I was going to say that Roger would no doubt have something to say about the ad but he already has!
Yes, I suspect that this'll be a major theme of Remain from here in. It's well done but it doesn't really address any of Leave's complaints.
It doesn't really need to because no one's hearing them. The only stuff that seems to be cutting through at the moment are organizations queuing up to say how out of pocket we'll be if we vote Leave.
In the short term - that of the referendum campaign - no. And for now, the short term is all that matters. However, Leave only have to win once and if people remain instinctively Leave, even if they're persuaded to vote Remain this time for lack of a better plan, that does nothing to resolve the question.
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
Jesus wept.
The BrExit campaign are not the government, the Conservative Party is, after the referendum, guess what, the Conservative Party is still the government. The referendum is advisory, the Conservative Party in the event of a Leave vote have the full range of options from telling the voters to get lost, to repealing the European Communities Act (1972) and all stations in between. Which of those happens will be chosen by the Government elected at GE2015, and passed or rejected by Parliament. VLTC can stand on the sidelines and shout about what it wants, but that is the extent of its input.
The Conservative Party may still form the government but which part of it will be in positions of power (PM and cabinet) and which will be powerless backbenchers?
Anyone who thinks that backbenchers in the Conservative Party are powerless has no idea of its history.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
The Government has a preferred option. It's called Remain.
The government's preferred option may be moot though - they've asked the electorate to make the decision and need to be ready for either outcome with a plan... I'm not that demanding of my government, but I do expect basic contingency planning for a 20-30% probability event (per the betting markets).
It would be easier to do basic contingency planning if those demanding a change of direction were to indicate what that might mean. It is not the government's fault that the Leave campaign are divided and clueless.
Errm you don't have a contingency plan for things going right generally. You have them for when stuff goes wrong.
The Leavers on here today:
What do we want? Well why aren't you telling us what we want?
Basically he 's saying if we adopt a Norwegian approach post Brexit we'll become richer. BUT a Norwegian approach basically says we WILL CONTINUE to pay the EC some money and obey some regulations - thus shooting Leave's argument to bits on money (less savings) and regulation (none vs some).
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
I expect Remain to win with a large majority as voters realise what a mess Brexit is.
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
I was going to say that Roger would no doubt have something to say about the ad but he already has!
Yes, I suspect that this'll be a major theme of Remain from here in. It's well done but it doesn't really address any of Leave's complaints.
It doesn't really need to because no one's hearing them. The only stuff that seems to be cutting through at the moment are organizations queuing up to say how out of pocket we'll be if we vote Leave.
In the short term - that of the referendum campaign - no. And for now, the short term is all that matters. However, Leave only have to win once and if people remain instinctively Leave, even if they're persuaded to vote Remain this time for lack of a better plan, that does nothing to resolve the question.
Indeed. But it does show up the weakness of referenda - 51% made up of "oh, all right then, just about, on balance" will always beat 49% made up of passionate fanatics.
As you say it looks like Saatchis. Apart from the typography it's quite a common theme of theirs to start a campaign by using an arresting image which sums up the opposition's weakness.
Interestingly last time I wrote about posters I wrongly attributed 'Demon Eyes' (which I described as a failure) to the Saatchis. In fact it was conceived by Steve Hilton.
So it was Steve Hilton who was prescient?
Hopefully with the help of some research. I heard Steve Hilton yesterday lambast EU officials for traveling first class and staying at five star hotels. It made me smile that he thought EU officials so less deserving than us advertising folk who never travel or stay any other way.
The difference, as I hope you realise Roger, is that you are being paid by a private company to travel that way - and bloody good luck to you for it as well. Judging by your thread headers on here you are well worth the money.
EU officials on the other hand are being paid out of taxpayers money and should not be so extravagant with it.
You could make the same argument that private companies are being extravagant with their shareholders' money.
The question, as with much else, is about value-for-money, both in terms of attracting and retaining people in their job, and in enabling them to do it. I don't personally have a problem with MPs being entitled to first class rail travel, where it's a lot easier to work on the move than in second.
I presume the fan must have said more than reported...otherwise he could have been saying your a f##king disgrace because you are a REMAINER or a Labour Party luuvie? I would think Boris gets that abuse every day, and has nothing to do with his dodgy hair.
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
In France at the moment, direction of travel is pretty much nowhere.
Still, the French undoubtedly have 'a plan' for where they go next...All detailed and stuff, prepared with loving care by their army of civil servants.
Afternoon all. On an earlier post a couple of posters kindly replied to be request regarding Vote Leave leaflet delivery. I am in the West Midlands. If I buy leaflets and deliver I assume I report where I delivered so as to avoid duplication. Or can I get some leaflets sent to me as one poster did?
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
In France at the moment, direction of travel is pretty much nowhere.
Still, the French undoubtedly have 'a plan' for where they go next...All detailed and stuff, prepared with loving care by their army of civil servants.
When you find out why all these petrol strikes, it reinforces how different and actually how problematic the French approach is and will be. Basically companies unwilling to expand because they find it incredibly difficult to ever sack somebody, even if they don't have work for him, is not the sort of flexible nimble labour market that the capitalist society of the modern developed world requires in order to compete.
I would never think of launching a start-up there, when I can do so in somewhere like Estonia instead, with highly educated individuals who all speak fantastic English, great internet etc etc etc and a government that is super supportive to start-ups.
As you say it looks like Saatchis. Apart from the typography it's quite a common theme of theirs to start a campaign by using an arresting image which sums up the opposition's weakness.
Interestingly last time I wrote about posters I wrongly attributed 'Demon Eyes' (which I described as a failure) to the Saatchis. In fact it was conceived by Steve Hilton.
So it was Steve Hilton who was prescient?
Hopefully with the help of some research. I heard Steve Hilton yesterday lambast EU officials for traveling first class and staying at five star hotels. It made me smile that he thought EU officials so less deserving than us advertising folk who never travel or stay any other way.
He doesn't think they are less deserving.
I'm surprised that you can still get away with it. Whenever I contract with a company - usually S&P500 - one of the clauses is that I have to stick to their travel policies.
I met a friend who is a creative director of an ad agency recently who told me a story about a 20 year old creative who was traveling to London from Manchester. On the platform he met his client a brand manager from ASDA.
As they walked towards the train the brand manager said "we've got a new policy now and we all have to travel second class"
at which point my friend asked nervously "and what did you do?"
"Well I told him I'm in first so I'll see you at Euston"
I presume the fan must have said more than reported...otherwise he could have been saying your a f##king disgrace because you are a REMAINER or a Labour Party luuvie? I would think Boris gets that abuse every day, and has nothing to do with his dodgy hair.
Pro Remainers with EU umbrellas tried to disrupt a Boris event today. It's so childish and counter-productive. It made Boris look like an underdog hero for finally shouting them down.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
If Leave win they, for better or worse, they have earned the right to negotiate what comes next themselves. Remainers from Cameron to Carney need to step down and give Johnson & Co their head. Only then are we going to be able judge whether it was the right thing to do.
Leavers can't seriously believe the current government to negotiate something they don't believe in, besides Leavers clearly don't trust anyone on the other side of the argument to do anything. The 500+ MPs on the opposite side of the argument need to keep out of the issue till we are out.
IMO it is vital that if we Brexit then there must be no room for Leave politicians to blame anyone else for the consequences of what happens next
Anyway, I have a huge objection to this poster. Whoever signed off "outside of" should be tarred, feathered and thrown in a fast-flowing river.
OT. You're a pension lawyer I believe. Any thoughts on the Tata proposals (or what we know of them)?
Hard cases make bad law. Either all employers with final salary schemes should be able to reshape benefits or none should. There's nothing unique about Tata.
Allowing all employers to change the basis of indexation from RPI to CPI seems reasonable to me. CPI is now generally recognised as a better measurement of inflation. Almost all of these schemes will have offered pension increases by reference to RPI before CPI was even introduced. Many such schemes now have a completely arbitrary mixture of RPI and CPI for increases of different benefits (and sometimes even for different parts of the same benefit).
I'm not convinced by the more dramatic benefit changes mooted.
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
In France at the moment, direction of travel is pretty much nowhere.
Still, the French undoubtedly have 'a plan' for where they go next...All detailed and stuff, prepared with loving care by their army of civil servants.
When you find out why all these petrol strikes, it reinforces how different and actually how problematic the French approach is and will be. Basically companies unwilling to expand because they find it incredibly difficult to ever sack somebody, even if they don't have work for him, is not the sort of flexible nimble labour market that the capitalist society of the modern developed world requires in order to compete.
I would never think of launching a start-up there, when I can do so in somewhere like Estonia instead, with highly educated individuals who all speak fantastic English, great internet etc etc etc and a government that is super supportive to start-ups.
Yes from what I can gather Hollande has watered down the proposals so French bosses are no longer much in favour yet the Unions are brining the place to a halt anyway.
As ever it's a balancing act between not wanting a race to the bottom in terms of workers' rights and health and safety etc, whilst not making life so expensive and awkward for companies that they simply stop hiring people. Clearly France has got it wrong big style (well I think so), and hence are stuck with very high levels of unemployment or aybe French society wants the trade off it has now, in which case fair enough, but don't expect jobs to be plentiful, because they won't be.
I was going to say that Roger would no doubt have something to say about the ad but he already has!
Yes, I suspect that this'll be a major theme of Remain from here in. It's well done but it doesn't really address any of Leave's complaints.
It doesn't really need to because no one's hearing them. The only stuff that seems to be cutting through at the moment are organizations queuing up to say how out of pocket we'll be if we vote Leave.
In the short term - that of the referendum campaign - no. And for now, the short term is all that matters. However, Leave only have to win once and if people remain instinctively Leave, even if they're persuaded to vote Remain this time for lack of a better plan, that does nothing to resolve the question.
But that isn't something those employed to run the advertising campaign for Remain need to think about. They're not building a brand but trying to win a four week campaign
I presume the fan must have said more than reported...otherwise he could have been saying your a f##king disgrace because you are a REMAINER or a Labour Party luuvie? I would think Boris gets that abuse every day, and has nothing to do with his dodgy hair.
Pro Remainers with EU umbrellas tried to disrupt a Boris event today. It's so childish and counter-productive. It made Boris look like an underdog hero for finally shouting them down.
Should I decide which way to vote on my opinion of Boris?
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
I presume the fan must have said more than reported...otherwise he could have been saying your a f##king disgrace because you are a REMAINER or a Labour Party luuvie? I would think Boris gets that abuse every day, and has nothing to do with his dodgy hair.
Pro Remainers with EU umbrellas tried to disrupt a Boris event today. It's so childish and counter-productive. It made Boris look like an underdog hero for finally shouting them down.
Should I decide which way to vote on my opinion of Boris?
I just love the idea of Bojo being connected with childishness as a victim. Beyond irony.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
I was going to say that Roger would no doubt have something to say about the ad but he already has!
Yes, I suspect that this'll be a major theme of Remain from here in. It's well done but it doesn't really address any of Leave's complaints.
It doesn't really need to because no one's hearing them. The only stuff that seems to be cutting through at the moment are organizations queuing up to say how out of pocket we'll be if we vote Leave.
In the short term - that of the referendum campaign - no. And for now, the short term is all that matters. However, Leave only have to win once and if people remain instinctively Leave, even if they're persuaded to vote Remain this time for lack of a better plan, that does nothing to resolve the question.
But that isn't something those employed to run the advertising campaign for Remain need to think about. They're not building a brand but trying to win a four week campaign
It is what those employing them should be thinking about though.
Afternoon all. On an earlier post a couple of posters kindly replied to be request regarding Vote Leave leaflet delivery. I am in the West Midlands. If I buy leaflets and deliver I assume I report where I delivered so as to avoid duplication. Or can I get some leaflets sent to me as one poster did?
Just order, get out and deliver. The odds of duplication are very small
Vote Leave encourages you to order and deliver leaflets in your street/local area anyway.
Anyway, I have a huge objection to this poster. Whoever signed off "outside of" should be tarred, feathered and thrown in a fast-flowing river.
OT. You're a pension lawyer I believe. Any thoughts on the Tata proposals (or what we know of them)?
Hard cases make bad law. Either all employers with final salary schemes should be able to reshape benefits or none should. There's nothing unique about Tata.
Allowing all employers to change the basis of indexation from RPI to CPI seems reasonable to me. CPI is now generally recognised as a better measurement of inflation. Almost all of these schemes will have offered pension increases by reference to RPI before CPI was even introduced. Many such schemes now have a completely arbitrary mixture of RPI and CPI for increases of different benefits (and sometimes even for different parts of the same benefit).
I'm not convinced by the more dramatic benefit changes mooted.
Yes, if it's OK for Tata because they've made the news, why not BHS or anybody else? I'd be amazed if this doesn't crop up in the BHS' hearings at some point.
I am convinced that we need to do something to release the burden on companies carrying these legacy schemes (which may well have made sound sense in the 60's,70's, 80's when set up) but which are such a crippling burden now with gilt yields/interest rates at three century lows. I'd think some combination of extending working lives (ie shortening retirement), making CPI default in all cases, and loosening what's permitted on other technical parameters a tad, in exchange for tighter regulation of what and what is not allowed (dividends can only be x per cent of deficit payments over a three year period, or something along those lines?).
One thing is for sure the BoE could at least buy some time by raising interest rates a bit as 0.5% rates is a huge factor in both this and ballooning house prices. I'd wonder if their remit of "2%" inflation might have to be widened a bit? Helicopter money till we reach 2% inflation and 2% interest rates? Basically something has to give as all that money disappearing into pension deficits isn't going into new equipment, new R+D, extra QC, marketing campaigns etc and though companies can weather that OK for a while, after years of it with no end in sight the cracks are appearing.
I was going to say that Roger would no doubt have something to say about the ad but he already has!
Yes, I suspect that this'll be a major theme of Remain from here in. It's well done but it doesn't really address any of Leave's complaints.
It doesn't really need to because no one's hearing them. The only stuff that seems to be cutting through at the moment are organizations queuing up to say how out of pocket we'll be if we vote Leave.
In the short term - that of the referendum campaign - no. And for now, the short term is all that matters. However, Leave only have to win once and if people remain instinctively Leave, even if they're persuaded to vote Remain this time for lack of a better plan, that does nothing to resolve the question.
Indeed. But it does show up the weakness of referenda - 51% made up of "oh, all right then, just about, on balance" will always beat 49% made up of passionate fanatics.
What % of the British electorate would have to support Brexit before you stopped calling them all passionate fanatics?
45%? 55%? 65%? 75%?
Or is a fanatic anyone who doesn't agree with your world view?
Still waiting for a positive reason to vote Remain...
55:45 win for timidity, nanny's coat tails and lack of imagination :-(
Sounds like a horce racing commentary. 'Nanny's coat tails coming up on the inside, closely followed by Lack of Imagination, but it's Timidity, Timidity wins it' etc.
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
Jesus wept.
The BrExit campaign are not the government, the Conservative Party is, after the referendum, guess what, the Conservative Party is still the government. The referendum is advisory, the Conservative Party in the event of a Leave vote have the full range of options from telling the voters to get lost, to repealing the European Communities Act (1972) and all stations in between. Which of those happens will be chosen by the Government elected at GE2015, and passed or rejected by Parliament. VLTC can stand on the sidelines and shout about what it wants, but that is the extent of its input.
Everyone who speaks up for Remain is vilified by the Leave camp, are you seriously suggesting that if Leave win they will be happy for those same individuals to then negotiate the exit?
Even if Leave were happy to hand over the negotiations to Remainers do you think that the individuals concerned would be stupid enough to do so knowing full well that Leavers will blame them for everything they do negotiate not being what they want.
If we Leave we are in totally unchartered territory. We will be embarking on a totally different direction for the country but against the wishes of 500+ of the current MPs. That's what a referendum means a majority will have in effect overruled parliament on the issue. Make no mistake it will have to be the Johnson/IDS/Gove show until we are out, I can't seen anything else working.
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
Jesus wept.
The BrExit campaign are not the government, the Conservative Party is, after the referendum, guess what, the Conservative Party is still the government. The referendum is advisory, the Conservative Party in the event of a Leave vote have the full range of options from telling the voters to get lost, to repealing the European Communities Act (1972) and all stations in between. Which of those happens will be chosen by the Government elected at GE2015, and passed or rejected by Parliament. VLTC can stand on the sidelines and shout about what it wants, but that is the extent of its input.
Everyone who speaks up for Remain is vilified by the Leave camp, are you seriously suggesting that if Leave win they will be happy for those same individuals to then negotiate the exit?
Even if Leave were happy to hand over the negotiations to Remainers do you think that the individuals concerned would be stupid enough to do so knowing full well that Leavers will blame them for everything they do negotiate not being what they want.
If we Leave we are in totally unchartered territory. We will be embarking on a totally different direction for the country but against the wishes of 500+ of the current MPs. That's what a referendum means a majority will have in effect overruled parliament on the issue. Make no mistake it will have to be the Johnson/IDS/Gove show until we are out, I can't seen anything else working.
For the chaos alone that would ensue in the governing party after a Leave vote it's almost worth voting Remain for the good of the country.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
The alternative is a too be decided PM shrugging his shoulders and saying 'it weren't my fault' when the EU walks all over us.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
As you say it looks like Saatchis. Apart from the typography it's quite a common theme of theirs to start a campaign by using an arresting image which sums up the opposition's weakness.
Interestingly last time I wrote about posters I wrongly attributed 'Demon Eyes' (which I described as a failure) to the Saatchis. In fact it was conceived by Steve Hilton.
So it was Steve Hilton who was prescient?
Hopefully with the help of some research. I heard Steve Hilton yesterday lambast EU officials for traveling first class and staying at five star hotels. It made me smile that he thought EU officials so less deserving than us advertising folk who never travel or stay any other way.
He doesn't think they are less deserving.
I'm surprised that you can still get away with it. Whenever I contract with a company - usually S&P500 - one of the clauses is that I have to stick to their travel policies.
I met a friend who is a creative director of an ad agency recently who told me a story about a 20 year old creative who was traveling to London from Manchester. On the platform he met his client a brand manager from ASDA.
As they walked towards the train the brand manager said "we've got a new policy now and we all have to travel second class"
at which point my friend asked nervously "and what did you do?"
"Well I told him I'm in first so I'll see you at Euston"
I'm sure that the client was delighted with that response.
In the past when it's arisen (if I am in business - BA upgrades me a lot - and my client in economy) I've offered to swap seats. It's rejected every time (n=4)...
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
Like I said to RCS1000 I'll remember your kind words when I'm languishing in a euro-jail for months without trial for non payment of euro taxes.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
The Government has a preferred option. It's called Remain.
The government's preferred option may be moot though - they've asked the electorate to make the decision and need to be ready for either outcome with a plan... I'm not that demanding of my government, but I do expect basic contingency planning for a 20-30% probability event (per the betting markets).
s.
Errm you don't have a contingency plan for things going right generally. You have them for when stuff goes wrong.
The Leavers on here today:
What do we want? Well why aren't you telling us what we want?
Basically he 's saying if we adopt a Norwegian approach post Brexit we'll become richer. BUT a Norwegian approach basically says we WILL CONTINUE to pay the EC some money and obey some regulations - thus shooting Leave's argument to bits on money (less savings) and regulation (none vs some).
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
I expect Remain to win with a large majority as voters realise what a mess Brexit is.
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
The remainers are desperately trying to cause distractions about the details of the logistics of leaving to take peoplea minds off the goal of leaving.
A bit like if one of rigsbys tenants has decided to buy a house and terminate the rent agreement. Rigsby would bang on about the horrors and expense of the housebuying process to prrsuade you to change your mind.
The problems of the housebuyng process are real enough but so is being stucj in a grotty bedsit controlled by a corrupt slumlord when you could be in a nice house you own and have sovereignty over.
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an outside observer here but it does seem that PB Leavers are as much frustrated with the people who don't "get it" as they are with the EU itself.
A lot spoken about democracy. It has only last year become the will of the people to have a referendum. Prior to that, the will of the people was to stay in the EU. In future, however "depressing" the thought is, the will of the people can dictate we leave at any time.
All that has to happen is for a political party to include that promise in its election manifesto.
I think @Luckyguy1983 (and one or two others') point is well made. This referendum will awaken peoples' consciousness towards the EU and make them question it as they might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
Jesus wept.
The BrExit campaign are not the government, the Conservative Party is, after the referendum, guess what, the Conservative Party is still the government. The referendum is advisory, the Conservative Party in the event of a Leave vote have the full range of options from telling the voters to get lost, to repealing the European Communities Act (1972) and all stations in between. Which of those happens will be chosen by the Government elected at GE2015, and passed or rejected by Parliament. VLTC can stand on the sidelines and shout about what it wants, but that is the extent of its input.
Everyone who speaks up for Remain is vilified by the Leave camp, are you seriously suggesting that if Leave win they will be happy for those same individuals to then negotiate the exit?
Even if Leave were happy to hand over the negotiations to Remainers do you think that the individuals concerned would be stupid enough to do so knowing full well that Leavers will blame them for everything they do negotiate not being what they want.
If we Leave we are in totally unchartered territory. We will be embarking on a totally different direction for the country but against the wishes of 500+ of the current MPs. That's what a referendum means a majority will have in effect overruled parliament on the issue. Make no mistake it will have to be the Johnson/IDS/Gove show until we are out, I can't seen anything else working.
Yep, the idea that Leavers will be content for Cameron and Osborne to negotiate Brexit is a touch far fetched. It will be a job for Boris, Gove, Grayling, Patrl et al. They'll then have to get what they agree through Parliament. What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, I have a huge objection to this poster. Whoever signed off "outside of" should be tarred, feathered and thrown in a fast-flowing river.
OT. You're a pension lawyer I believe. Any thoughts on the Tata proposals (or what we know of them)?
Hard cases make bad law. Either all employers with final salary schemes should be able to reshape benefits or none should. There's nothing unique about Tata.
Allowing all employers to change the basis of indexation from RPI to CPI seems reasonable to me. CPI is now generally recognised as a better measurement of inflation. Almost all of these schemes will have offered pension increases by reference to RPI before CPI was even introduced. Many such schemes now have a completely arbitrary mixture of RPI and CPI for increases of different benefits (and sometimes even for different parts of the same benefit).
I'm not convinced by the more dramatic benefit changes mooted.
Yes, if it's OK for Tata because they've made the news, why not BHS or anybody else? I'd be amazed if this doesn't crop up in the BHS' hearings at some point.
I am convinced that we need to do something to release the burden on companies carrying these legacy schemes (which may well have made sound sense in the 60's,70's, 80's when set up) but which are such a crippling burden now with gilt yields/interest rates at three century lows. I'd think some combination of extending working lives (ie shortening retirement), making CPI default in all cases, and loosening what's permitted on other technical parameters a tad, in exchange for tighter regulation of what and what is not allowed (dividends can only be x per cent of deficit payments over a three year period, or something along those lines?).
One thing is for sure the BoE could at least buy some time by raising interest rates a bit as 0.5% rates is a huge factor in both this and ballooning house prices. I'd wonder if their remit of "2%" inflation might have to be widened a bit? Helicopter money till we reach 2% inflation and 2% interest rates? Basically something has to give as all that money disappearing into pension deficits isn't going into new equipment, new R+D, extra QC, marketing campaigns etc and though companies can weather that OK for a while, after years of it with no end in sight the cracks are appearing.
The other thing I'd look at is making it a liability where it is possible to look through to the controlling shareholder. Tata is an immensely wealthy organisation - it seems wrong that the UK government should pay for the promises that it has failed to keep.
If this poster has been made by Saatchi you can be sure they've researched thoroughly the weakness that will most resonate with Remain's target market. So Leave can save some money by addressing the problem
It might seem obvious but you can never tell. I wouldn't have guessed that Miliband being under the thumb of the Nats would have resonated because I couldn't see it because I wasn't who it was targeted at..
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an outside observer here but it does seem that PB Leavers are as much frustrated with the people who don't "get it" as they are with the EU itself.
A lot spoken about democracy. It has only last year become the will of the people to have a referendum. Prior to that, the will of the people was to stay in the EU. In future, however "depressing" the thought is, the will of the people can dictate we leave at any time.
All that has to happen is for a political party to include that promise in its election manifesto.
I think @Luckyguy1983 (and one or two others') point is well made. This referendum will awaken peoples' consciousness towards the EU and make them question it as they might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
In 20 years' time everyone to the left of Nigel might have been taken out and hanged. you never can tell...
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
The Government has a preferred option. It's called Remain.
The government's preferred option may be moot though - they've asked the electorate to make the decision and need to be ready for either outcome with a plan... I'm not that demanding of my government, but I do expect basic contingency planning for a 20-30% probability event (per the betting markets).
s.
Errm you don't have a contingency plan for things going right generally. You have them for when stuff goes wrong.
The Leavers on here today:
What do we want? Well why aren't you telling us what we want?
Basically he 's saying if we adopt a Norwegian approach post Brexit we'll become richer. BUT a Norwegian approach basically says we WILL CONTINUE to pay the EC some money and obey some regulations - thus shooting Leave's argument to bits on money (less savings) and regulation (none vs some).
Clearly Brexit have no agreed plan if they win. Would anyone trust these people to organise a drinking session in a brewery? I would not.
I expect Remain to win with a large majority as voters realise what a mess Brexit is.
For me, this vote is a vote of confidence in the EU and its direction of travel.
The remainers are desperately trying to cause distractions about the details of the logistics of leaving to take peoplea minds off the goal of leaving.
A bit like if one of rigsbys tenants has decided to buy a house and terminate the rent agreement. Rigsby would bang on about the horrors and expense of the housebuying process to prrsuade you to change your mind.
The problems of the housebuyng process are real enough but so is being stucj in a grotty bedsit controlled by a corrupt slumlord when you could be in a nice house you own and have sovereignty over.
Still waiting for a positive reason to vote Remain...
55:45 win for timidity, nanny's coat tails and lack of imagination :-(
There are plenty of positive reasons to stay in the EU, it's just you don't agree with them. I rather like full access to the single market and the opportunity to live and work in 28 countries. I see both as very positive.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
Like I said to RCS1000 I'll remember your kind words when I'm languishing in a euro-jail for months without trial for non payment of euro taxes.
I will send you a cake and an EU-standard approved file.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum every other Thursday if we want to. I know this doesn't sit well with the "oppressive yoke of the EU Superstate" theme that you Leavers bang on about.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an outside observer here but it does seem that PB Leavers are as much frustrated with the people who don't "get it" as they are with the EU itself.
A lot spoken about democracy. It has only last year become the will of the people to have a referendum. Prior to that, the will of the people was to stay in the EU. In future, however "depressing" the thought is, the will of the people can dictate we leave at any time.
All that has to happen is for a political party to include that promise in its election manifesto.
I think @Luckyguy1983 (and one or two others') point is well made. This referendum will awaken peoples' consciousness towards the EU and make them question it as they might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
If this poster has been made by Saatchi you can be sure they've researched thoroughly the weakness that will most resonate with Remain's target market.
It might seem obvious but you can never tell. I wouldn't have guessed that Miliband being under the thumb of the Nats would have resonated because I couldn't see it because I wasn't who it was targeted at..
Saatchi's advert is incompetent. The immediate impact is fingers crossed for Leave.
Mr. Topping, that's like claiming an abused spouse is in control of their own destiny because they can walk out whenever they like.
Not to mention the current rate of votes held on the EU are once every 2,000 Thursdays. Not every Thursday.
Mr Morris when so much blood has been spilled in the cause of freedom and democracy, I find the readiness of remainers to place our fates into the hands of the unelected quite incomprehensible.
Mr. Taffys, even without that, swapping democracy for foreign bureaucracy is unfathomable to me.
But, there we are.
Mr. Observer, those are genuine positives to Remain. However, moving and living somewhere does not require EU membership, and other countries (such as South Korea) have negotiated trade deals with the EU.
Better to have a bargaining position that's entirely British with a 65m market than an EU 500m market negotiating in the interests that are mostly non-British.
Anyway, I have a huge objection to this poster. Whoever signed off "outside of" should be tarred, feathered and thrown in a fast-flowing river.
OT. You're a pension lawyer I believe. Any thoughts on the Tata proposals (or what we know of them)?
Hard cases make bad law. Either all employers with final salary schemes should be able to reshape benefits or none should. There's nothing unique about Tata.
Allowing all employers to change the basis of indexation from RPI to CPI seems reasonable to me. CPI is now generally recognised as a better measurement of inflation. Almost all of these schemes will have offered pension increases by reference to RPI before CPI was even introduced. Many such schemes now have a completely arbitrary mixture of RPI and CPI for increases of different benefits (and sometimes even for different parts of the same benefit).
I'm not convinced by the more dramatic benefit changes mooted.
Yes, if it's OK for Tata because they've made the news, why not BHS or anybody else? I'd be amazed if this doesn't crop up in the BHS' hearings at some point.
I am convinced that we need to do something to release the burden on companies carrying these legacy schemes (which may well have made sound sense in the 60's,70's, 80's when set up) but which are such a crippling burden now with gilt yields/interest rates at three century lows. I'd think some combination of extending working lives (ie shortening retirement), making CPI default in all cases, and loosening what's permitted on other technical parameters a tad, in exchange for tighter regulation of what and what is not allowed (dividends can only be x per cent of deficit payments over a three year period, or something along those lines?).
One thing is for sure the BoE could at least buy some time by raising interest rates a bit as 0.5% rates is a huge factor in both this and ballooning house prices. I'd wonder if their remit of "2%" inflation might have to be widened a bit? Helicopter money till we reach 2% inflation and 2% interest rates? Basically something has to give as all that money disappearing into pension deficits isn't going into new equipment, new R+D, extra QC, marketing campaigns etc and though companies can weather that OK for a while, after years of it with no end in sight the cracks are appearing.
The other thing I'd look at is making it a liability where it is possible to look through to the controlling shareholder. Tata is an immensely wealthy organisation - it seems wrong that the UK government should pay for the promises that it has failed to keep.
I confess I thought that was implicit in the 2004 Act anyway?
As you say it looks like Saatchis. Apart from the typography it's quite a common theme of theirs to start a campaign by using an arresting image which sums up the opposition's weakness.
Interestingly last time I wrote about posters I wrongly attributed 'Demon Eyes' (which I described as a failure) to the Saatchis. In fact it was conceived by Steve Hilton.
So it was Steve Hilton who was prescient?
Hopefully with the help of some research. I heard Steve Hilton yesterday lambast EU officials for traveling first class and staying at five star hotels. It made me smile that he thought EU officials so less deserving than us advertising folk who never travel or stay any other way.
He doesn't think they are less deserving.
I'm surprised that you can still get away with it. Whenever I contract with a company - usually S&P500 - one of the clauses is that I have to stick to their travel policies.
I met a friend who is a creative director of an ad agency recently who told me a story about a 20 year old creative who was traveling to London from Manchester. On the platform he met his client a brand manager from ASDA.
As they walked towards the train the brand manager said "we've got a new policy now and we all have to travel second class"
at which point my friend asked nervously "and what did you do?"
"Well I told him I'm in first so I'll see you at Euston"
I'm sure that the client was delighted with that response.
In the past when it's arisen (if I am in business - BA upgrades me a lot - and my client in economy) I've offered to swap seats. It's rejected every time (n=4)...
Anyone with a brain would but unfortunately 20 year old creatives haven't developed one yet. It did mean from then on for that client they followed suit.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
If this poster has been made by Saatchi you can be sure they've researched thoroughly the weakness that will most resonate with Remain's target market.
It might seem obvious but you can never tell. I wouldn't have guessed that Miliband being under the thumb of the Nats would have resonated because I couldn't see it because I wasn't who it was targeted at..
Saatchi's advert is incompetent. The immediate impact is fingers crossed for Leave.
That's how it struck me at first. We'll have to wait to see who did it
It's really disingenuous for Remain to say that the leave campaign can't say what will happen. The government will be in charge of the negotiations and should have set out a preferred option - WTO/EFTA if leave win, so that people know what they are voting for. The various leave campaigns don't have the authority to enact anything they promise on negotiations.
If the government don't have a plan in place for if they lose the referendum, then they are the ones crossing their fingers.
No, because the unanimous view in Westminster is that if Leave wins, Cameron will resign at once with ??? as his replacement, following ??? policy.
Well, of course you are smart enough to know that isn't true.
Cameron will announce his intention to resign as soon as a new Conservative Party leader is elected.
There will then be a (presumably quick) campaign to select a new leader - I guess pre summer. There will be several candidates - Tories like leadership elections - each, presumably, with different policy positions.
Once in place they will take the summer to convert statements of principle into detailed policy positions and then in the autumn will start the negotiation proper.
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
''I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.''
Fair comment. If my estimation of where n the brave new world of the EU superstate
We can have a referendum ey means.
God, what depressing posts from you this afternoon.
I thought we'd made progress.
I am far from an out.
I think @Luckyguy might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
Yes, and I want to Leave (alongside millions of others) when we hear the result in the small hours of 24th June.
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
I met a Europhile today. And no, it wasn't Nick Clegg. There is at least another one, maybe 3 or 4 according to him, who actually like the EU. He earns his living as an employment lawyer but I got the clear impression that this was just a happy confluence of his enthusiasm and his pocket. He really meant it.
Finding people like this brings it home to you how few of them there are. There are lots of people who think this is less than interesting, who have reservations about change, who think the alternatives are even worse than what we've got, who think that the possible upsides are simply not worth the risk or the hassle, probably a majority in fact. This poster might well speak to such people. But Brits who actually have a fondness for the EU and the European ideals it supposedly represents? Like hens teeth.
This being so the key question of this referendum is not what a bore and irritant (pretty minor to most people) the EU is now but what it is going to be like by 2030. If Leave gets people to focus on that they can win. If the argument remains fixed on the choice here and now Remain will win.
Mr. Observer, will we have a single European National Insurance scheme? Will corporation tax be standardised across the EU? Will the EU seek to collect that tax, or any other, directly? How will the EU army function? What will the eurozone impose upon us via QMV?
Remain is also a leap in the dark. Just without the democracy.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
If they broke the law why shouldn't they be thrown out?
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
If they broke the law why shouldn't they be thrown out?
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It was more the inference from social media postings.
I do agree with the comment about the by-election, if one tory seat gets pulled up, every single Labour seat will be scrutinised - that will not end well.
"It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result."
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious now. Someone page Crick.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
If they broke the law why shouldn't they be thrown out?
Let's hold the whole bloody election gain then.
Does that mean you believe that every winning MP broke the law? Astounding.
Mr. Eagles, explain how it's patriotic to have unelected foreign bureaucrats have the power to meddle in our democracy and impose rulings on us, as per the Commission's new (2014) powers, currently being used on Poland.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
If they broke the law why shouldn't they be thrown out?
Let's hold the whole bloody election gain then.
Does that mean you believe that every winning MP broke the law? Astounding.
The Conservative Party and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and the SNP and UKIP manipulated the expenses system to support their local candidates through national spending. That resounded to the benefit of some particular candidates (well, a lot of marginal candidates), but it was a failure of the system.
I want to stay because I think we are in the least worst arrangement trade-wise and for the good of the country. The world is a complicated place and the EU, consumer of nearly half our exports, has forged a system which makes it easy for us to do business. Were we outside it, we would lose influence. I think that us vs 162 WTO members is a less powerful position to be in than the EU with us as a prominent member vs WTO.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
It is not realistic it is cowardly and lazy. The idea that it is better to have others make decisions for you so you don't have to make them for yourself is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
Mr. Topping, the Chancellor's been begging foreign eurocrats for the right to have tampons exempted from a sales tax. That's hardly the towering prowess of a self-confident colossus of a nation, is it?
"Please, sir, can we make this VAT exempt?" "We shall consider the matter." "Oh, thank you ever so much, sir."
Fantastic. So a too be decided PM negotiating on the basis of a set of too be decided red lines. What could possibly go wrong??!!
Sure. It's called democracy.
Same at a general election, to be honest
Not really. At a GE you have some clue about what you are voting for. It seems that Leave cannot tell us anything about what Leave actually means. Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know. Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know. Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know. Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know. When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
Not at all. The PM will still be Cameron. He can continue in office* if he wants to. He can then develop a policy proposal (or, more likely, pull it out of his drawer).
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
Well, 100% of a playground rather than the declared 12.5% of a playground perhaps?
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result.
*cough* - Not "every" party. I am pretty comfortable that my return included a notional amount of national spending as well.
I have to say I read Allister Heath's piece in the Telegraph with increasing pleasure as I suggested EFTA membership on here some months ago.
It's the obvious option - with the return of Britain, EFTA would immediately be re-invigorated and transformed from the moribund irrelevance it is now. It would, under Britain's leadership, be a valuable counterpoint to the centralising torpor of the EU and would rapidly be viewed by a number of countries as a viable alternative to the EU as currently constituted.
The crisis wouldn't be for Britain if we vote to LEAVE but for the EU and the deal they would have to strike with the new EFTA would, I suspect, be from a strong negotiating position for Britain and the EFTA countries.
All of this explains the febrile desperation of the REMAIN camp and its prognostications of doom. I would venture the economic prognosis for Britain outside the EU but part of a revitalised EFTA is extremely good.
Now we have REMAIN demanding LEAVE explain the future in minute detail. It's curious that throughout this whole debate I've not heard a single positive syllable from Cameron, Osborne or anyone about Britain's future in the EU.
Where is their vision of Britain in the EU in 2020, 2030 or beyond ? Do they still believe the EU will reform ? As Sting might have opined:
There's No Such Thing as a Reforming EU It's a Lie No One Believes Like They Used To
Comments
The question, as with much else, is about value-for-money, both in terms of attracting and retaining people in their job, and in enabling them to do it. I don't personally have a problem with MPs being entitled to first class rail travel, where it's a lot easier to work on the move than in second.
I presume the fan must have said more than reported...otherwise he could have been saying your a f##king disgrace because you are a REMAINER or a Labour Party luuvie? I would think Boris gets that abuse every day, and has nothing to do with his dodgy hair.
In France at the moment, direction of travel is pretty much nowhere.
Still, the French undoubtedly have 'a plan' for where they go next...All detailed and stuff, prepared with loving care by their army of civil servants.
I would never think of launching a start-up there, when I can do so in somewhere like Estonia instead, with highly educated individuals who all speak fantastic English, great internet etc etc etc and a government that is super supportive to start-ups.
As they walked towards the train the brand manager said "we've got a new policy now and we all have to travel second class"
at which point my friend asked nervously "and what did you do?"
"Well I told him I'm in first so I'll see you at Euston"
The rest is up to British people over the course of time. I trust them to make the right decisions.
They generally do.
I wonder if you'll be saying that after the referendum.
Leavers can't seriously believe the current government to negotiate something they don't believe in, besides Leavers clearly don't trust anyone on the other side of the argument to do anything. The 500+ MPs on the opposite side of the argument need to keep out of the issue till we are out.
IMO it is vital that if we Brexit then there must be no room for Leave politicians to blame anyone else for the consequences of what happens next
Allowing all employers to change the basis of indexation from RPI to CPI seems reasonable to me. CPI is now generally recognised as a better measurement of inflation. Almost all of these schemes will have offered pension increases by reference to RPI before CPI was even introduced. Many such schemes now have a completely arbitrary mixture of RPI and CPI for increases of different benefits (and sometimes even for different parts of the same benefit).
I'm not convinced by the more dramatic benefit changes mooted.
As ever it's a balancing act between not wanting a race to the bottom in terms of workers' rights and health and safety etc, whilst not making life so expensive and awkward for companies that they simply stop hiring people. Clearly France has got it wrong big style (well I think so), and hence are stuck with very high levels of unemployment or aybe French society wants the trade off it has now, in which case fair enough, but don't expect jobs to be plentiful, because they won't be.
Andrew Ridgeley likes retweeting Brexit-friendly stories. Surely this won't be the thing that sparks a Wham! reunion?
http://order-order.com/2016/05/26/cat-smith-expenses-cover-up/
I am sure Crick will be all over this shortly? Or doesn't he have the resources?
:-)
Still waiting for a positive reason to vote Remain...
55:45 win for timidity, nanny's coat tails and lack of imagination :-(
Certainly.
Fair comment. If my estimation of where the EU is going and the plans it has for Britain are correct, there will be other opportunities to argue leave's case.
I just hope we will be allowed to do so in the brave new world of the EU superstate
Vote Leave encourages you to order and deliver leaflets in your street/local area anyway.
I am convinced that we need to do something to release the burden on companies carrying these legacy schemes (which may well have made sound sense in the 60's,70's, 80's when set up) but which are such a crippling burden now with gilt yields/interest rates at three century lows. I'd think some combination of extending working lives (ie shortening retirement), making CPI default in all cases, and loosening what's permitted on other technical parameters a tad, in exchange for tighter regulation of what and what is not allowed (dividends can only be x per cent of deficit payments over a three year period, or something along those lines?).
One thing is for sure the BoE could at least buy some time by raising interest rates a bit as 0.5% rates is a huge factor in both this and ballooning house prices. I'd wonder if their remit of "2%" inflation might have to be widened a bit? Helicopter money till we reach 2% inflation and 2% interest rates? Basically something has to give as all that money disappearing into pension deficits isn't going into new equipment, new R+D, extra QC, marketing campaigns etc and though companies can weather that OK for a while, after years of it with no end in sight the cracks are appearing.
'GO TO WORK ON AN EGG'
45%? 55%? 65%? 75%?
Or is a fanatic anyone who doesn't agree with your world view?
Iain Duncan Smith says what most Brexiters think: economic harm is a price worth paying
The former cabinet minister demonstrated rare candour by dismissing the "risks" of leaving the EU.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/05/iain-duncan-smith-says-what-most-brexiters-think-economic-harm-price-worth
Even if Leave were happy to hand over the negotiations to Remainers do you think that the individuals concerned would be stupid enough to do so knowing full well that Leavers will blame them for everything they do negotiate not being what they want.
If we Leave we are in totally unchartered territory. We will be embarking on a totally different direction for the country but against the wishes of 500+ of the current MPs. That's what a referendum means a majority will have in effect overruled parliament on the issue. Make no mistake it will have to be the Johnson/IDS/Gove show until we are out, I can't seen anything else working.
But it is what real sovereignty means.
He said there are risks in both leaving and remaining but he'd prefer to have us in control of the levers we use to manage those risks.
Remain are just trying to find an attack line for Leave disagreeing with them on the fundamentals of their case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36388560
I thought we'd made progress.
In the past when it's arisen (if I am in business - BA upgrades me a lot - and my client in economy) I've offered to swap seats. It's rejected every time (n=4)...
Not to mention the current rate of votes held on the EU are once every 2,000 Thursdays. Not every Thursday.
A bit like if one of rigsbys tenants has decided to buy a house and terminate the rent agreement. Rigsby would bang on about the horrors and expense of the housebuying process to prrsuade you to change your mind.
The problems of the housebuyng process are real enough but so is being stucj in a grotty bedsit controlled by a corrupt slumlord when you could be in a nice house you own and have sovereignty over.
Same at a general election, to be honest
A lot spoken about democracy. It has only last year become the will of the people to have a referendum. Prior to that, the will of the people was to stay in the EU. In future, however "depressing" the thought is, the will of the people can dictate we leave at any time.
All that has to happen is for a political party to include that promise in its election manifesto.
I think @Luckyguy1983 (and one or two others') point is well made. This referendum will awaken peoples' consciousness towards the EU and make them question it as they might not have done hitherto. That would tie in with UKIP's long game and who knows, in 20 years time we might have a UKIP govt and be out of the EU.
But as it stands, until June 22nd, we the people have been happy to be inside it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36385778
If this poster has been made by Saatchi you can be sure they've researched thoroughly the weakness that will most resonate with Remain's target market. So Leave can save some money by addressing the problem
It might seem obvious but you can never tell. I wouldn't have guessed that Miliband being under the thumb of the Nats would have resonated because I couldn't see it because I wasn't who it was targeted at..
As far as I can tell you want to stay because you're in financial services, doing well, don't care much about immigration and think Labour would just have more scope to f-ck it up even more next time they regain power.
Fair enough, but I do find that a rather nihilistic position to take. And it's depressing to hear, from someone I respect, echoing the Remain attack lines too.
But there it is.
Clinton 40 .. Trump 39
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
Ugly scenes erupted as the Tory MP made a stump speech in Winchester, Hants, urging voters to quit the EU.
Rival Remain campaigners targeted the event, with one dressed as a gorilla and another dressed as a banana.
They were poking fun at Boris' banana boob last week when he made false claims about Brussels rules about how the fruit could be sold.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teen-dressed-gorilla-punched-face-8057213?2
But, there we are.
Mr. Observer, those are genuine positives to Remain. However, moving and living somewhere does not require EU membership, and other countries (such as South Korea) have negotiated trade deals with the EU.
Better to have a bargaining position that's entirely British with a 65m market than an EU 500m market negotiating in the interests that are mostly non-British.
Clinton 41 .. Trump 36
Clinton 52 .. Sanders 43
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReutersTracking5252016.pdf
By-election much more likely at Lancaster and Fleetwood than at any of the Tory "Battlebus" seats, I'd say.
It raises the interesting point that if Cat were to have to stand down, then Jeremy Corbyn would only have been nominated for leader by the vote of an MP who was not validly elected as an MP....
Can Labour go for a re-run? /mischiefmode
Will we still be bound by EU law? Don't know.
Will there still be free movement of people? Don't know.
Will we still have full, unfettered access to the single market? Don't know.
Will we still pay into the EU? Don't know.
When would we actually leave the EU? Don't know.
It may be democracy, but it's one hell of a leap in the dark.
It is a pragmatic view; one that understands that the EU might be up to no good, but that if it is going to caucus against us I would rather be inside it with some influence than outside it with less influence.
As I mentioned yesterday having read your excellent blog, I don't feel that my sovereignty is being particularly violated. I feel that in this complicated world, associations and accommodations and compromises are necessary. That might be accepting that our kettle exporters need to conform to EU standards to ease their trade in the EU, or that SACEUR is an American, or that in the EU in financial services there is a common set of rules which everyone must follow.
So it is not nihilistic, it is realistic. I really don't think that we are diminished by agreeing to pay into a club which has tremendous benefits for us.
Finding people like this brings it home to you how few of them there are. There are lots of people who think this is less than interesting, who have reservations about change, who think the alternatives are even worse than what we've got, who think that the possible upsides are simply not worth the risk or the hassle, probably a majority in fact. This poster might well speak to such people. But Brits who actually have a fondness for the EU and the European ideals it supposedly represents? Like hens teeth.
This being so the key question of this referendum is not what a bore and irritant (pretty minor to most people) the EU is now but what it is going to be like by 2030. If Leave gets people to focus on that they can win. If the argument remains fixed on the choice here and now Remain will win.
Will corporation tax be standardised across the EU?
Will the EU seek to collect that tax, or any other, directly?
How will the EU army function?
What will the eurozone impose upon us via QMV?
Remain is also a leap in the dark. Just without the democracy.
Mr. Tyndall, on that point:
https://twitter.com/DanielVavra/status/734071277183340544
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/735836680779862016
Okaaaaay..
I do agree with the comment about the by-election, if one tory seat gets pulled up, every single Labour seat will be scrutinised - that will not end well.
"It's all pretty straightforward. Every party used national expenditure to support local candidates without declaring it as local spending. Change the system, not the result."
Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious now. Someone page Crick.
What tiny marginal benefits there might be to the club - and I can't think of any at all at the moment - are far outweighed by the losses we suffer as a member, monetary, trade, influence and democratic. We are a lesser country being part of the EU and you are a lesser person for supporting it.
"Please, sir, can we make this VAT exempt?"
"We shall consider the matter."
"Oh, thank you ever so much, sir."
However, if he wanted to go, then there would be a leadership election in which there would be multiple candidates who would each put forward a policy position. Two candidates would be selected to go before the party members as a whole and one would be elected. He (or she) would then implement that policy platform to the extent possible. All would be clear.
In the referendum, if the electorate vote to Leave, they are simply instructing the nation's political leaders to leave the EU on the best terms that they can negotiate. They don't care too much about the details. At a general election, they are selecting the individual who they think would best represent their interests - they are not appointing a delegate who is bound to follow a mandate.
* Ignoring Graham Brady letters for now, which I think would be unlikely if he wanted to stay.
I have to say I read Allister Heath's piece in the Telegraph with increasing pleasure as I suggested EFTA membership on here some months ago.
It's the obvious option - with the return of Britain, EFTA would immediately be re-invigorated and transformed from the moribund irrelevance it is now. It would, under Britain's leadership, be a valuable counterpoint to the centralising torpor of the EU and would rapidly be viewed by a number of countries as a viable alternative to the EU as currently constituted.
The crisis wouldn't be for Britain if we vote to LEAVE but for the EU and the deal they would have to strike with the new EFTA would, I suspect, be from a strong negotiating position for Britain and the EFTA countries.
All of this explains the febrile desperation of the REMAIN camp and its prognostications of doom. I would venture the economic prognosis for Britain outside the EU but part of a revitalised EFTA is extremely good.
Now we have REMAIN demanding LEAVE explain the future in minute detail. It's curious that throughout this whole debate I've not heard a single positive syllable from Cameron, Osborne or anyone about Britain's future in the EU.
Where is their vision of Britain in the EU in 2020, 2030 or beyond ? Do they still believe the EU will reform ? As Sting might have opined:
There's No Such Thing as a Reforming EU
It's a Lie No One Believes Like They Used To
Or something like that....