The case of Turkey is interesting. It suits perfectly the Leavers metaphor of an out of control car where we are stuck in the boot.
So powerful do they think Turkey fits the narrative that they're still running with it despite the fact that by now everyone knows about the veto.
Normally being found telling a barefaced lie would be suicidal but on this occasion they still think it's worth hanging on to.
My guess is they think it's just too good to let go and as both sides are facing credibility questions they think it's worth the risk
I'm guessing they are still plugging it because of its power as a 'scary idea'. This trumps the veto as many people either wont hear that 'minor' detail or wont believe that a future UK government would use it. In a nutshell we have why it was bonkers to offer a referendum.
Ascension of Turkey into the EU has been the policy of successive Governments for a long time.
Would the UK really veto it if the rest of the EU wanted it to join, and was putting heavy pressure on the UK Government?
No doubt we'd ask for a long transition time for free movement to kick in, probably 12 years+ when the administration agreeing to it had safely left office, but that decision would be irrevocable once the ink was dry.
It's unlikely to happen because Cyprus would almost certainly veto, and the French reject in a referendum, but, if they didn't, or another way of accession was found, it might - the EU has been negotiating with them for a long time, and has already found a way to grant visa-free access.
the EU cannot grant visa free access to CTA countries.
Because not all of the CTA is in the EU......
Exactly right: it requires the unanimous agreement of all the CTA countries to allow another country visa free access.
We are a bigger market for their manufactured goods than all the other EU countries combined, and we take nearly half of all their food produce and livestock exports as well.
Most of Ireland's European "partners" are a complete trading irrelevance.
I would guess that this would lead to real risks for the Eurozone if Ireland was caught in their currency whilst needing our custom post Brexit.
That's true and not true. Before Corib came on steam, the Irish were dependent on imports from the UK. But, the gas they bought was transshipped from Norway. So, it counts as export to the EU and imports from out the EU in the UK national accounts.
FPT
Working that through in a post Brexit, uncooperative EU environment, is it unreasonable to assume:
a) The UK would import from Norway tariff free, because we would strike a bilateral free trade deal with EFTA - I've yet to see any doom laden scenario suggesting otherwise:
b) The Irish would end up paying Tariffs because of EU/UK tariff issues according to the doom laden scenarios;
Net effect: the cost of living in Ireland goes up with no effect on the UK.
At the same time, the bulk of Irish manufacturing is faced with tariffs as it is majority dependent on the UK market. The UK is of greater trading value to Ireland than the remainder of the EU combined.
It's fairly reasonable to conclude that there would be very significant mutterings in Ireland about whether they were riding the right horse staying within the EU (minus UK) for economic purposes. Would they pick up displaced migration as well?
Ireland would almost surely support the minimal disruption angle for Brexit because of the especially adverse consequences for them, and they can throw in the added spice that they are part of the eurozone.
Our Prime Minister is the person leading the party which commands a majority in our Parliament, which we do elect. Our Parliament has a legitimacy which the EP does not really have.
In theory, Miss Cyclefree. But I fear that some of your suppositions are not well founded.
With respect Roger, I think you're missing the point. Whether we have a veto or not is now irrelevant. Brakes when you're hurtling down a hill are only useful if you can or will use them.
With Cameron lying continually, and only now showing his true Euro-fanaticism, we know he won't use it. Or at least. may not do.
Nor will Farron or the Labour Party. If it exists, it's a virtual veto.
The implication is that Turkey might join. In fact for all sorts of reasons that won't happen. France have to have a referendum not to mention Cyprus.
But that's the point I was making. As the story unfolds it becomes ever clearer that there is no chance of them joining but the lie becomes ever more publicised.
Sorry Roger, but it's your mind block on all to do with the EU that is more exposed. If France or any other country in the EU had a referendum denying turkey, they would be forced to have another one until the result was that which Brussels wanted.
The EU cannot order the French to have another referendum. And - given the FN is leading in the French polls -even if they did, what makes you think a second or third or fourth referendum would be won for Turkish accession.
The EU have been having repeat refs for years. Fancy you forgetting that. IIRC the French had 2 refs over Lisbon or Maastrich or somesuch. Ireland had two. where there's a will..........
Yes; but in each of those cases, they (the EU) made some cosmetic changes and the government of the day decided to resubmit the issue to a vote.
There can be no change to an accession Treaty. Not only that but, to repeat the question I asked earlier, why do you think a second referendum (or third or fourth or fifth) would have a different result in Turkey.
Ultimately, the EU can ask a parliament to submit legislation for a referendum, it cannot demand it. Referendum are in the gift of national parliaments.
But this whole issue is stupid. We need to get off it. Firstly, it's not true that there is any likelihood Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years. Secondly, there is no real evidence it resonates in any way with potential voters.
I think he needs 41.87% of 885,437 postal votes issues but only 39.71% of 700,000 expected valid returns.
This is because he's ahead on the the already counted votes so his opponent needs a fixed absolute number of votes from a smaller pool (and hence needs a higher percentage)
Something like a 20% differential in the lead (or a 10% swing away from the current result) is required to overturn Hofer's advantage...
Our Prime Minister is the person leading the party which commands a majority in our Parliament, which we do elect. Our Parliament has a legitimacy which the EP does not really have.
In theory, Miss Cyclefree. But I fear that some of your suppositions are not well founded.
It isn't a betting post; it's an opinion piece. Not claiming it's neutral, and I expect not a few to disagree, but I think it fairly reflects my thinking, and that of others where it influenced mine.
That is the most honest, honourable well balanced explanation of the Leave position I've read. I enjoyed it immensely.
Thank you kindly.
Seconded! (Or thirded) - very well set out.
I think you've got a 'primaRy' when you mean primaCy
I think he needs 41.87% of 885,437 postal votes issues but only 39.71% of 700,000 expected valid returns.
This is because he's ahead on the the already counted votes so his opponent needs a fixed absolute number of votes from a smaller pool (and hence needs a higher percentage)
Something like a 20% differential in the lead (or a 10% swing away from the current result) is required to overturn Hofer's advantage...
Although the Green chap did significantly better on postals in the First Round, and if he achieves a similar improvement in postals in the Second, he'll edge it (apparently) by 3,000 votes.
We are a bigger market for their manufactured goods than all the other EU countries combined, and we take nearly half of all their food produce and livestock exports as well.
Most of Ireland's European "partners" are a complete trading irrelevance.
I would guess that this would lead to real risks for the Eurozone if Ireland was caught in their currency whilst needing our custom post Brexit.
That's true and not true. Before Corib came on steam, the Irish were dependent on imports from the UK. But, the gas they bought was transshipped from Norway. So, it counts as export to the EU and imports from out the EU in the UK national accounts.
FPT
Working that through in a post Brexit, uncooperative EU environment, is it unreasonable to assume:
a) The UK would import from Norway tariff free, because we would strike a bilateral free trade deal with EFTA - I've yet to see any doom laden scenario suggesting otherwise:
b) The Irish would end up paying Tariffs because of EU/UK tariff issues according to the doom laden scenarios;
Net effect: the cost of living in Ireland goes up with no effect on the UK.
At the same time, the bulk of Irish manufacturing is faced with tariffs as it is majority dependent on the UK market. The UK is of greater trading value to Ireland than the remainder of the EU combined.
It's fairly reasonable to conclude that there would be very significant mutterings in Ireland about whether they were riding the right horse staying within the EU (minus UK) for economic purposes. Would they pick up displaced migration as well?
Ireland would almost surely support the minimal disruption angle for Brexit because of the especially adverse consequences for them, and they can throw in the added spice that they are part of the eurozone.
They are Leave's trojan horse.
Given how they allowed themselves to be bullied by the Germans a few years back I doubt that they will be as much help as you might hope.
I think he needs 41.87% of 885,437 postal votes issues but only 39.71% of 700,000 expected valid returns.
This is because he's ahead on the the already counted votes so his opponent needs a fixed absolute number of votes from a smaller pool (and hence needs a higher percentage)
Something like a 20% differential in the lead (or a 10% swing away from the current result) is required to overturn Hofer's advantage...
Although the Green chap did significantly better on postals in the First Round, and if he achieves a similar improvement in postals in the Second, he'll edge it (apparently) by 3,000 votes.
Mr. Brooke, it's quite intriguing to see how the Austrian result will end up going. If Hofer wins, we'll also have some interesting reactions to watch.
It isn't a betting post; it's an opinion piece. Not claiming it's neutral, and I expect not a few to disagree, but I think it fairly reflects my thinking, and that of others where it influenced mine.
That's an interesting read.
It seems to me that in your argument, a lot depends on the point that Remain is not a vote for the status quo but the swift development of a pan-European uberstate. Of course, the future won't be the same as the present, but it seems unlikely to me that it will develop in the way you describe. I think change will be slower, less certain and with a lot more compromise.
Fair enough if you believe that.
I think the declared objectives of the EU, the portfolio of past experience over the last 60 years, and the declarations of future intent and aspirations builds (for me) an overwhelming body of evidence that the EU will - on balance of probabilities - continue to develop in that direction, but I appreciate that not everyone will agree.
Steve Hilton has always been an interesting ideas chap.
I think his best idea was to try and replace the Tory membership with metropolitan, liberal, pro immigration, socially liberal types.
Shame he never inplemented that idea
Thanks. At least you admit you dislike the Tory party membership.
I will filter your reassurances about what CCHQ is trying to do to the voluntary party through that prism in future.
You need your irony meter calibrating. I found it amusing those who hated Steve Hilton with a passion in the past embracing him today.
I spent the better part of six weeks with my fellow members of the voluntary party last year trying to help elect two leaver MPs. I loved every minute of it, and would do it again.
It isn't a betting post; it's an opinion piece. Not claiming it's neutral, and I expect not a few to disagree, but I think it fairly reflects my thinking, and that of others where it influenced mine.
That's an interesting read.
It seems to me that in your argument, a lot depends on the point that Remain is not a vote for the status quo but the swift development of a pan-European uberstate. Of course, the future won't be the same as the present, but it seems unlikely to me that it will develop in the way you describe. I think change will be slower, less certain and with a lot more compromise.
Fair enough if you believe that.
I think the declared objectives of the EU, the portfolio of past experience over the last 60 years, and the declarations of future intent and aspirations builds (for me) an overwhelming body of evidence that the EU will - on balance of probabilities - continue to develop in that direction, but I appreciate that not everyone will agree.
My response is this - if after the last 60yrs of integration, what evidence that this won't be the trend? It's akin to claiming that it'll rain upwards.
With respect Roger, I think you're missing the point. Whether we have a veto or not is now irrelevant. Brakes when you're hurtling down a hill are only useful if you can or will use them.
With Cameron lying continually, and only now showing his true Euro-fanaticism, we know he won't use it. Or at least. may not do.
Nor will Farron or the Labour Party. If it exists, it's a virtual veto.
That's a problem in British politics, nothing to do with the EU. If Britain decides it wants to admit an unknown number of people from Turkey, we can do so whether we're members of the EU or not. If you're against the idea and don't trust British leaders not to do it anyway, you're actually better off in the EU, on the basis that someone ELSE might veto it. The EU has a conservative institutional bias to not doing stuff, because of the 28 vetoes.
That's a very good point
The counterargument is that the question is very unlikely to arise if we were not in the EU
Ban news for PBers - we may yet be spared SINDYRef2........when SINDYRef1 was so much fun.....almost as much fun as EURef....
MOST Scots believe Nicola Sturgeon should not call a second Scottish independence referendum if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will, an exclusive poll for Scotland on Sunday suggests. .....the poll found that 52 per cent are against a post-Brexit referendum as opposed to the 48 per cent who are for it [excluding don't knows].
......When people were asked how they would vote in a second referendum, there was more discouraging news for the SNP.......support for a No vote reach 51.6 per cent, compared with the 48.4 per cent who said they would support independence... a marked reduction in support for post-Brexit Scottish independence from ICM’s March poll, which showed a 53 per cent majority for breaking up the UK when “don’t knows” were excluded.
The findings will come as a blow for Sturgeon, who knows that a second defeat in an independence referendum would probably kill off her party’s independence dream for the foreseeable future.
Steve Hilton has always been an interesting ideas chap.
I think his best idea was to try and replace the Tory membership with metropolitan, liberal, pro immigration, socially liberal types.
Shame he never inplemented that idea
It's a pity he doesn't lead the Leave campaign. He'd at least make them coherent and clear out the Addams Family who are leading them at the moment.
There are those who blamed him for The Tories not winning a majority in 2010. (It really wasn't his fault, but I think I'll dig out Montie and Lord A's views at the time, for comedy value)
With respect Roger, I think you're missing the point. Whether we have a veto or not is now irrelevant. Brakes when you're hurtling down a hill are only useful if you can or will use them.
With Cameron lying continually, and only now showing his true Euro-fanaticism, we know he won't use it. Or at least. may not do.
Nor will Farron or the Labour Party. If it exists, it's a virtual veto.
The implication is that Turkey might join. In fact for all sorts of reasons that won't happen. France have to have a referendum not to mention Cyprus.
But that's the point I was making. As the story unfolds it becomes ever clearer that there is no chance of them joining but the lie becomes ever more publicised.
Sorry Roger, but it's your mind block on all to do with the EU that is more exposed. If France or any other country in the EU had a referendum denying turkey, they would be forced to have another one until the result was that which Brussels wanted.
The EU cannot order the French to have another referendum. And - given the FN is leading in the French polls -even if they did, what makes you think a second or third or fourth referendum would be won for Turkish accession.
The EU have been having repeat refs for years. Fancy you forgetting that. IIRC the French had 2 refs over Lisbon or Maastrich or somesuch. Ireland had two. where there's a will..........
Yes; but in each of those cases, they (the EU) made some cosmetic changes and the government of the day decided to resubmit the issue to a vote.
There can be no change to an accession Treaty. Not only that but, to repeat the question I asked earlier, why do you think a second referendum (or third or fourth or fifth) would have a different result in Turkey.
Ultimately, the EU can ask a parliament to submit legislation for a referendum, it cannot demand it. Referendum are in the gift of national parliaments.
But this whole issue is stupid. We need to get off it. Firstly, it's not true that there is any likelihood Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years. Secondly, there is no real evidence it resonates in any way with potential voters.
The park opposite the church with the "Scary Slide" is very nice
There is no point in quoting an answer to one decimal point (77.7 %) when the internal accuracy of the model is as crappy as this. This gives a spurious sense of precision.
Answers should be quoted to the accuracy of the model, which in this case is probably not even 1 significant figure.
Small point, maybe, but the inability of the legal profession to understand the accuracy of statistics ("one in 73 million chance of two cot deaths”) has had very serious consequences in the past (Sally Clark).
In fact, it was the expert medical witness - the Professor of Medecine - who did not understand the science or the statistics and this led the lawyers and the jury into error.
I agree, of course. But, the statistical error was very simple, and any person with a GCSE training in mathematics and statistics should have spotted it.
The lawyers accepted the word of Roy Meadows. They didn’t, for example, think to doubt it or to obtain an expert statistical opinion in the trial.
There is another famous example of lawyers and statistics in the OJ trial, which appeared in the late David MacKay’s book.
True. That's the problem with believing experts rather than understanding and testing their assumptions and hypotheses.
An expert is no better than a computer: if you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.
The trouble with believing experts, eh!
Now, where else might this apply?
Expertise means you can utilise more complex models and analysis techniques, and deploy more sophisticated arguments.
It does not mean you reach more accurate conclusions.
Ban news for PBers - we may yet be spared SINDYRef2........when SINDYRef1 was so much fun.....almost as much fun as EURef....
The same journalists who were briefed that Hosie would lead a summer drive for Independence, are now being briefed there is no such thing, and all of their stories were based on inaccurate press reports...
SNP, not content with sleaziest party at Westminster, are bidding for least competent press operation too. Given they are up against Seumas, that's a big ask.
Mr. Eagles, one eagerly awaits a similar perspective from the Remain campaign.
The remain camp won't have a similar moment. Their campaign has been free of hyperbole and inaccuracies. It is the epitome of a campaign of high standards and integrity
Leave campaigners need to neutralise this latest shroud waving by Osborne
Yes - of course the uncertainty and turmoil of us leaving will undoubtedly cause economic problems in the short term. It is silly of Leave to pretend otherwise. Their case surely relies though on much MUCH more than a few quarters GDP figures?!
(If not, well, they are surely in the campaign for the wrong reasons)
Blustering that economic forecasts have been wrong more often than not may be true but misses the point. An undecided voter will find it highly plausible that Brexit will likely mean some economic problems - Leave need to admit this, say it will be short term, focus on the upsides and the long term. Not pretend it will all be OK, no issues, don't worry etc etc
There is a LONG TERM economic case for leaving which is not being made at all effectively IMHO.
It is remarkable, given how crap the Leave campaign is, that it is still fairly close.
. . . I agree, of course. But, the statistical error was very simple, and any person with a GCSE training in mathematics and statistics should have spotted it.
The lawyers accepted the word of Roy Meadows. They didn’t, for example, think to doubt it or to obtain an expert statistical opinion in the trial.
There is another famous example of lawyers and statistics in the OJ trial, which appeared in the late David MacKay’s book.
Thanks for reminding about that book (Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms). I've just downloaded the free version. Saw the obit some weeks ago. Sad loss.
It isn't a betting post; it's an opinion piece. Not claiming it's neutral, and I expect not a few to disagree, but I think it fairly reflects my thinking, and that of others where it influenced mine.
That's an interesting read.
It seems to me that in your argument, a lot depends on the point that Remain is not a vote for the status quo but the swift development of a pan-European uberstate. Of course, the future won't be the same as the present, but it seems unlikely to me that it will develop in the way you describe. I think change will be slower, less certain and with a lot more compromise.
Fair enough if you believe that.
I think the declared objectives of the EU, the portfolio of past experience over the last 60 years, and the declarations of future intent and aspirations builds (for me) an overwhelming body of evidence that the EU will - on balance of probabilities - continue to develop in that direction, but I appreciate that not everyone will agree.
I also think that it will continue to develop in that general direction. I just don't think it will do so quickly or consistently.
Steve Hilton has always been an interesting ideas chap.
I think his best idea was to try and replace the Tory membership with metropolitan, liberal, pro immigration, socially liberal types.
Shame he never inplemented that idea
Thanks. At least you admit you dislike the Tory party membership.
I will filter your reassurances about what CCHQ is trying to do to the voluntary party through that prism in future.
You need your irony meter calibrating. I found it amusing those who hated Steve Hilton with a passion in the past embracing him today.
I spent the better part of six weeks with my fellow members of the voluntary party last year trying to help elect two leaver MPs. I loved every minute of it, and would do it again.
Many a true word said in jest.
I have always liked Steve Hilton, as I have said downthread. For example, he's a strong supporter of marriage and families.
I have always enjoyed campaigning with the voluntary party too.
Mr. K, I think the French and Irish said No to Lisbon, the Irish were asked to vote again, the French were asked not to vote again.
The Irish wanted to vote again. They weren't told. I was in Ireland at the time. The morning after the NO vote was like a national hangover. "What have we gone and done!!" It was an emotional spasm that was immediately regretted. I hope the same thing doesn't happen with Brexit because there won't be a second chance to undo it, unlike the Irish No on Lisbon.
Leave campaigners need to neutralise this latest shroud waving by Osborne
Yes - of course the uncertainty and turmoil of us leaving will undoubtedly cause economic problems in the short term. It is silly of Leave to pretend otherwise. Their case surely relies though on much MUCH more than a few quarters GDP figures?!
(If not, well, they are surely in the campaign for the wrong reasons)
Blustering that economic forecasts have been wrong more often than not may be true but misses the point. An undecided voter will find it highly plausible that Brexit will likely mean some economic problems - Leave need to admit this, say it will be short term, focus on the upsides and the long term. Not pretend it will all be OK, no issues, don't worry etc etc
There is a LONG TERM economic case for leaving which is not being made at all effectively IMHO.
It is remarkable, given how crap the Leave campaign is, that it is still fairly close.
Not that remarkable when you consider how crap the Remain campaign is.They both seem to view it as a race to the bottom. But at least Leave are having some fun along the way. Remain give the impression of preferring root canal with no anaesthetic to defending the EU...
Mr. Eagles, you might very well think that, but then, you're as mad as a mongoose.
Also remember Remain are the plucky outsiders fighting against a biased media
A new research study has confirmed what most people, including this commentator, knew: national press coverage of EU referendum campaign has been “heavily skewed in favour of Brexit.”
The bald figures produced by researchers at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism tell the story: 45% of 928 referendum articles it studied were in favour of leaving while 27% backed the remain case.
Mr. Eagles, you might very well think that, but then, you're as mad as a mongoose.
Also remember Remain are the plucky outsiders fighting against a biased media
A new research study has confirmed what most people, including this commentator, knew: national press coverage of EU referendum campaign has been “heavily skewed in favour of Brexit.”
The bald figures produced by researchers at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism tell the story: 45% of 928 referendum articles it studied were in favour of leaving while 27% backed the remain case.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. That's why the business editor of the BBC asked the Governor of the Bank of England an entirely neutral and not remotely leading question like "Can you guarantee there will not be a recession if we vote to leave?" or similar.
Ban news for PBers - we may yet be spared SINDYRef2........when SINDYRef1 was so much fun.....almost as much fun as EURef....
The same journalists who were briefed that Hosie would lead a summer drive for Independence, are now being briefed there is no such thing, and all of their stories were based on inaccurate press reports...
SNP, not content with sleaziest party at Westminster, are bidding for least competent press operation too. Given they are up against Seumas, that's a big ask.
The 'Hosie Drive' was briefed to the National.....
As JournoSteve (STV Politics) observes:
Stewart Hosie and the National thrown under a bus on the same day. They're ruthless, this lot.
. . . I agree, of course. But, the statistical error was very simple, and any person with a GCSE training in mathematics and statistics should have spotted it.
The lawyers accepted the word of Roy Meadows. They didn’t, for example, think to doubt it or to obtain an expert statistical opinion in the trial.
There is another famous example of lawyers and statistics in the OJ trial, which appeared in the late David MacKay’s book.
Thanks for reminding about that book (Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms). I've just downloaded the free version. Saw the obit some weeks ago. Sad loss.
I hadn't heard that - echo the sad loss - my hard copy of Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air is still somewhere lent around the family.
If Turkey is ever in a state to join the EU then that would be a fantastic development and we should indeed welcome it with open arms. But it is going in the wrong direction at present and isn't within a million miles of the acquis. Still, the idea that Turkish membership would be bad per se is ridiculous.
I think he needs 41.87% of 885,437 postal votes issues but only 39.71% of 700,000 expected valid returns.
This is because he's ahead on the the already counted votes so his opponent needs a fixed absolute number of votes from a smaller pool (and hence needs a higher percentage)
Something like a 20% differential in the lead (or a 10% swing away from the current result) is required to overturn Hofer's advantage...
Although the Green chap did significantly better on postals in the First Round, and if he achieves a similar improvement in postals in the Second, he'll edge it (apparently) by 3,000 votes.
Irrespective, it's stupendously close.
Actual data:
1st round absentee: Dr. Irmgard Griss 117 323 21.9% Ing. Norbert Hofer 136 832 25.6% Rudolf Hundstorfer 64,349 12.0% Dr. Andreas Khol 57,203 10.7% Ing. Richard Lugner 9,025 1.7% Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 150 042 28.1%
1st round total: Dr. Irmgard Griss 810.641 18,9 % Ing. Norbert Hofer 1.499.971 35,1 % Rudolf Hundstorfer 482.790 11,3 % Dr. Andreas Khol 475.767 11,1 % Ing. Richard Lugner 96.783 2,3 % Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 913.218 21,3 %
2nd round w/o Absentee:
Ing. Norbert Hofer 1937863 51.9% Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 1793857 48.1%
1. If someone comes to you with an idea about a stone monolith, tell them to Fuck. Right. Off.
2. Um....
3. Don't eat or hold foodstuffs in camera range.
4. Remember how many kitchens you have.
5.Er....
6. That's it.
It reminds me of the cartoon about the police chief on the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry who was invited to New York to advise the Police department who were looking for serial killer Son Of Sam.........'Ok Lads. You spend he first ten years looking for someone with a Geordie accent...'
It isn't a betting post; it's an opinion piece. Not claiming it's neutral, and I expect not a few to disagree, but I think it fairly reflects my thinking, and that of others where it influenced mine.
Casino, that is really excellent - one of the most cogent and balanced pieces advocating Leave that I've seen.
1. If someone comes to you with an idea about a stone monolith, tell them to Fuck. Right. Off.
2. Um....
3. Don't eat or hold foodstuffs in camera range.
4. Remember how many kitchens you have.
5.Er....
6. That's it.
It reminds me of the cartoon about the police chief on the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry who was invited to New York to advise the Police department who were looking for serial killer Son Of Sam.........'Ok Lads. You spend he first ten years looking for smeone with a Geordie accent...'
Ban news for PBers - we may yet be spared SINDYRef2........when SINDYRef1 was so much fun.....almost as much fun as EURef....
MOST Scots believe Nicola Sturgeon should not call a second Scottish independence referendum if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will, an exclusive poll for Scotland on Sunday suggests. .....the poll found that 52 per cent are against a post-Brexit referendum as opposed to the 48 per cent who are for it [excluding don't knows].
......When people were asked how they would vote in a second referendum, there was more discouraging news for the SNP.......support for a No vote reach 51.6 per cent, compared with the 48.4 per cent who said they would support independence... a marked reduction in support for post-Brexit Scottish independence from ICM’s March poll, which showed a 53 per cent majority for breaking up the UK when “don’t knows” were excluded.
The findings will come as a blow for Sturgeon, who knows that a second defeat in an independence referendum would probably kill off her party’s independence dream for the foreseeable future.
On topic: I was thinking the other day that we really have a camel-shaped probability distribution for the referendum, with one hump at around 56% and another hump at around 50%. The relative heights of the two humps depend on the weightings you give to phone vs online polls.
Yes; but in each of those cases, they (the EU) made some cosmetic changes and the government of the day decided to resubmit the issue to a vote.
There can be no change to an accession Treaty. Not only that but, to repeat the question I asked earlier, why do you think a second referendum (or third or fourth or fifth) would have a different result in Turkey.
Ultimately, the EU can ask a parliament to submit legislation for a referendum, it cannot demand it. Referendum are in the gift of national parliaments.
But this whole issue is stupid. We need to get off it. Firstly, it's not true that there is any likelihood Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years. Secondly, there is no real evidence it resonates in any way with potential voters.
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Nobody is talking about the increased financial contribution to the EU required on Turkey's accession or extra competition from Turkey, are they?
They are talking about unfettered immigration and all the consequences associated with it. They are talking about the c.2 million Syrian refugees camped in Turkey and Merkel putting out a welcome mat for them with zero consultation. They are talking about the leverage that Erdogan has negotiating free movement WITHOUT ACCESSION.
Another example of somebody on this forum paying more heed to form than substance.
On topic: I was thinking the other day that we really have a camel-shaped probability distribution for the referendum, with one hump at around 56% and another hump at around 50%. The relative heights of the two humps depend on the weightings you give to phone vs online polls.
Bi-modal distribution, like height? One hump for women and a greater one for men.
1st round absentee: Dr. Irmgard Griss 117 323 21.9% Ing. Norbert Hofer 136 832 25.6% Rudolf Hundstorfer 64,349 12.0% Dr. Andreas Khol 57,203 10.7% Ing. Richard Lugner 9,025 1.7% Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 150 042 28.1%
1st round total: Dr. Irmgard Griss 810.641 18,9 % Ing. Norbert Hofer 1.499.971 35,1 % Rudolf Hundstorfer 482.790 11,3 % Dr. Andreas Khol 475.767 11,1 % Ing. Richard Lugner 96.783 2,3 % Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 913.218 21,3 %
2nd round w/o Absentee:
Ing. Norbert Hofer 1937863 51.9% Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 1793857 48.1%
OK, there are two ways of looking at this.
1. Dr Van der Bellen got 16% of his vote from absentee ballots, against 9% for Hofer. If this remains the case in the second round this time, it means that the overall vote share will be:
Norbert Hofer 2,112,271 Van der Bellen 2,090,874
Except, of course, that there are far more absentee ballots this time around, which means there are a lot more votes to share around. This is only adding 461,000 votes, against 700-900,000 absentee ballots in the second round this time.
If we assume 830,000 of the 900,000 are returned, and keep those proportions, it becomes:
Norbert Hofer 2,251,796 Van der Bellen 2,310,487
2. Hofer underperformed his vote by 9.5% in the first round postals, while Bellen outperformed by 6.7%. Applying this to the remainder gives two different results. If the full 900,000 postal votes were returned, Van der Bellen edges it by just under 2,000 votes. If, on the other hand, the number returned falls below 768,202, then Hofer wins it.
On topic: I was thinking the other day that we really have a camel-shaped probability distribution for the referendum, with one hump at around 56% and another hump at around 50%. The relative heights of the two humps depend on the weightings you give to phone vs online polls.
Bi-modal distribution, like height? One hump for women and a greater one for men.
Leavers are from Mars. Remainers are from Venus.
Some truth in that, I think. Marriage counselling will be required post vote.
Regarding the Treasury reports, a qualitative comparison between them is a little bit interesting, even without accepting the numbers as good forecasts.
Treasury report #1 predicted an economy 6% smaller than other wise by 2030. Treasury report #2 predict a 3.5-6% GDP hit in the first two years.
So the combined prediction is of a sharp short-term growth hit, but more or less unchanged longer-term growth potential from the lower base. That actually tallies quite well with a lot of the discussions on expectations post-Brexit that have been discussed here, and suggests that if Leave could come up with a good way to mitigate the immediate hit that they could somewhat blunt the economic argument.
With respect Roger, I think you're missing the point. Whether we have a veto or not is now irrelevant. Brakes when you're hurtling down a hill are only useful if you can or will use them.
With Cameron lying continually, and only now showing his true Euro-fanaticism, we know he won't use it. Or at least. may not do.
Nor will Farron or the Labour Party. If it exists, it's a virtual veto.
That's a problem in British politics, nothing to do with the EU. If Britain decides it wants to admit an unknown number of people from Turkey, we can do so whether we're members of the EU or not. If you're against the idea and don't trust British leaders not to do it anyway, you're actually better off in the EU, on the basis that someone ELSE might veto it. The EU has a conservative institutional bias to not doing stuff, because of the 28 vetoes.
That's a very good point
It's actually a reason why I'm not quite as gung-ho about the EU as my background would make me (though I'm still clearly Remain) - its most salient characteristic is that it's a cautious, conservative institution which is good at promoting free trade and is otherwise wary of doing anything. Unlike, say, British governments, who are quite keen on doing exciting new stuff, for good or ill, to show how jolly dynamic they are. I'd expect the more traditional kind of conservative to prefer the European approach - think twice before you act, and then have another think!
Yes; but in each of those cases, they (the EU) made some cosmetic changes and the government of the day decided to resubmit the issue to a vote.
There can be no change to an accession Treaty. Not only that but, to repeat the question I asked earlier, why do you think a second referendum (or third or fourth or fifth) would have a different result in Turkey.
Ultimately, the EU can ask a parliament to submit legislation for a referendum, it cannot demand it. Referendum are in the gift of national parliaments.
But this whole issue is stupid. We need to get off it. Firstly, it's not true that there is any likelihood Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years. Secondly, there is no real evidence it resonates in any way with potential voters.
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Nobody is talking about the increased financial contribution to the EU required on Turkey's accession or extra competition from Turkey, are they?
They are talking about unfettered immigration and all the consequences associated with it. They are talking about the c.2 million Syrian refugees camped in Turkey and Merkel putting out a welcome mat for them with zero consultation. They are talking about the leverage that Erdogan has negotiating free movement WITHOUT ACCESSION.
Another example of somebody on this forum paying more heed to form than substance.
Nobody is talking about the increased financial contribution to the EU required on Turkey's accession or extra competition from Turkey, are they?
1. As Turkey's not going to join the EU, the first part of your sentence is moot. 2. Turkey is already part of the EU customs union, so there would be no additional competition even if they did join the EU, which they won't.
But let's pretend you're not talking absolute shit for a moment. And therefore damaging a cause which I happen to hold dear.
A treaty between the EU and Turkey cannot grant visa free access to the UK, it can only grant it to the Schengen zone. Why? Because the UK is a member of the Common Travel Area, which is a separate set of treaties over which the EU has no jurisdiction. So, whatever Germany or the EU does - short of full accession - cannot allow a single additional Turk into the UK.
Overall, a miscalculation to hold the referendum. It would have been a nice idea if the children would play nicely. An open and reasonable discussion of the facts would have gone well.
But politicians cannot help themselves, they lie routinely. Dressing up supposition as fact is a lie in my book. The end justifies the means as always.
So holding the referendum was only a mistake because it exposes the lying toe-rags we elect. Politics is the less for it. But even more reason to hold referenda if we can't trust what our elected representatives say.
What I've found most revealing are the attitudes of those who in the heat of the campaign, are showing their true colours.
I've see some Remainers in a most unflattering light, Matthew Parris in particular. And much unexpected tolerance in those who're willing to put aside old tribal differences and share a common vision of Britain.
Whatever the result - this referendum has truly shaken the political kaleidoscope.
I think we can all probably say the same as the stuff both sides are coming out with is not doing any of them any favours.
However I honestly think that Penny Morduant's performance yesterday was a a new low for me. To lie repeatedly under questioning is disgraceful and honestly believe she should be sacked. For a government minister to repeatedly claim there is no veto when there so obviously is inexcusable. You could tell that Marr couldn't believe what he was hearing.
It was a different level of lying than all the half truths and exaggerations that have come out from sides up to now.
1. If someone comes to you with an idea about a stone monolith, tell them to Fuck. Right. Off.
2. Um....
3. Don't eat or hold foodstuffs in camera range.
4. Remember how many kitchens you have.
5.Er....
6. That's it.
Ed Miliband should look at the photo of Cameron that MikeK posted in this thread. Labour needs to react appropriately when the Tories take the gloves off. It's not quite mutually assured destruction but it's along the same lines: you agree not to use our man looking like a prat with a bacon sandwich and we won't use your man looking like a twerp with a pint. That sort of thing.
As Leave is now discovering (see Turkey on this thread), CCHQ has records of every changed position or extreme statement going back decades. Labour needs to match this. Who said what when about Mandela, gay rights or Hillsborough. The point is not to use it, because no-one wins in a race to the bottom, but to deter the other side.
Instead, those clowns who run Labour's media operation get hung up on Dave/Boris/Zac being posh. FFS everyone expects Tories to be worth a few bob (even the skint ones) and it won't shift a single bloody vote.
1. If someone comes to you with an idea about a stone monolith, tell them to Fuck. Right. Off.
2. Um....
3. Don't eat or hold foodstuffs in camera range.
4. Remember how many kitchens you have.
5.Er....
6. That's it.
It reminds me of the cartoon about the police chief on the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry who was invited to New York to advise the Police department who were looking for serial killer Son Of Sam.........'Ok Lads. You spend he first ten years looking for smeone with a Geordie accent...'
With respect Roger, I think you're missing the point. Whether we have a veto or not is now irrelevant. Brakes when you're hurtling down a hill are only useful if you can or will use them.
With Cameron lying continually, and only now showing his true Euro-fanaticism, we know he won't use it. Or at least. may not do.
Nor will Farron or the Labour Party. If it exists, it's a virtual veto.
The implication is that Turkey might join. In fact for all sorts of reasons that won't happen. France have to have a referendum not to mention Cyprus.
But that's the point I was making. As the story unfolds it becomes ever clearer that there is no chance of them joining but the lie becomes ever more publicised.
Sorry Roger, but it's your mind block on all to do with the EU that is more exposed. If France or any other country in the EU had a referendum denying turkey, they would be forced to have another one until the result was that which Brussels wanted.
I'm sorry but one of the reasons I am in the opposite camp is because of this sort of distorted rubbish
Regarding the Treasury reports, a qualitative comparison between them is a little bit interesting, even without accepting the numbers as good forecasts.
Treasury report #1 predicted an economy 6% smaller than other wise by 2030. Treasury report #2 predict a 3.5-6% GDP hit in the first two years.
So the combined prediction is of a sharp short-term growth hit, but more or less unchanged longer-term growth potential from the lower base. That actually tallies quite well with a lot of the discussions on expectations post-Brexit that have been discussed here, and suggests that if Leave could come up with a good way to mitigate the immediate hit that they could somewhat blunt the economic argument.
£13bn in contributions.
The Personal Independence Dividend.
An annual payment to every adult in the country from now until 2020, when the electorate get to vote on who they want to run the country.
Off Topic: Morris - Out of interest, have you received your PB.com lifetime achievement award yet from OGH, following your absolutely stupendous 250/1 winning tip on the Spanish Grand Prix.
And btw do you have something similar planned for Monaco next weekend .... No? Oh well a tidy 2.5/1 winner would suffice.
I've just been reading the Treasury report on trade and their scenario breakdowns. What struck me was that they say we would be worst off by WTO terms, second worst off with EEA terms and least worst off with a bespoke deal. That means the Treasury expects that the government would drive a very hard bargain indeed with the EU if they went for a bespoke deal, given that the EEA is single market membership for goods and services.
Cameron is giving a speech and he's very good indeed. Leave have no one in the same league which is why as people's minds become more focussed and we start listening and watching more the polls are likely to widen
Except, of course, that there are far more absentee ballots this time around, which means there are a lot more votes to share around. This is only adding 461,000 votes, against 700-900,000 absentee ballots in the second round this time.
If we assume 830,000 of the 900,000 are returned, and keep those proportions, it becomes:
Norbert Hofer 2,251,796 Van der Bellen 2,310,487
2. Hofer underperformed his vote by 9.5% in the first round postals, while Bellen outperformed by 6.7%. Applying this to the remainder gives two different results. If the full 900,000 postal votes were returned, Van der Bellen edges it by just under 2,000 votes. If, on the other hand, the number returned falls below 768,202, then Hofer wins it.
It's going to be incredibly close.
Yes - ORF (television) is projecting on the basis of round 1 that Van der Bellen will get 61% of the postal vote (partly because Vienna has more PVs than most, and Vienna is massively anti-FPO), which would give him win by a couple of thousand votes. But as you imply, the assumption here is that people who signed up for PVs in round 2 vote in a similar way to postal voters last time. Who knows? My gut feeling is that Hofer will squeak it, because 61% of the PV seems a high target. But it's a guess.
There don't seem to be any market on the outcome, do there? Betfair is relentlessly Anglo-Saxon.
Comments
Working that through in a post Brexit, uncooperative EU environment, is it unreasonable to assume:
a) The UK would import from Norway tariff free, because we would strike a bilateral free trade deal with EFTA - I've yet to see any doom laden scenario suggesting otherwise:
b) The Irish would end up paying Tariffs because of EU/UK tariff issues according to the doom laden scenarios;
Net effect: the cost of living in Ireland goes up with no effect on the UK.
At the same time, the bulk of Irish manufacturing is faced with tariffs as it is majority dependent on the UK market. The UK is of greater trading value to Ireland than the remainder of the EU combined.
It's fairly reasonable to conclude that there would be very significant mutterings in Ireland about whether they were riding the right horse staying within the EU (minus UK) for economic purposes. Would they pick up displaced migration as well?
Ireland would almost surely support the minimal disruption angle for Brexit because of the especially adverse consequences for them, and they can throw in the added spice that they are part of the eurozone.
They are Leave's trojan horse.
There can be no change to an accession Treaty. Not only that but, to repeat the question I asked earlier, why do you think a second referendum (or third or fourth or fifth) would have a different result in Turkey.
Ultimately, the EU can ask a parliament to submit legislation for a referendum, it cannot demand it. Referendum are in the gift of national parliaments.
But this whole issue is stupid. We need to get off it. Firstly, it's not true that there is any likelihood Turkey will join the EU in the next 20 years. Secondly, there is no real evidence it resonates in any way with potential voters.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 42
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/POTUSSCHOEN5.20.16topline.pdf
Florida - Gravis
Clinton 46 .. Trump 42
Sample 2,542
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/florida-general-election-poll-marijuana-and-trans-bathroom/
Irrespective, it's stupendously close.
I will filter your reassurances about what CCHQ is trying to do to the voluntary party through that prism in future.
I think the declared objectives of the EU, the portfolio of past experience over the last 60 years, and the declarations of future intent and aspirations builds (for me) an overwhelming body of evidence that the EU will - on balance of probabilities - continue to develop in that direction, but I appreciate that not everyone will agree.
I spent the better part of six weeks with my fellow members of the voluntary party last year trying to help elect two leaver MPs. I loved every minute of it, and would do it again.
I have seen serious suggestions he might stand for depute now that Hosie is history
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/734496597870927873
MOST Scots believe Nicola Sturgeon should not call a second Scottish independence referendum if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will, an exclusive poll for Scotland on Sunday suggests.
.....the poll found that 52 per cent are against a post-Brexit referendum as opposed to the 48 per cent who are for it [excluding don't knows].
......When people were asked how they would vote in a second referendum, there was more discouraging news for the SNP.......support for a No vote reach 51.6 per cent, compared with the 48.4 per cent who said they would support independence... a marked reduction in support for post-Brexit Scottish independence from ICM’s March poll, which showed a 53 per cent majority for breaking up the UK when “don’t knows” were excluded.
The findings will come as a blow for Sturgeon, who knows that a second defeat in an independence referendum would probably kill off her party’s independence dream for the foreseeable future.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/most-scots-against-indyref2-if-britain-leaves-eu-poll-1-4134751#ixzz49SuhPqws
Would it not require the rulebook changing, though, so that MPs aren't needed to nominate potential leaders?
It does not mean you reach more accurate conclusions.
SNP, not content with sleaziest party at Westminster, are bidding for least competent press operation too. Given they are up against Seumas, that's a big ask.
Yes - of course the uncertainty and turmoil of us leaving will undoubtedly cause economic problems in the short term. It is silly of Leave to pretend otherwise. Their case surely relies though on much MUCH more than a few quarters GDP figures?!
(If not, well, they are surely in the campaign for the wrong reasons)
Blustering that economic forecasts have been wrong more often than not may be true but misses the point. An undecided voter will find it highly plausible that Brexit will likely mean some economic problems - Leave need to admit this, say it will be short term, focus on the upsides and the long term. Not pretend it will all be OK, no issues, don't worry etc etc
There is a LONG TERM economic case for leaving which is not being made at all effectively IMHO.
It is remarkable, given how crap the Leave campaign is, that it is still fairly close.
I have always liked Steve Hilton, as I have said downthread. For example, he's a strong supporter of marriage and families.
I have always enjoyed campaigning with the voluntary party too.
A new research study has confirmed what most people, including this commentator, knew: national press coverage of EU referendum campaign has been “heavily skewed in favour of Brexit.”
The bald figures produced by researchers at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism tell the story: 45% of 928 referendum articles it studied were in favour of leaving while 27% backed the remain case.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/may/23/study-confirms-that-the-national-press-is-biased-in-favour-of-brexit
Edited extra bit: newspaper articles in isolation makes as much sense as considering radio bulletins. Where's the TV?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html
That Ed Miliband counsel and advice in full:
1. If someone comes to you with an idea about a stone monolith, tell them to Fuck. Right. Off.
2. Um....
3. Don't eat or hold foodstuffs in camera range.
4. Remember how many kitchens you have.
5.Er....
6. That's it.
2nd is for expected number of postal returns
3rd is for expected number of eligible postal returns.
As JournoSteve (STV Politics) observes:
Stewart Hosie and the National thrown under a bus on the same day. They're ruthless, this lot.
1st round absentee:
Dr. Irmgard Griss 117 323 21.9%
Ing. Norbert Hofer 136 832 25.6%
Rudolf Hundstorfer 64,349 12.0%
Dr. Andreas Khol 57,203 10.7%
Ing. Richard Lugner 9,025 1.7%
Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 150 042 28.1%
1st round total:
Dr. Irmgard Griss 810.641 18,9 %
Ing. Norbert Hofer 1.499.971 35,1 %
Rudolf Hundstorfer 482.790 11,3 %
Dr. Andreas Khol 475.767 11,1 %
Ing. Richard Lugner 96.783 2,3 %
Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 913.218 21,3 %
2nd round w/o Absentee:
Ing. Norbert Hofer 1937863 51.9%
Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen 1793857 48.1%
Nobody is talking about the increased financial contribution to the EU required on Turkey's accession or extra competition from Turkey, are they?
They are talking about unfettered immigration and all the consequences associated with it. They are talking about the c.2 million Syrian refugees camped in Turkey and Merkel putting out a welcome mat for them with zero consultation. They are talking about the leverage that Erdogan has negotiating free movement WITHOUT ACCESSION.
Another example of somebody on this forum paying more heed to form than substance.
1. Dr Van der Bellen got 16% of his vote from absentee ballots, against 9% for Hofer. If this remains the case in the second round this time, it means that the overall vote share will be: Except, of course, that there are far more absentee ballots this time around, which means there are a lot more votes to share around. This is only adding 461,000 votes, against 700-900,000 absentee ballots in the second round this time.
If we assume 830,000 of the 900,000 are returned, and keep those proportions, it becomes:
2. Hofer underperformed his vote by 9.5% in the first round postals, while Bellen outperformed by 6.7%. Applying this to the remainder gives two different results. If the full 900,000 postal votes were returned, Van der Bellen edges it by just under 2,000 votes. If, on the other hand, the number returned falls below 768,202, then Hofer wins it.
It's going to be incredibly close.
Some truth in that, I think. Marriage counselling will be required post vote.
Mr. 43, that's all well and good, but which side does the soup dragon prefer?
Treasury report #1 predicted an economy 6% smaller than other wise by 2030.
Treasury report #2 predict a 3.5-6% GDP hit in the first two years.
So the combined prediction is of a sharp short-term growth hit, but more or less unchanged longer-term growth potential from the lower base. That actually tallies quite well with a lot of the discussions on expectations post-Brexit that have been discussed here, and suggests that if Leave could come up with a good way to mitigate the immediate hit that they could somewhat blunt the economic argument.
6% cut in income if you Vote Leave, compensated by a 10% rise in 20 years...
Catchy!
1. As Turkey's not going to join the EU, the first part of your sentence is moot.
2. Turkey is already part of the EU customs union, so there would be no additional competition even if they did join the EU, which they won't.
But let's pretend you're not talking absolute shit for a moment. And therefore damaging a cause which I happen to hold dear.
A treaty between the EU and Turkey cannot grant visa free access to the UK, it can only grant it to the Schengen zone. Why? Because the UK is a member of the Common Travel Area, which is a separate set of treaties over which the EU has no jurisdiction. So, whatever Germany or the EU does - short of full accession - cannot allow a single additional Turk into the UK.
However I honestly think that Penny Morduant's performance yesterday was a a new low for me. To lie repeatedly under questioning is disgraceful and honestly believe she should be sacked. For a government minister to repeatedly claim there is no veto when there so obviously is inexcusable. You could tell that Marr couldn't believe what he was hearing.
It was a different level of lying than all the half truths and exaggerations that have come out from sides up to now.
I know I do...
As Leave is now discovering (see Turkey on this thread), CCHQ has records of every changed position or extreme statement going back decades. Labour needs to match this. Who said what when about Mandela, gay rights or Hillsborough. The point is not to use it, because no-one wins in a race to the bottom, but to deter the other side.
Instead, those clowns who run Labour's media operation get hung up on Dave/Boris/Zac being posh. FFS everyone expects Tories to be worth a few bob (even the skint ones) and it won't shift a single bloody vote.
I'm sorry but one of the reasons I am in the opposite camp is because of this sort of distorted rubbish
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36311668
The Personal Independence Dividend.
An annual payment to every adult in the country from now until 2020, when the electorate get to vote on who they want to run the country.
Morris - Out of interest, have you received your PB.com lifetime achievement award yet from OGH, following your absolutely stupendous 250/1 winning tip on the Spanish Grand Prix.
And btw do you have something similar planned for Monaco next weekend .... No? Oh well a tidy 2.5/1 winner would suffice.
There don't seem to be any market on the outcome, do there? Betfair is relentlessly Anglo-Saxon.
Oh...