people like Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg (not to mention most of the EU) against. So that might not be most fruitful line of argument from the Leave side.
Did you once look at how the inverse might look and then think the Iish and EU wouldn't put up with that for long ? All you posts were Ireland to UK.
If we were discussing other states leaving the EU, or if Ireland had a land border with another country, then I would have looked at it. But we weren't so I didn't.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen, If there can be a free for all going in to the UK equally there can be free for all the other way. neither side wants it so it;s fairly clear they'll both continue to act fairly sensibly as they have to date.
If UK LEAVEs EU, then UK and Ireland don't just have to act sensibly, they have to act in lock-step. As I said below:
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)
It already does match the UK. That's why it's not in Schengen.
The point is not that UK&Ireland are not in Schengen, the point is that to keep the Ireland/NI border open the Ireland and UK entry policies have to be the same. Whilst in the EU this is not a problem, but if the UK leaves the EU then...well, see my original point ("...tune its entry policy...back to the beginning...")
Why do they have to be the same?
Where are you finding all these people desperate to enter Northern Ireland? Turkey?
You usually are. Like young Meeks you can't get inside the mind of a Leaver.
That's true. Well, at least it's true that I can't get inside the mind of the sort of Leaver who believes (and I'm sure that they honestly believe) that every single independent academic or institution who has warned of the economic risks is by definition an Osborne stooge or a liar or (most hilariously ludicrous of all) has been bought off by the EU.
So, how many of these august institutions receive no UK Government or EU funding?
I don't think the Bank of Japan is funded by the EU or the UK.
I belive that the hardworking Japanese go to the trouble of printing their own money rather than being funded by others.
The overwhelming Establishment consensus, in the UK, was FOR the Iraq war.
Yes, with people like IDS and Michael Gove strongly in favour, and people like Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg (not to mention most of the EU) against. So that might not be most fruitful line of argument from the Leave side.
Based on reports from civil servants.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
So, mainly agrarian Northern Ireland (which isn't that diverse) is going to be inundated with immigrants? Is it now?
The statement "If you have an open border between the Irish Republic and NI...then you haven't got immigration controls" remains (pun!) true regardless of the number of immigrants.
I think the Northern Ireland Government is capable to finding such illegal immigration and expelling them, especially when they try to get a job, claim benefits, use the NHS (in NI) or enroll their children into schools.
I'm sure it can. But finding immigrants who have crossed the border isn't immigration control, any more than "bailing out the leaky boat" is the same as "watertight"
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Ireland only has a border with the UK and both countries are outside Schengen
Schengen or no Schengen, EU citizens will continue to have a right to reside in the 26 counties if the Republic stays a member, and if the border with Britain is open then they can cross it.
"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)..."
(emphasis added) In effect the Irish Republic already does operate a UK-border-by proxy. That, I think, was a condition of opening the Irish border. I mean, seriously, if they didn't, then flying to an Irish port, or sailing to one from France or Spain, and then going north would look a very juicy way to enter Britain for any terrorist based outside of Britain and Ireland.
When was the Irish border ever closed? Restricted, yes, but never closed.
Terrorists have been crossing the border continually from 1967-1995 and we have managed to survive.
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
If that was me I would invest the money in a global tracker fund.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Thank you for your selfless, non-partisan, unbiased and disinterested advice for Leave.
I shall pass it straight to Vote Leave HQ immediately.
The point is not that UK&Ireland are not in Schengen, the point is that to keep the Ireland/NI border open the Ireland and UK entry policies have to be the same. Whilst in the EU this is not a problem, but if the UK leaves the EU then...well, see my original point ("...tune its entry policy...back to the beginning...")
Why do they have to be the same?
If Ireland operates a looser immigration control than the UK, then (by definition) some of those who come in to Ireland will be those who would have not have passed UK immigration control. In turn, some of those will travel north and cross the entirely uncontrolled Ireland/Northern Ireland border. At which point UK immigration control will have been defeated.
(Mindful of Alanbrooke's point about both directions, this works in reverse if UK immigration is looser than Ireland's)
There's no getting around this. If the UK wants to control immigration policy then it's going to have to control its borders. If it's going to have to control its borders, then it's going to have to actually control its borders. All of them
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Thank you for your selfless, non-partisan, unbiased and disinterested advice for Leave.
I shall pass it straight to Vote Leave HQ immediately.
He is right on that point. Yah boo sucks isn't a counter argument. There is a counter argument and leave isn't making it.
If Ireland operates a looser immigration control than the UK, then (by definition) some of those who come in to Ireland will be those who would have not have passed UK immigration control. In turn, some of those will travel north and cross the entirely uncontrolled Ireland/Northern Ireland border. At which point UK immigration control will have been defeated.
(Mindful of Alanbrooke's point about both directions, this works in reverse if UK immigration is looser than Ireland's)
There's no getting around this. If the UK wants to control immigration policy then it's going to have to control its borders. If it's going to have to control its borders, then it's going to have to actually control its borders. All of them
No it won't.
Is there really an immigration problem in Northern Ireland? I've not heard about it.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
Yes, that argument might have worked if it was just the treasury forecast that was the problem for Leave. Unfortunately for them, it's not.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
It should point out issues with treasury forecasts pointing out that Osbourne set up the OBR because they were dodgy and politicised.
(American on Sky papers making a much better rebuttal than most leave BTW)
You can't do that with others but you can question the assumptions which are not what leave is proposing and is based on the idea that the Eurozone will return to trend growth. Economists do that, not because they are evil conspirators in the pay of the evil Osbourne but because that's how they work out their numbers for growth via trade. It's wrong in this case. Usually it isn't. (Witness for example the cluster f*ck that was Argentina with its unhelpful protectionism etc)
I was telling someone the other day that there are often very good reasons for doing something but until you look at the bad ones you can't make a proper decision. If you can't find any negatives you clearly are a group thinking muppet.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
Yes, that argument might have worked if it was just the treasury forecast that was the problem for Leave. Unfortunately for them, it's not.
The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agrees with X. There is a presumption that A is true.[10]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[10]
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
lol
Not sure if your post is serious, but I'll go with it.
Your default assumption has to be that the betfair odds are roughly correct.
Therefore, there's a ~30% chance of losing all of your stake if you punt on Hillary Clinton- and a ~20% chance of losing it all if you punt on Remain.
Splitting your stake between the two is no more prudent, it will just reduce the likelihood of losing all of your stake while increasing the likelihood of losing some of it.
The more important question is - if the money is for the baby, why are you gambling with it at all?
None of them is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Cameron has utterly demeaned himself. It is a saddening and wretched spectacle. It is difficult to see how he can possibly recover, no matter what the result of the vote.
If he remains in office a year or two, he will have to spend every week haplessly defending the EU from his infuriated backbenchers, if he quits very early he will be seen as the man that lied, then ran away. He's finished, and he will not be loved.
To an extent I agree. I think (assuming a Remain result) he'll leave office reasonably soon, having drawn some of the poison on to himself.
But we shouldn't exaggerate: the political landscape will look very different on June 24th. The People will have Spoken, for better or worse. Life will go on, under a new PM within at most a year or two.
My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
Yes, that argument might have worked if it was just the treasury forecast that was the problem for Leave. Unfortunately for them, it's not.
That's the one Remain has been shouting from the rooftops and have crafted an Edstone-like monument.
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
lol
Not sure if your post is serious, but I'll go with it.
Your default assumption has to be that the betfair odds are roughly correct.
Therefore, there's a ~30% chance of losing all of your stake if you punt on Hillary Clinton- and a ~20% chance of losing it all if you punt on Remain.
Splitting your stake between the two is no more prudent, it will just reduce the likelihood of losing all of your stake while increasing the likelihood of losing some of it.
The more important question is - if the money is for the baby, why are you gambling with it at all?
Gambling isn't investing.
Apologies if this comes across as condescending btw - congratulations on your baby!
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
I haven't been arguing that anyone is an unimpeachable source of economic truth. I've been arguing that characterising them all as liars and stooges is counter-productive.
Incidentally, didn't Osborne set up the OBR precisely because he felt that forecasts of the Government deficit were easily swayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
Yes, that argument might have worked if it was just the treasury forecast that was the problem for Leave. Unfortunately for them, it's not.
That's the one Remain has been shouting from the rooftops and have crafted an Edstone-like monument.
With the additional we have 200 more like this and the IMF. If it was just the treasury one it could be swatted away. These can but it takes some sensible argument to do so. See below.
None of them is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Cameron has utterly demeaned himself. It is a saddening and wretched spectacle. It is difficult to see how he can possibly recover, no matter what the result of the vote.
If he remains in office a year or two, he will have to spend every week haplessly defending the EU from his infuriated backbenchers, if he quits very early he will be seen as the man that lied, then ran away. He's finished, and he will not be loved.
To an extent I agree. I think (assuming a Remain result) he'll leave office reasonably soon, having drawn some of the poison on to himself.
But we shouldn't exaggerate: the political landscape will look very different on June 24th. The People will have Spoken, for better or worse. Life will go on, under a new PM within at most a year or two.
My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable.
Gravis and CBS both have Hillary leading Trump in Florida today and CBS in Ohio, though the race has tightened
As a Clinton staffer said a couple of months ago, 'until Trump stops outperforming expectations I'll be worried'. So far he still hasn't found his ceiling.
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
Don't you dare gamble that money, young man!
The people on there who are professional/serious gamblers earn their money by value betting. A "value bet" occurs if the bookie's odds of an event diverge greatly from the actual odds. The gambler then bets on that event, hoping that as the event approaches the odds will converge to the true odds and he can unload his bet at a profit. This approach minimises losses, since you cash out before the event regardless. Very few people on this board (happy to be corrected!) bet money on an event and let it run to the very end.
On the betting front I have a question if it is not too late at night for the experts. We are blessed with a baby and various friends and neighbours have given presents, mainly clothes some of which fit and some of which are too small. One family, Muslims as it happens, have given a generous summit of cash and said to invest it for the baby. I was thinking of investing in Remain as I have read that this is a good value investment by A Meeks and others. On the other hand I have also read that Mrs Clinton is pretty nailed on and was wondering whether to invest on her; the advantage of investing for a baby is one can take a longterm view and waiting until November up pay out is not a problem. So which do people recommend or should we take a prudent approach and diversift it between the two. Thanks for any help and no blame if it goes wrong!
Neither "Hillary" nor "Remain" are 'nailed on'.
I'm not even sure either is a particularly good value bet at the moment... especially Hillary.
you haven't asked the obvious question of why doesn't Ireland have 1+ million immigrants ? It's english speaking, the economy is growing, GDP per head is 20% higher than the UK, theres; lots of land and loads of empty houses and it's EU friendly so why is immigration substantially less than here ?
I'd suggest it;s because the social security system is a lot harder ( for Irish citizens too ) so it's much harder to get established as an immigrant
I genuinely don't know the level of non-UK migration into Ireland. Historically it has had little (if you don't count the Vikings) and there were some grumblings around 2007 as the Tiger economy peaked, but I don't know what the situation is now.
But this is not relevant to my point about Ireland and UK immigration control having to be in lockstep to preserve the open border.
Gravis and CBS both have Hillary leading Trump in Florida today and CBS in Ohio, though the race has tightened
As a Clinton staffer said a couple of months ago, 'until Trump stops outperforming expectations I'll be worried'. So far he still hasn't found his ceiling.
They are the two most unpopular nominees in modern presidential history, Hillary would be very beatable if her opponent was not Trump and Trump would be very beatable if his opponent was not Hillary, neither has a floor and neither has a ceiling when they are the only 2 alternatives on offer. Goodnight
It's interesting to note that the impartial BBC in the person of Andrew Neil can make a much better case for Brexit than can Leave (on the economy, with the aid of the CBI)
you haven't asked the obvious question of why doesn't Ireland have 1+ million immigrants ? It's english speaking, the economy is growing, GDP per head is 20% higher than the UK, theres; lots of land and loads of empty houses and it's EU friendly so why is immigration substantially less than here ?
I'd suggest it;s because the social security system is a lot harder ( for Irish citizens too ) so it's much harder to get established as an immigrant
I genuinely don't know the level of non-UK migration into Ireland. Historically it has had little (if you don't count the Vikings) and there were some grumblings around 2007 as the Tiger economy peaked, but I don't know what the situation is now.
But this is not relevant to my point about Ireland and UK immigration control having to be in lockstep to preserve the open border.
I finally think you are completely wrong.
Ireland and UK immigration control have to be in lockstep to preserve the open border between Britain and Ireland, not N.Ireland and the Republic.
Gravis and CBS both have Hillary leading Trump in Florida today and CBS in Ohio, though the race has tightened
As a Clinton staffer said a couple of months ago, 'until Trump stops outperforming expectations I'll be worried'. So far he still hasn't found his ceiling.
They are the two most unpopular nominees in modern presidential history, Hillary would be very beatable if her opponent was not Trump and Trump would be very beatable if his opponent was not Hillary, neither has a floor and neither has a ceiling when they are the only 2 alternatives on offer. Goodnight
Too embarrassed to be Party Deputy Leader, but not embarrassed enough to be Westminster Deputy Leader?
The day the scandal broke, Hosie’s Westminister colleagues unanimously re-elected him as their depute group leader – a role he will keep despite standing down as overall SNP deputy leader.
Ireland and UK immigration control have to be in lockstep to preserve the open border between Britain and Ireland, not N.Ireland and the Republic.
I disagree.[1]
Quick check: are you suggesting the route would go something like Country X->Dublin->Holyhead->Liverpool, instead of Country X->Dublin->Belfast->Liverpool? I would assume the latter was easier
Incidentally, didn't you say when you flew from Birmingham to Dublin your passport was checked? Which would imply the border between Britain and Ireland is not open. Or have I mixed you up with Alanbrooke?
[1] Although I note in passing that you now agree that they have to be in lockstep...
Ireland and UK immigration control have to be in lockstep to preserve the open border between Britain and Ireland, not N.Ireland and the Republic.
Incidentally, didn't you say when you flew from Birmingham to Dublin your passport was checked? Which would imply the border between Britain and Ireland is not open.
Not quite:
As you are being asked to prove that you are an Irish or UK citizen who is entitled to avail of the Common Travel Area arrangements, it is advisable to travel with your passport.
Gravis and CBS both have Hillary leading Trump in Florida today and CBS in Ohio, though the race has tightened
As a Clinton staffer said a couple of months ago, 'until Trump stops outperforming expectations I'll be worried'. So far he still hasn't found his ceiling.
They are the two most unpopular nominees in modern presidential history, Hillary would be very beatable if her opponent was not Trump and Trump would be very beatable if his opponent was not Hillary, neither has a floor and neither has a ceiling when they are the only 2 alternatives on offer. Goodnight
Gravis and CBS both have Hillary leading Trump in Florida today and CBS in Ohio, though the race has tightened
As a Clinton staffer said a couple of months ago, 'until Trump stops outperforming expectations I'll be worried'. So far he still hasn't found his ceiling.
They are the two most unpopular nominees in modern presidential history, Hillary would be very beatable if her opponent was not Trump and Trump would be very beatable if his opponent was not Hillary, neither has a floor and neither has a ceiling when they are the only 2 alternatives on offer. Goodnight
Deal or no Deal: The Cameron in Wonderland renegotiation with the EU that never happened, was never intended to happen, that never could have happened with Mad Hatter Cameron at the wheel.
Comments
The risks for remaining are gargantuan. We are clearly being tapped up to cushion the blow when the giant imbalances being built up inside the Eurozone explode.
The fingers in the ears isn't justified. The assumptions made are not justifiable, It would not take long to negotiate free trade deals with many countries especially those with which the EU has a deal in part because we will not be carrying the others vested interests. Then there are those countries with whom the EU is negotiating but are being held back by other EU countries vested interests. Wouldn't take long to do that either.
Lastly the other argument not yet made is this:
The duty on our exports to them is around £5 billion whilst theirs is nearer £9 billion. We could stand WTO rules longer if we had to than they could.
The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[10]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[10]
And your views on Michael Gove, Penny Mordaunt, IDS and Nigel Farage are what, exactly? Or does your indignation flow in only one direction?
So, mainly agrarian Northern Ireland (which isn't that diverse) is going to be inundated with immigrants? Is it now?
I think the Northern Ireland Government is capable to finding such illegal immigration and expelling them, especially when they try to get a job, claim benefits, use the NHS (in NI) or enroll their children into schools.
Incidentally, I remember checks unique to Northern Ireland were introduced to stop voter fraud. Shows it can be done.
BTW nice shots of WW2 battleship USS Missouri coming up in my
favourite filmfavourite Steven Seagal film, "Under Siege", on Channel 5 at 11.05pm"...[Ireland will have to] tune its entry policy to match the UK's (at which point it's operating a UK-border-by-proxy, which will irk) or operate a different one (in which case there will be gaps, and we're back to the beginning)..."
But, as I've said before, the Remain side don't need to win the argument. They only need to sow enough doubt. It may be that they've over-done it, but if they have, it's not on the economic side.
In effect the Irish Republic already does operate a UK-border-by proxy. That, I think, was a condition of opening the Irish border. I mean, seriously, if they didn't, then flying to an Irish port, or sailing to one from France or Spain, and then going north would look a very juicy way to enter Britain for any terrorist based outside of Britain and Ireland.
Remain still has no cogent argument on why stay. It's all scare and projection much like Leave.
So the first bit of the adage has already kicked in.
What is worse, is that Cameron said he would campaign for this if he didn't get some very small beer.
It's difficult to disagree with this.
If if leave lose, they will retain millions of committed, passionate, largely right wing voters. UKIP alone have four million and counting.
Once again in your anglocentric little England you haven't asked the obvious question of why doesn't Ireland have 1+ million immigrants ? It's english speaking, the economy is growing, GDP per head is 20% higher than the UK, theres; lots of land and loads of empty houses and it's EU friendly so why is immigration substantially less than here ?
I'd suggest it;s because the social security system is a lot harder ( for Irish citizens too ) so it's much harder to get established as an immigrant/
Given the precariousness of the European economy, with 50% youth unemployment in many countries, negative interest rates, zombie companies and teetering banks, I reckon its in our economic interests to leave.
That cogent enough?
But we shouldn't exaggerate: the political landscape will look very different on June 24th. The People will have Spoken, for better or worse. Life will go on, under a new PM within at most a year or two.
There are cogent economic arguments for Leave but wearing a tin foil hat whilst making it doesn't help.
Remains arguments are all about what happens if we leave not what happens if we stay.
Why not say it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions when the euro collapses?
Edit: whoops replied to wrong person.
And on that question, Remain have had nothing to say, let alone anything cogent.
Britain will likely make a decision on the economics and then be surprised when the EU makes political decisions with all sorts of impacts on Britain. There is something somewhat small-minded and rather Marxist in thinking that economics is the be-all and end-all of such decisions.
Where are you finding all these people desperate to enter Northern Ireland? Turkey?
LOL.
It'll be like the guy in Apocalyse Now who is the chief apologist for Colonel Kurtz.
The same sort of guys you have been arguing are unimpeachable sources of economic truth downthread.
Terrorists have been crossing the border continually from 1967-1995 and we have managed to survive.
I shall pass it straight to Vote Leave HQ immediately.
(Mindful of Alanbrooke's point about both directions, this works in reverse if UK immigration is looser than Ireland's)
There's no getting around this. If the UK wants to control immigration policy then it's going to have to control its borders. If it's going to have to control its borders, then it's going to have to actually control its borders. All of them
[EDIT: unfuck tags]
Why do you find it astonishing that Leave might take Osborne's advice about Government forecasts?
Is there really an immigration problem in Northern Ireland? I've not heard about it.
(American on Sky papers making a much better rebuttal than most leave BTW)
You can't do that with others but you can question the assumptions which are not what leave is proposing and is based on the idea that the Eurozone will return to trend growth. Economists do that, not because they are evil conspirators in the pay of the evil Osbourne but because that's how they work out their numbers for growth via trade. It's wrong in this case. Usually it isn't. (Witness for example the cluster f*ck that was Argentina with its unhelpful protectionism etc)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Trump - 43.4
Clinton - 43.2
I was telling someone the other day that there are often very good reasons for doing something but until you look at the bad ones you can't make a proper decision. If you can't find any negatives you clearly are a group thinking muppet.
The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[10]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[10]
Not sure if your post is serious, but I'll go with it.
Your default assumption has to be that the betfair odds are roughly correct.
Therefore, there's a ~30% chance of losing all of your stake if you punt on Hillary Clinton- and a ~20% chance of losing it all if you punt on Remain.
Splitting your stake between the two is no more prudent, it will just reduce the likelihood of losing all of your stake while increasing the likelihood of losing some of it.
The more important question is - if the money is for the baby, why are you gambling with it at all?
Gambling isn't investing.
Edited to correct. Not Remain but Leave!
https://twitter.com/COLRICHARDKEMP/status/734518680697065473
Genuine question to the Conservative remainers,
Why bother getting elected if you can do so little (according to Hilton)
The people on there who are professional/serious gamblers earn their money by value betting. A "value bet" occurs if the bookie's odds of an event diverge greatly from the actual odds. The gambler then bets on that event, hoping that as the event approaches the odds will converge to the true odds and he can unload his bet at a profit. This approach minimises losses, since you cash out before the event regardless. Very few people on this board (happy to be corrected!) bet money on an event and let it run to the very end.
PS many congrats on the baby!
I'm not even sure either is a particularly good value bet at the moment... especially Hillary.
But this is not relevant to my point about Ireland and UK immigration control having to be in lockstep to preserve the open border.
Ireland and UK immigration control have to be in lockstep to preserve the open border between Britain and Ireland, not N.Ireland and the Republic.
Too embarrassed to be Party Deputy Leader, but not embarrassed enough to be Westminster Deputy Leader?
The day the scandal broke, Hosie’s Westminister colleagues unanimously re-elected him as their depute group leader – a role he will keep despite standing down as overall SNP deputy leader.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/22/stewart-hosie-step-down-deputy-snp-leader
Quick check: are you suggesting the route would go something like Country X->Dublin->Holyhead->Liverpool, instead of Country X->Dublin->Belfast->Liverpool? I would assume the latter was easier
Incidentally, didn't you say when you flew from Birmingham to Dublin your passport was checked? Which would imply the border between Britain and Ireland is not open. Or have I mixed you up with Alanbrooke?
[1] Although I note in passing that you now agree that they have to be in lockstep...
A-Ding A-Dong...
The only thing worse than a Clinton presidency would be a Trump one.
Rinse and repeat.
I think the CBI held their corner pretty well.
Yes, Neil is very well briefed, but compared to some politicians the CBI's Fairbairn came across pretty well.
As you are being asked to prove that you are an Irish or UK citizen who is entitled to avail of the Common Travel Area arrangements, it is advisable to travel with your passport.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
"Corbyn wants Ed Miliband back in the Shadow Cabinet"
Tomorrow ...... Back in the Shadow Cabinet?
2018 ........ Party Leader?
2020 ........ Prime Minister?
Aargh!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603795/Dave-negotiates-good-deal-1-500-Nissan-Micra-SamCam-PM-stuns-staff-second-hand-car-dealership-constituency-turning-buy-car-driving-himself.html
I don't know if it's a shattering blow to Cameron, but it should make Remainers sit up and think.
Deal or no Deal: The Cameron in Wonderland renegotiation with the EU that never happened, was never intended to happen, that never could have happened with Mad Hatter Cameron at the wheel.