The latest I heard was that Detroit has started coming back.....although how long that will last with the mess that Illinois is in more generally with regard to pensions is open to question.........but this is all an aside, you know what I meant by economic area within a wider global sense!
Actually I was making a semi-serious point. Greece is absolutely tiny, a lot smaller in GDP terms than Michigan. No-one claims that the US is a basket-case or close to collapsing because of the economic nightmare of Detroit, the murder rate in LA, or the illegal immigration problem in Texas. But the echo chamber of the Leavers gleefully jumps on any real or imaginary bad news anywhere in Europe (even if the bad news has absolutely zilch to do with the EU as such, let alone our membership of it) as somehow showing we should leave the EU.
Its funny how many in the US don't understand why their currency is strengthening, as they get how (relatively) bad things are economically in the US right now, but they fail to comprehend that things are worse than relatively bad in Europe and Japan right now. And in economic terms, its the relative that matters- capital is moving to the US as the least dirty shirt......not that it has much to beat given the state of the wider European and Japanese economies right now.
A very good article. However it does not address the two main classes of non-economic immigrant: spouses and children of British citizens, and students
There are a number of things it does not cover, for length reasons, apart from anything else.
On the whole I think under age children and spouses should be together. But two points:-
1. We need to deal with abuses of the "right to family life". If you marry a foreigner you have to accept that you may be required to move with your spouse to their country e.g. If your spouse breaks laws and is no longer persona grata here. The right to family life is not inextricably linked to a life in the UK. It is perfectly possible to have a family life in many many other countries.
No problem with excluding those who have committed serious crimes. However I'm generally very uncomfortable that a British citizen should be forced to leave their home country on the basis of who they chose to marry.
Also re: your point 3, I'm confused. In the current rules it is nigh on impossible for a non-EU migrant to move their parents/siblings to the UK based purely on their residence.
More than 300,000 new EU immigrants per year is certainly not a winning message.
...who are coming because our economy is booming.
Osborne actually predicted this on the BBC show earlier.
"You can reduce immigration by crashing the economy"
Which is exactly what the Brexiteers are proposing.
It's Genius. Can't possibly fail...
Isn't this a false syllogism? "You can reduce immigration by crashing the economy" does NOT mean "Reducing or controlling immigration (more than we are doing currently) will crash the economy."
It's a clever sleight of hand by Osborne. But it is not accurate. The optimum level of immigration is not zero. But neither is it infinity. Within the EU however it is, to all intents and purposes, infinity.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
That Unionist chestnut yet again! As I've said countless times on here on the subject, the appeal of Scottish independence was and is by and large an EMOTIONAL one, and not an ECONOMIC one.
I agree. And it's the same thing with Brexit. The SNP said the No side was scaremongering and everything would be fine, just as the Leave side are saying Remain is scaremongering now, everything will be fine if we leave the EU. Turns out No weren't scaremongering and if Scotland had voted Yes the consequences would have been catastrophic. Let's hope we don't find out the same is true of Brexit.
No. The EU can't negotiate trade deals quickly, we can. We don't have the burden of 28 sets of vested interests we only have one.
It isn't unknowable, it's known.
Err, you seem to have forgotten that (a) we'd have to make a lot of deals to replace existing ones, and (b) whilst we'd have a simpler set of vested interests on our side, we'd also have a lesser incentive on the other side to do a deal. It's cloud cuckoo-land to think this on balance would be hugely easier; rather the reverse, probably, as the US has made clear.
Why is it so easy and quick for Australia and South Korea then? Bigger market than ours? Higher GDP than ours? I'm curious?
A very good article. However it does not address the two main classes of non-economic immigrant: spouses and children of British citizens, and students
There are a number of things it does not cover, for length reasons, apart from anything else.
On the whole I think under age children and spouses should be together. But two points:-
1. We need to deal with abuses of the "right to family life". If you marry a foreigner you have to accept that you may be required to move with your spouse to their country e.g. If your spouse breaks laws and is no longer persona grata here. The right to family life is not inextricably linked to a life in the UK. It is perfectly possible to have a family life in many many other countries.
No problem with excluding those who have committed serious crimes. However I'm generally very uncomfortable that a British citizen should be forced to leave their home country on the basis of who they chose to marry.
Also re: your point 3, I'm confused. In the current rules it is nigh on impossible for a non-EU migrant to move their parents/siblings to the UK based purely on their residence.
I was referring to people who marry non-British people who commit crimes and whom we then seek to deport. I don't think that deportation should be overridden simply because they have married a British citizen. The person should be deported and it is up to their spouse to decide to follow them or not. "For better or worse" and all that.
Marriage to a British citizen should not be some sort of winning trump card overriding the state's legitimate, indeed essential, role to protect its citizens from harm from wrongdoers.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.
OK... The bet is off if we remain on the grounds that it would be a tie... (The EU would be negotiating on our behalf and we could not negotiate one on our own)
No. The EU can't negotiate trade deals quickly, we can. We don't have the burden of 28 sets of vested interests we only have one.
It isn't unknowable, it's known.
Err, you seem to have forgotten that (a) we'd have to make a lot of deals to replace existing ones, and (b) whilst we'd have a simpler set of vested interests on our side, we'd also have a lesser incentive on the other side to do a deal. It's cloud cuckoo-land to think this on balance would be hugely easier; rather the reverse, probably, as the US has made clear.
Why is it so easy and quick for Australia and South Korea then? Bigger market than ours? Higher GDP than ours? I'm curious?
Also why was it so easy for EFTA to do trade deals with countries the EU has found so problematic?
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Yep, the parallels with the Scottish independence vote continue to be uncanny. The SNP spent much of their time dismissing the various warnings being issued from institutions around the world. Let's hope Leave turn out to be more right than Yes was in Scotland.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! Nobody is denying that the climate warmed between the mid-1970's (when incidentally some were predicting a new mini-ice age, just like analysts screaming sell at the bottom of a bear market in stocks!) and 1997/98.....thanks to the increasingly robust activity of the sun in solar cycles 21 and 22. Since then its turned down, and global temperatures (non-manipulated) are starting to do so too. And anyway, Austrian wine production was very high in the early 1980's before the chemical addition scandal broke in 1985.....at which point I guess some historical vineyards were done away with following it up until about 20 years ago, when yet again people were caught moving in the wrong direction at a long term change in trend. Wine growing in the eastern part of Austria has an extremely long history. And as I'm sure you're aware, vines were grown in northern England in the medieval warm period (as well as crops grown in eastern Greenland.....witness the clue in the name!)..........so by all means carry on using your warmest ever nonsense......anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.
We'll see. I am not sure all Tory MPs will be quite so nonchalant about doing so much harm to the Square Mile and Canary Wharf.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.
Just don't buy this argument. The electorate didn't trust 'We're allllrrrrrright', they won't trust those two.
More certainly, Osborne would be out of the picture. Which can only be a good thing for those of us hoping for firmer economic policy and less farting around the edges of taxation policy.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.
Why do you remainers always think the world is the EU and one other country?
Besides which we have little control on the basket case and its collapse.
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw. You'll notice that I gave you examples from Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Greenland and northern England as well. These things have to be considered as a whole. Yes I'll be charitable and say that there have been isolated incidents of warmth, for example India recently when it got up to 51C. This is all a consequence of the decreasing solar energy, which has weakened the magentosphere around the world and the previously locked in global weather patterns with stable less 'wavy' jetstream patterns. The jetstream in the northern hemispehere has moved northwards on average and become much more wavy (totally contrary to the predictions of the AGW crowd 20 years ago).......which transports cold much further south than it used to, and conversely warmth further north (though rarer than the former)....with the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere. If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.
And Yes said Scotland had the bigger gun too. It really is uncanny.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Presumably you think eugenics is a synonym for public policy?
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Yep, the parallels with the Scottish independence vote continue to be uncanny. The SNP spent much of their time dismissing the various warnings being issued from institutions around the world. Let's hope Leave turn out to be more right than Yes was in Scotland.
I hope so too; at least Leave have in their favour a solid track record of EU warnings having been wrong on several occasions before.
Like "Wolf" that doesn't rule out being right this time, but with respect, the Europhiles have poisoned this well themselves.
(edited to add: Goodnight all, and many thanks for an enjoyable discussion, fantasy though it may prove to be.)
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.
Why do you remainers always think the world is the EU and one other country?
Besides which we have little control on the basket case and its collapse.
This Remainer does most of his business in the US, China, Korea and Japan. The EU is not stopping anything we do. I also know people in those countries believe Brexit is insane. Let's hope they're wrong. If it turns out you're wrong, we are in deep trouble.
On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
Let's hope you're wrong Richard. I don't think you are, but we'll need Leave to have called this correctly.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick ( ).
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
Night all. I leave you with this thought. Metropolitan liberal lawyers are going to make an absolute fortune from Brexit. That is a stonewall certainty. As for the rest, Leave had better be right. If they're not, this country and many others will be in deep trouble.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick ( ).
Thanks all for the debate.
LOL I thought of responding to Roger, but thought it better to wait for you to do so as I was sure you would do a better job than me. I was right.
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw. You'll notice that I gave you examples from Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Greenland and northern England as well. These things have to be considered as a whole. Yes I'll be charitable and say that there have been isolated incidents of warmth, for example India recently when it got up to 51C. This is all a consequence of the decreasing solar energy, which has weakened the magentosphere around the world and the previously locked in global weather patterns with stable less 'wavy' jetstream patterns. The jetstream in the northern hemispehere has moved northwards on average and become much more wavy (totally contrary to the predictions of the AGW crowd 20 years ago).......which transports cold much further south than it used to, and conversely warmth further north (though rarer than the former)....with the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere. If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
Based on their track record at prediction, only the very credulous or self interested would trust them this time around.
That's what Remainers can't understand. Nobody gives a f8ck what the Lagardes and the Carneys think.
It's not rebellion, or bloody mindedness. Its a calculation based on the track record of these institutions. WHich is shite.
Its like PB. Why should posters trust or pay attention to people who got things spectacularly wrong in May 2015?
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
I remember being in the Market Place in the centre of Abingdon during the 2001 general election campaign listening to Mr Hague saying 'Vote Tory to save the Pound'........and now the same Mr Hague up to his neck in misdeeds that I could elucidate upon being in the Remain campaign......you couldn't make this $hit up it you tried, excuse my language at this time of night. So I don't need to take any lectures thank you on the consistency of wee Willie down the years...........
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.
Just don't buy this argument. The electorate didn't trust 'We're allllrrrrrright', they won't trust those two.
More certainly, Osborne would be out of the picture. Which can only be a good thing for those of us hoping for firmer economic policy and less farting around the edges of taxation policy.
If there's a significant downturn post-Leave (which is the scenario Richard is discussing) the election would fall into Labour's lap. Obviously they would do a lot better with leaders who were not clowns but if there is a serious recession post-Leave - that's to say, if it seems that the Tories (led by Boris, Gove or whoever) ignored warnings which subsequently appeared to be correct - they will be seen as criminally incompetent.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.
Reminds me of a strange article in the Evening Standard around the SindyRef. The thought was that a plummeting oil price would actually be great for an independent Scotland, because it would force Osborne to shower Scotland with negotiation goodies to prevent England being dragged down with it.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.
morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable
no particular fan of Hilary, but which of these doesn't apply to the Donald, too?
None of them, with my amateur psychology hat on. Anyhow, I've known women like Clinton up close and personal. Bad, bad news...
But DYOR.
I doubt you have ever met Hillary, nor know her at all.
Whereas, you are one of her Flying Monkeys, I suppose...
So you're saying she's a witch, the same way you said Obama was a lying Kenyan.
Confusing me with someone else. His father was a (British) Kenyan, which he concedes himself.
Not what the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers had in mind for father of a POTUS.
Isn't anyone born in the US eligible to be the President? (he says as he hears the sound of an enormous can of worms being opened)
Oh dear! That is the sound of the 'natural born' can being ripped open by a 1905 vintage can opener.
natural born citizen - a noun and two qualifying adjectives.
a citizen. You must be at least a citizen of the USA. So that rules me out. But there's more...
a born citizen. You must be at least a born citizen of the USA. So that rules out Arnie. But there's more...
a natural born citizen. We know, you might well be a born citizen by operation of a man-made law, e.g. a statute (viz Ted Cruz) or constitutional amendment (viz Obama, per Wong Kim Ark (1898)). But you are still NOT a natural born citizen.
For a natural born citizen is one born a citizen solely by virtue of natural law. What is natural law? The law of human posterity, procreation and birthright.
WHICH people has no statute ever touched upon in purporting to define their citizenship? WHICH people did the SCOTUS "ascertain" and define as the natural born citizens?
"all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens..." Minor v Happersett (1875)
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick ( ).
Thanks all for the debate.
LOL I thought of responding to Roger, but thought it better to wait for you to do so as I was sure you would do a better job than me. I was right.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Though what if there is no economic collapse?
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.
We'll see. I am not sure all Tory MPs will be quite so nonchalant about doing so much harm to the Square Mile and Canary Wharf.
It will not harm the city. (Any more than Europe is trying to harm it, and what is more, being outside of the EU will allow it to thrive)
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw.If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.
Misrepresenting the facts! You don't deny the frost happened in May. Do you deny that NOAA is fraudulently manipulating global temperature data? And their acolytes like the University of East Anglia?......still reeling from the climategate incident that shredded any credibility that they have.
We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
Yes, the "price worth paying" stuff would come home to roost with a vengeance.
You're starting to tempt me. (Oops, I've already voted Remain.)
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
Immigration control isn't eugenics. Also, it isn't fascist either.
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.
And Yes said Scotland had the bigger gun too. It really is uncanny.
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
In which case Labour will not agree to an early General Election!
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
Obama has made it clear that there is a queue which there isn't and he isn't around for that long is he?
You can have more than one trade delegation travelling the world at a time.
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
Would you need Labour votes to get round the fixed term parliament act? Couldn't the Tories just repeal the act with their majority?
The Lords would probably block it - given that it did not appear in the 2015 Tory Manifesto.
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw.If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.
Misrepresenting the facts! You don't deny the frost happened in May. Do you deny that NOAA is fraudulently manipulating global temperature data? And their acolytes like the University of East Anglia?......still reeling from the climategate incident that shredded any credibility that they have.
Yes, there was a frost in May, which destroyed vines in areas which had previously been too prone to frost to grow vines at all. The only reason that vines are growing in this area at all, according to the industry spokeswoman, is because the climate has warmed over the last 20 years or so. One late frost doesn't automatically signal a climate reversal. How is this so hard for you to understand?
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
F*ck off.
For a start, no, the EU economy is likely to crash on it's own. Secondly it is a case of reducing migration.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
Of the 80% of economists reported by the Guardian, it turns out that only 17% bothered to answer the survey.
Also, many business men and women, as well as politicians think Brexit would be good. Oh and some economists as well.
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
F*ck off.
For a start, no, the EU economy is likely to crash on it's own. Secondly it is a case of reducing migration.
Scott seems to be getting a little tired and emotional?
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern states
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.
We may not have much choice, whether we remain or leave.
One of the reasons why our non EU exports have been growing as a share is the anaemic growth of the EU.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?
I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.
So they should say something along the lines of
"Professor Willem Buiter, former Council Member of City in Europe and long time advocate for the UK joining the Eurozone"
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.
And Ed Balls. Don't forget Ed Balls!
Anyway, bed time. Night all.
Ah but apparently its all a lie. Tony never really wanted us to join the Euro at all. He told us this last Sunday so it must be true.
''Do you hate Johnny foreigner enough to crash the economy? Vote Leave ''
Given the way that British people have welcomed millions from abroad in recent decades, a demographic movement that has not been seen for centuries, your attitude is really quite nonsensical.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?
Seriously? I thought psycho active stuff had been banned? Perhaps they consulted this chap before?
'I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.'
The FT should also remind us of the 'experts' that said we had to join the ERM, the 'experts' that forecast economic collapse if we didn't join the Euro and that none of the 'experts' forecast the 2008 crash.
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?
I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.
So they should say something along the lines of
"Professor Willem Buiter, former Council Member of City in Europe and long time advocate for the UK joining the Eurozone"
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.
And Ed Balls. Don't forget Ed Balls!
Anyway, bed time. Night all.
Ah but apparently its all a lie. Tony never really wanted us to join the Euro at all. He told us this last Sunday so it must be true.
If Tony Blair walked up to me in the street and said he was Tony Blair, I'd get a second opinion.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern states
Not sure about that - the Southern states went for Goldwater in 1964 and so would otherwise have gone Republican in 1968.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign . 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern states
Not sure about that - the Southern states went for Goldwater in 1964 and so would otherwise have gone Republican in 1968.
LBJ won more southern states than Goldwater in 1964 and Wallace won states like Arkansas LBJ won. Though Humphrey won Texas, in the South at least Wallace split the Democratic vote helping Nixon through the middle
A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
One rather awful scenario I'm working on is Brexit triggers a house price boom. If GBP crashes there'll be an influx of rich from abroad buying up property, so it'll hit London and (as per usual) spread out. The A23/M23 and the London-Brighton train line has a chain of insurance/actuarial firms so it'll spread down thru Redhill, Crawley, Haywards Heath then Brighton and spread out.
A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
One rather awful scenario I'm working on is Brexit triggers a house price boom. If GBP crashes there'll be an influx of rich from abroad buying up property, so it'll hit London and (as per usual) spread out. The A23/M23 and the London-Brighton train line has a chain of insurance/actuarial firms so it'll spread down thru Redhill, Crawley, Haywards Heath then Brighton and spread out.
That may be a scenario you're working on... but it is already happening inside the EU.
"Witness today's plan for cutting VAT on energy bills if we left the EU. And tomorrow, a message that the campaign, buoyed by some recent nudges towards them in the polls, believes will pack even more punch."
I wonder what that might be?
Edit: if I had read the next line:
"On Wednesday, senior Outers will be on the road outlining how they claim they'd control immigration if we left the EU - by introducing a points system that would determine if people can come to live in Britain for every single wannabe immigrant."
"Witness today's plan for cutting VAT on energy bills if we left the EU. And tomorrow, a message that the campaign, buoyed by some recent nudges towards them in the polls, believes will pack even more punch."
I wonder what that might be?
Edit: if I had read the next line:
"On Wednesday, senior Outers will be on the road outlining how they claim they'd control immigration if we left the EU - by introducing a points system that would determine if people can come to live in Britain for every single wannabe immigrant."
With a bit of luck they have a better grid laid out from now till June the 23rd. So far Leave have looked like rabbits caught in headlights.
I'm surprised they're not being canned... but pleased.
Comments
Also re: your point 3, I'm confused. In the current rules it is nigh on impossible for a non-EU migrant to move their parents/siblings to the UK based purely on their residence.
It's a clever sleight of hand by Osborne. But it is not accurate. The optimum level of immigration is not zero. But neither is it infinity. Within the EU however it is, to all intents and purposes, infinity.
Marriage to a British citizen should not be some sort of winning trump card overriding the state's legitimate, indeed essential, role to protect its citizens from harm from wrongdoers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYIvK6DEOg
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
'The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse'
The same economic collapse along with the loss of 3 million jobs we would have if we didn't join the Euro ?
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYjGFuvmsc
Would the Remain apologists on here care to give a running report on how the EU intervention in Ukraine is working out?
More certainly, Osborne would be out of the picture. Which can only be a good thing for those of us hoping for firmer economic policy and less farting around the edges of taxation policy.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.
Besides which we have little control on the basket case and its collapse.
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
You need a new thesaurus old bean.
Like "Wolf" that doesn't rule out being right this time, but with respect, the Europhiles have poisoned this well themselves.
(edited to add: Goodnight all, and many thanks for an enjoyable discussion, fantasy though it may prove to be.)
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTCIwo3cEvU
Critics will have to be quite careful what they say.
There aren't too many votes in standing up for those who might not have enough points. Not right now.
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick (
Thanks all for the debate.
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
Bona nit :-)
The absolute best economic scenario from the UK's point of view would be Remain + TTIP. That could be seriously good for us. Fingers crossed!
Based on their track record at prediction, only the very credulous or self interested would trust them this time around.
That's what Remainers can't understand. Nobody gives a f8ck what the Lagardes and the Carneys think.
It's not rebellion, or bloody mindedness. Its a calculation based on the track record of these institutions. WHich is shite.
Its like PB. Why should posters trust or pay attention to people who got things spectacularly wrong in May 2015?
Anyway, bed time. Night all.
a citizen. You must be at least a citizen of the USA. So that rules me out. But there's more...
a born citizen. You must be at least a born citizen of the USA. So that rules out Arnie. But there's more...
a natural born citizen. We know, you might well be a born citizen by operation of a man-made law, e.g. a statute (viz Ted Cruz) or constitutional amendment (viz Obama, per Wong Kim Ark (1898)). But you are still NOT a natural born citizen.
For a natural born citizen is one born a citizen solely by virtue of natural law. What is natural law? The law of human posterity, procreation and birthright.
WHICH people has no statute ever touched upon in purporting to define their citizenship?
WHICH people did the SCOTUS "ascertain" and define as the natural born citizens?
"all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens..." Minor v Happersett (1875)
Good night all.
You can have more than one trade delegation travelling the world at a time.
For a start, no, the EU economy is likely to crash on it's own. Secondly it is a case of reducing migration.
Also, many business men and women, as well as politicians think Brexit would be good. Oh and some economists as well.
Do you hate Johnny foreigner enough to crash the economy? Vote Leave
One of the reasons why our non EU exports have been growing as a share is the anaemic growth of the EU.
So they should say something along the lines of
"Professor Willem Buiter, former Council Member of City in Europe and long time advocate for the UK joining the Eurozone"
Given the way that British people have welcomed millions from abroad in recent decades, a demographic movement that has not been seen for centuries, your attitude is really quite nonsensical.
'I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.'
The FT should also remind us of the 'experts' that said we had to join the ERM, the 'experts' that forecast economic collapse if we didn't join the Euro and that none of the 'experts' forecast the 2008 crash.
A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
And what is the average household income around here? At best £44K.
It isn't about hating Johny foreigner you prick. It's about loving my children more.
It isn't also about crashing the economy. It's about a small potential according to the treasury, of the lowest drop in GDP for an actual recession.
"Witness today's plan for cutting VAT on energy bills if we left the EU. And tomorrow, a message that the campaign, buoyed by some recent nudges towards them in the polls, believes will pack even more punch."
I wonder what that might be?
Edit: if I had read the next line:
"On Wednesday, senior Outers will be on the road outlining how they claim they'd control immigration if we left the EU - by introducing a points system that would determine if people can come to live in Britain for every single wannabe immigrant."
https://twitter.com/malc_hill/status/737619016013860869
I'm surprised they're not being canned... but pleased.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/dalai-lama-eu-taking-many-migrants-germany-cannot-become-arab-country/