There is an official Leave campaign nominated (call it government appointed) and that official Leave campaign has told us that there ain't gonna be no single market.
This whole "it's up to the government to tell us the alternatives" idea is fatuous. The government managed the process which involves an official Leave campaign. The government therefore has appointed a body whose duty is to put forward an alternative vision.
No point in an "official Leave campaign" if all they say, when questioned why we should leave, is: "just because".
This is pitiful nonsense.
Leave's official designation carries absolutely no policy-making brief, and to try and suggest so on a forum of reasonably savvy political posters is simply absurd.
What Leave *should* be doing in my opinion is providing information on the various scenarios following a Leave vote, and if a voter's least preferred scenario (presumably WTO, 4% on the price of brie etc.) seems a more fearful consequence than a few more decades in the EU, vote to Remain.
So it's not doing what either you or I think it should be doing. Genius.
If you're looking for a fan of Vote Leave, you're asking the wrong poster. I just object to people clumsily attempting to goad them into making policy pronouncements they can't fulfil. It's all a bit Richard Nabavi.
@ScottyNational: News: SNP state that election helicopter was properly accounted for as it's used to quickly distance the party from their scandal ridden MPs
Of course, in the EEA option we wouldn't have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
If only the British government didn't have a long record of supporting Turkish membership then 'Vote Remain to keep the veto' wouldn't be a bad argument.
Which part of without Cameron there would be no Tory majority and no referendum is difficult for the haters to understand.
They aren't rational. Some of the Tory Leavers are worse than the Corbynites or ISIS when it comes to fervour and belief they are right and everyone else is wrong, even when you present them with the facts.
That may be true, Mr. Eagles, but I suggest to you that most people who favour leaving the EU are perfectly rational, have looked at the facts and made their decision accordingly.
If you, and Mr Scott_P, are unable to accept that and feel you have to label people as irrational, headbangers and all the rest of the dreary insults that are regularly trotted out on this site then that is, I am afraid, a reflection of your problems.
The hatred towards the man who delivered the referendum is not rational. Its religious in its fervour and unattractive.
Perhaps because there is considerable overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs.
If a leader of a religion becomes a heretic, you'd expect a furious reaction.
Incidentally, how is the opprobrium vented on Cameron any different to that vented on Reckless by some on this board?
Reckless was treacherous, timed his resignation and by election to cause a lot of damage to the Tories and Cameron. Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
He promised to negotiate reform and, if reform was impossible, to consider not recommending stay in.
Fail.
We'd have been better waiting 5 or 10 years (even with the two Eds) to get a fair referendum.
Of course, in the EEA option we wouldn't have a veto on Turkey joining the EU.
</troll mode>
If only the British government didn't have a long record of supporting Turkish membership then 'Vote Remain to keep the veto' wouldn't be a bad argument.
I'm confused. I thought the whole thrust of the Leave argument was that decisions like this should be made by parliament.
You can repeat it as much as you like - it is still meaningless whataboutery. You have no clue whether the Tories could have won outright with a right wing leader - their most successful election winning leader of modern times was right wing. And she did it against a background of 30 years of left wing political consensus. That was because she had convictions; she wanted to get into power to get things done, not because she thought she'd be 'rather good at it'.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
The Treasury is a neutral, objective and unbiased source.
Open Europe have just published a rather critical analysis of the Treasury claims. Basically they are exaggerating and much of their analysis is based on the idea that if there is any sort of negative impact they will simply sit on their hands and let the it happen.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Perhaps because there is considerable overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs.
If a leader of a religion becomes a heretic, you'd expect a furious reaction.
Incidentally, how is the opprobrium vented on Cameron any different to that vented on Reckless by some on this board?
Reckless was treacherous, timed his resignation and by election to cause a lot of damage to the Tories and Cameron. Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
I don't see anybody complaining that Cameron gave us a referendum, his popularity ratings suggest he hasn't conducted himself with much dignity or integrity since.
Thats your opinion, I disagree. Duncan Smith made the whole thing a lot nastier than it needed to be with his ridiculous flounce. Lets see who wins...
Has an EU member ever vetoed a new members application?
No, not recently, at least not since the French veto of UK membership(!) but the French have effectively vetoed Turkish entry into the EU in perpetuation.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Citation needed
Look at the Tories record under Hague, Howard and IDS. UKIP also hoover up a lot of right wing votes. Its pretty obvious
Ryan Bourne @MrRBourne The "profound shock" post-ref is going to be to Cameron & Osborne trying to manage the Conservative party given their campaign approach.
There is an official Leave campaign nominated (call it government appointed) and that official Leave campaign has told us that there ain't gonna be no single market.
This whole "it's up to the government to tell us the alternatives" idea is fatuous. The government managed the process which involves an official Leave campaign. The government therefore has appointed a body whose duty is to put forward an alternative vision.
No point in an "official Leave campaign" if all they say, when questioned why we should leave, is: "just because".
This is pitiful nonsense.
Leave's official designation carries absolutely no policy-making brief, and to try and suggest so on a forum of reasonably savvy political posters is simply absurd.
What Leave *should* be doing in my opinion is providing information on the various scenarios following a Leave vote, and if a voter's least preferred scenario (presumably WTO, 4% on the price of brie etc.) seems a more fearful consequence than a few more decades in the EU, vote to Remain.
So it's not doing what either you or I think it should be doing. Genius.
If you're looking for a fan of Vote Leave, you're asking the wrong poster. I just object to people clumsily attempting to goad them into making policy pronouncements they can't fulfil. It's all a bit Richard Nabavi.
So what on earth is the point of the Vote Leave campaign regardless of whether you or I think it is doing a good job?
We have had pronouncements from it on immigration, the single market, the reallocation of the EU budget.
You really think that nothing it says in any of its literature should have any bearing on what a post-EU UK should look like? Well what on earth is the point of it then?
If I'm clumsy then you I'm afraid are being naive if you think people who vote Leave will happily accept something that VL have campaigned against. Or do the people not quite get it?
The Treasury is a neutral, objective and unbiased source.
Open Europe have just published a rather critical analysis of the Treasury claims. Basically they are exaggerating and much of their analysis is based on the idea that if there is any sort of negative impact they will simply sit on their hands and let the it happen.
I'm not sure that "the recession that will follow Brexit will not be quite as severe as the Treasury is suggesting" is the answer to this point that Leave are looking for.
Which part of without Cameron there would be no Tory majority and no referendum is difficult for the haters to understand.
They aren't rational. Some of the Tory Leavers are worse than the Corbynites or ISIS when it comes to fervour and belief they are right and everyone else is wrong, even when you present them with the facts.
That may be true, Mr. Eagles, but I suggest to you that most people who favour leaving the EU are perfectly rational, have looked at the facts and made their decision accordingly.
If you, and Mr Scott_P, are unable to accept that and feel you have to label people as irrational, headbangers and all the rest of the dreary insults that are regularly trotted out on this site then that is, I am afraid, a reflection of your problems.
The hatred towards the man who delivered the referendum is not rational. Its religious in its fervour and unattractive.
Perhaps because there is considerable overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs.
If a leader of a religion becomes a heretic, you'd expect a furious reaction.
Incidentally, how is the opprobrium vented on Cameron any different to that vented on Reckless by some on this board?
Reckless was treacherous, timed his resignation and by election to cause a lot of damage to the Tories and Cameron. Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
I don't see anybody complaining that Cameron gave us a referendum, his popularity ratings suggest he hasn't conducted himself with much dignity or integrity since.
Except Cameron himself, perhaps.
I mean, he is risking WWIII, economic collapse, house price collapse, death of first born...
Wow, I've never seen a vote this close in my lifetime. Whoever wins it will be interesting to see what happens if it is contested and a recount ordered and the winner changes.
Is this closer than Florida? Are hanging chads involved?
2000 was before I became interested in politics, being only 13 at the time!
Pah! We're the same age and I can (just about) remember Major winning in 1992.
I remember the euphoria of Tony Blair (though not in my household) and my parents talking about our local MP getting shitcanned (Portillo) but before that my earliest memory of significance was Baggio missing the penalty in the WC. I have vague recollections of Mrs Thatcher getting awfully cross at BA for putting awful liveries on their planes.
Maggie was at an exhibition of some kind (IIRC) and saw a model of a BA plane with its "awful" livery. She opened her handbag and took out a hanky which she placed of the tail of the model
I'm not sure that "the recession that will follow Brexit will not be quite as severe as the Treasury is suggesting" is the answer to this point that Leave are looking for.
In an alternate universe, Leave accepted a small, short, shock for long term gain.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Citation needed
Look at the Tories record under Hague, Howard and IDS. UKIP also hoover up a lot of right wing votes. Its pretty obvious
Though Hague, IDS and Howard were up against the centrist Blair. The 2020 leader will very probably be up against Corbyn or someone of a similar ilk. In that case, just as Thatcher was up against post-WinterOfDiscontent Callaghan, Leftist Foot and unilateralist Kinnock, that election could probably be won from further right that usual. But it'd still be relying on Labour being unelectable.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Citation needed
Look at the Tories record under Hague, Howard and IDS. UKIP also hoover up a lot of right wing votes. Its pretty obvious
The point of politics isn't to assess the political make up of the country and then dress yourself in the according clothes. It's to work out where you want to take the country and find common ground with people in order to convince them to vote for you regardless of their previous habits. Otherwise what's the point of democracy at all? What's the point of winning, apart from gaining the power of patronage and preferment? It becomes a racket that people are justifiably sick of.
I'm not sure that "the recession that will follow Brexit will not be quite as severe as the Treasury is suggesting" is the answer to this point that Leave are looking for.
Er no. The Open Europe analysis says it is very unlikely there will be any sort of recession. At worst we are looking at slower growth, not negative growth.
"Overall, it is fair to say there will be a short term shock but going much beyond that is ultimately speculation. There are also a number of particularly pessimistic assumptions in the Treasury report which do not seem entirely realistic, especially around the policy response and the impact of the transitional effect which means buying into the Treasury’s longer term predictions and basing business decisions on them."
Perhaps because there is considerable overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs.
If a leader of a religion becomes a heretic, you'd expect a furious reaction.
Incidentally, how is the opprobrium vented on Cameron any different to that vented on Reckless by some on this board?
Reckless was treacherous, timed his resignation and by election to cause a lot of damage to the Tories and Cameron. Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
I don't see anybody complaining that Cameron gave us a referendum, his popularity ratings suggest he hasn't conducted himself with much dignity or integrity since.
Thats your opinion, I disagree. Duncan Smith made the whole thing a lot nastier than it needed to be with his ridiculous flounce. Lets see who wins...
Who wins is irrelevant, Cameron's personal ratings have dropped significantly, bleat on about IDS all you like. Cameron will likely "win", his legacy is tarnished forever, he's been completely exposed.
I'm not sure that "the recession that will follow Brexit will not be quite as severe as the Treasury is suggesting" is the answer to this point that Leave are looking for.
"Osborne has turned the economy to dung and is now attempting some sort of economic dirty protest against Brexit" is the answer they're looking for, but they can't say so.
An prime example of what the Economist thinks is fine, well researched, balanced journalism....?
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe "The notion that Steve Hilton's views on Brexit matter remotely is, frankly, adorable." "Breathless excitement about an eccentric Whitehall has-been is ridiculous. No perspective. It's why Remain is going to win."
There is an official Leave campaign nominated (call it government appointed) and that official Leave campaign has told us that there ain't gonna be no single market.
This whole "it's up to the government to tell us the alternatives" idea is fatuous. The government managed the process which involves an official Leave campaign. The government therefore has appointed a body whose duty is to put forward an alternative vision.
No point in an "official Leave campaign" if all they say, when questioned why we should leave, is: "just because".
This is pitiful nonsense.
Leave's official designation carries absolutely no policy-making brief, and to try and suggest so on a forum of reasonably savvy political posters is simply absurd.
What Leave *should* be doing in my opinion is providing information on the various scenarios following a Leave vote, and if a voter's least preferred scenario (presumably WTO, 4% on the price of brie etc.) seems a more fearful consequence than a few more decades in the EU, vote to Remain.
So it's not doing what either you or I think it should be doing. Genius.
If you're looking for a fan of Vote Leave, you're asking the wrong poster. I just object to people clumsily attempting to goad them into making policy pronouncements they can't fulfil. It's all a bit Richard Nabavi.
So what on earth is the point of the Vote Leave campaign regardless of whether you or I think it is doing a good job?
We have had pronouncements from it on immigration, the single market, the reallocation of the EU budget.
You really think that nothing it says in any of its literature should have any bearing on what a post-EU UK should look like? Well what on earth is the point of it then?
If I'm clumsy then you I'm afraid are being naive if you think people who vote Leave will happily accept something that VL have campaigned against. Or do the people not quite get it?
So far as I'm aware, Vote Leave have been discussing possibilities that a Leave vote will enable. Personally I don't want a single shilling more spending on the NHS. That doesn't mean I don't get the point being made that Treasury coffers will enjoy a great deal of relief from not paying our EU subs. None of that is not the same as offering a detailed prospectus for our international trade policy over the next 30 years.
Personally I think Remain will win, and I have never waivered from that view. However, I think this will be a huge step forward in solidifying a new cohort of motivated voters that understands the need for Britain to be independent.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Citation needed
Look at the Tories record under Hague, Howard and IDS. UKIP also hoover up a lot of right wing votes. Its pretty obvious
Though Hague, IDS and Howard were up against the centrist Blair. The 2020 leader will very probably be up against Corbyn or someone of a similar ilk. In that case, just as Thatcher was up against post-WinterOfDiscontent Callaghan, Leftist Foot and unilateralist Kinnock, that election could probably be won from further right that usual. But it'd still be relying on Labour being unelectable.
Yes I completely agree. It also depends largely on who the next Tory leader is. I cant see any sense in conceding the middle ground.
I'm not sure that "the recession that will follow Brexit will not be quite as severe as the Treasury is suggesting" is the answer to this point that Leave are looking for.
Its a bit like 'It's nowhere near as much as £4,300 worse off'.....
What a strange post. The Leave campaigns have all ruled out the EEA option, and indeed much, perhaps most, of their campaign is about immigration. So why on earth would the Treasury analyse an option which isn't being proposed by anyone?
Many people advocating Leave don't even understand what they are proposing. I had to point out to a fan of the sainted Dan Hannan yesterday that he is actually advocating a post-Brexit option (EEA) that Gove and Boris have explicitly ruled out. He was somewhat non-plussed,
If Leave does scrape a win it's going to be a hoot sitting back and watches what happens next.
What a strange post. The Leave campaigns have all ruled out the EEA option, and indeed much, perhaps most, of their campaign is about immigration. So why on earth would the Treasury analyse an option which isn't being proposed by anyone?
Many people advocating Leave don't even understand what they are proposing. I had to point out to a fan of the sainted Dan Hannan yesterday that he is actually advocating a post-Brexit option (EEA) that Gove and Boris have explicitly ruled out. He was somewhat non-plussed,
If Leave does scrape a win it's going to be a hoot sitting back and watches what happens next.
You don't understand either. It was EFTA, not EEA.
What a strange post. The Leave campaigns have all ruled out the EEA option, and indeed much, perhaps most, of their campaign is about immigration. So why on earth would the Treasury analyse an option which isn't being proposed by anyone?
Many people advocating Leave don't even understand what they are proposing. I had to point out to a fan of the sainted Dan Hannan yesterday that he is actually advocating a post-Brexit option (EEA) that Gove and Boris have explicitly ruled out. He was somewhat non-plussed,
If Leave does scrape a win it's going to be a hoot sitting back and watches what happens next.
Could be a mass Chicken Licken Convention. Meanwhile, across the channel, I anticipate, merde a frappé le ventilateur"
Comments
Fail.
We'd have been better waiting 5 or 10 years (even with the two Eds) to get a fair referendum.
You can repeat it as much as you like - it is still meaningless whataboutery. You have no clue whether the Tories could have won outright with a right wing leader - their most successful election winning leader of modern times was right wing. And she did it against a background of 30 years of left wing political consensus. That was because she had convictions; she wanted to get into power to get things done, not because she thought she'd be 'rather good at it'.
But Cameron DID win the election, with personal ratings significantly higher than those of his party. That is a fact. He did it despite a right wing party which must have siphoned of part of the anti-Labour vote. I think that even if the right of the party had an obviously popular leader, they don't and didn't, they would struggle to win an outright majority against anyone but a Labour leader like Corbyn and often not then.
Mrs Thatcher was from a different era, part of her legacy is that its very difficult to win from the right in Britain. For the Tories to win they have to do it from the left of the party. Cameron has achieved that. Unfortunately some of his colleagues appear to be intent on dragging the party back to the darker days of the mid 90s.
Perhaps because there is considerable overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs.
If a leader of a religion becomes a heretic, you'd expect a furious reaction.
Incidentally, how is the opprobrium vented on Cameron any different to that vented on Reckless by some on this board?
Reckless was treacherous, timed his resignation and by election to cause a lot of damage to the Tories and Cameron.
Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
I don't see anybody complaining that Cameron gave us a referendum, his popularity ratings suggest he hasn't conducted himself with much dignity or integrity since.
Thats your opinion, I disagree. Duncan Smith made the whole thing a lot nastier than it needed to be with his ridiculous flounce. Lets see who wins...
FFS - it also goes on about people abroad not knowing whether they would have the right to remain.
The treasury - run by 27 year olds with no education, no common sense and no balls.
The "profound shock" post-ref is going to be to Cameron & Osborne trying to manage the Conservative party given their campaign approach.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/734066200980955137
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/there-would-likely-be-a-short-term-shock-from-brexit-but-the-treasury-over-does-it/
My german isn't good enough to get at the actual result needed just yet.
We have had pronouncements from it on immigration, the single market, the reallocation of the EU budget.
You really think that nothing it says in any of its literature should have any bearing on what a post-EU UK should look like? Well what on earth is the point of it then?
If I'm clumsy then you I'm afraid are being naive if you think people who vote Leave will happily accept something that VL have campaigned against. Or do the people not quite get it?
Hero to Zero ....
I mean, he is risking WWIII, economic collapse, house price collapse, death of first born...
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/734732887124234240
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/734733115726417920
"Overall, it is fair to say there will be a short term shock but going much beyond that is ultimately speculation. There are also a number of particularly pessimistic assumptions in the Treasury report which do not seem entirely realistic, especially around the policy response and the impact of the transitional effect which means buying into the Treasury’s longer term predictions and basing business decisions on them."
Cameron promised a referendum. We appear to be having one. Seems fair.
Once again I repeat...the Tories wouldn't have won an outright majority with a right wing leader. Do you think there would be one with a Labour Govt or a Tory/ Lib dem coalition?
He has done what he promised. Its really very simple.
I don't see anybody complaining that Cameron gave us a referendum, his popularity ratings suggest he hasn't conducted himself with much dignity or integrity since.
Thats your opinion, I disagree. Duncan Smith made the whole thing a lot nastier than it needed to be with his ridiculous flounce. Lets see who wins...
Who wins is irrelevant, Cameron's personal ratings have dropped significantly, bleat on about IDS all you like. Cameron will likely "win", his legacy is tarnished forever, he's been completely exposed.
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
"The notion that Steve Hilton's views on Brexit matter remotely is, frankly, adorable."
"Breathless excitement about an eccentric Whitehall has-been is ridiculous. No perspective. It's why Remain is going to win."
1.52
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Personally I think Remain will win, and I have never waivered from that view. However, I think this will be a huge step forward in solidifying a new cohort of motivated voters that understands the need for Britain to be independent.
I have tickets for Black Sabbath with Ozzy and Tony in two weeks at the Download Festival. We are all growing old disgracefully.
If Leave does scrape a win it's going to be a hoot sitting back and watches what happens next.