Are the likes of Farage, Johnson, and Duncan Smith on course to destroy the visionary project of Monet, Schumann and De Gasperi? Truly the Vandals at the gate.
I find your hysterical aversion to democracy truly sinister.
Absolutely!
One of the so obnoxious things that I've found about all the Remain economic scare stories is that they treat their view of the effescare tactics. But then, they could never bring themselves to admit that Brexit would set off a domino effect of the whole EU project tumbling down could they?!
And if there was a collapse of the "EU project" in the terms you describe do you think it would destroy or create value for us (and the others)?
Or would you be happy enough to have seen this imperfect but very effective economic and trade area fall apart and have to be put back together inevitably not as well as it is put together now, for all its inefficiencies.
As long as you are in the queue for a kebab, I suppose, all is not lost.
'Very efficient economic and trade area"!
Are you having a laugh? ...common culture. On that basis, the EU is simply not fit for purpose as I explained in a long post below.
Dear god there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of EU directives and implementation protocols concerning financial services in Europe. Trading stocks and shares. The sort of thing that would, in 1975, have been conducted after a long lunch and eased by any number of inducements.
It is a hugely irritating but ultimately well-intentioned and effective step forward in the aim of protecting the consumer (ie you and your pension fund).
But no, you want to go back to 1963, even - forget about 1975 - to recapture the golden age of shady deals and opacity in the stock market.
So you think that all the fake oil, gas and mining companies operating out of 788 790 Finchley Road and its interconnected boiler rooms that are listed on the AIM is in the small private investor's interest?!! Market manipulations have gone on throughout the ages, its nothing new. To pretend that all the EU directives have made markets function better......arguably a lot are functioning a lot worse given the rules are skewed in the favour of big companies that can afford the costs of regulation, with scant or no regard to the interests of smaller and medium sized companies that long term provide the dynamism and economic growth.
I'm not sure what your area of expertise is, but perhaps restrict yourself to talking about that.
I see some folk down thread are trumpeting a Brexit vote as a possible precursor to the break-up of the EU as a whole. I am not sure they appreciate just how much financial and economic carnage that would cause, or how long-lasting it would be. Why would anyone actively want to inflict that level of misery on so many people?
It's a most curious psychological and political phenomenon. It's tantamount to actively wanting a rerun of the 2008/9 crash.
By the same token, some of us wonder why so many Europhiles have been so indifferent to the misery caused to so many people, many of them young, by their determined worship of the euro, their determination to place the needs of the currency ahead of the needs of the people that currency is meant to serve, their determination to put the interests of banks and bondholders ahead of the interests of the young, the unemployed, the pensioners, the least well off in societies. The financial and economic and social and political carnage caused to so many states within the EU and the people within those states has been a disgrace and those behind the policies causing that carnage should be hanging their heads in shame not boasting about it or criticising others, who turned out to have made a more accurate assessment of the harm caused by the euro than the euro worshippers.
Apparently Countryfile on Sunday will feature Boris and Dave arguing why the EU is good/is not good for the UK's fishing industry. Should be interesting.
Cameron should not have taken Fisheries as the topic. He is on to a loser. Farming would have been better.
TOPPING - not absolutely sure that Scottish Widows has a better reputation in 2016 compared to 1816 - after the recent discovery that SW pushed annuities 1/3 less than others.
I see some folk down thread are trumpeting a Brexit vote as a possible precursor to the break-up of the EU as a whole. I am not sure they appreciate just how much financial and economic carnage that would cause, or how long-lasting it would be. Why would anyone actively want to inflict that level of misery on so many people?
It's a most curious psychological and political phenomenon. It's tantamount to actively wanting a rerun of the 2008/9 crash.
By the same token, some of us wonder why so many Europhiles have been so indifferent to the misery caused to so many people, many of them young, by their determined worship of the euro, their determination to place the needs of the currency ahead of the needs of the people that currency is meant to serve, their determination to put the interests of banks and bondholders ahead of the interests of the young, the unemployed, the pensioners, the least well off in societies. The financial and economic and social and political carnage caused to so many states within the EU and the people within those states has been a disgrace and those behind the policies causing that carnage should be hanging their heads in shame not boasting about it or criticising others, who turned out to have made a more accurate assessment of the harm caused by the euro than the euro worshippers.
A quite outstanding riposte. And this is real strife, not the speculative kind remain allege
Mr. Observer, if someone thinks the EU is destined to collapse, the sooner it happens the better. The longer it takes, the more entangled political structures are, and the greater the pain of disentangling them.
I don't want the EU to have a disorderly disintegration, but given its inability to reform and become just a trade bloc, a smooth transition to a trade agreement with those who wish to be politically integrated going (separately) down that road would be a very good thing.
I can't remember (was a while ago and a lot was said at the time), but did you make a similar post about the possibility of Scottish independence? Some people are taking this vote more seriously than the break-up of the UK, which surprises me.
Yes I dont get why leaving a trade block is worse than the disintegration of the country. I guess you have to live in the South East to get it.
Surely the point is that there was nothing people outside Scotland could do about the Independence vote?
In this referendum, we have a vote.
If all you can do is accept what other people decide, there is a limit to how engaged you can feel.
That's certainly true.
However I have been bemused by comments from remainers on the board that out is a bigger issue than Indyref.
Personally I don't see it that way, but as I have commented before this ref is probably more values driven which is why Remain and Leave enthusiasts just can't understand where the other side is coming from.
WRT the Scottish referendum, I commented If all you can do is accept what other people decide, there is a limit to how engaged you can feel.
Looking at that statement again, it really describes also why I at least feel so disengaged from the EU. I have no influence at all. How does my vote for an MEP influence what happens in the EU? Pfft.
Two years ago I watched the TV hustings for the candidates to be President of Europe (or some such). I decided that I wanted to vote for the Green candidate - Ska. I still haven't received my ballot paper.
I assume you voted Green at the election. EPP were the top party at that election, so their candidate, Jean-Claude Juncker, became President of the Commission. Nobody outside Oxon got a ballot paper saying CAMERON, David either.
And the President of the European Parliament? Was he elected indirectly by winning the election?
No he lost it so became President there as a result of losing it. It would be as if we anointed Ed Miliband as President of Parliament.
Question to Labour remainers/Tory Brexiteers: Would you swap a leave vote for Corbyn as PM?
Hmm. I think a Leave vote would be a disaster, as noted earlier, but I also think it would quite possibly lead to a Corbyn government, as I really think the Leave Tories have underestimated the Black Wednesday style economic vortex that would follow Leave. My ideal if we did vote Leave, I think, would be general consensus that it was a horrible mistake, with Corbyn taking over and getting some genuine negotiations leading to a fresh vote.
I appreciate that it's a minority view here!
Yes it is rather. If the people have voted then the result is not a horrible mistake. It is what some of us call democracy.
Question to Labour remainers/Tory Brexiteers: Would you swap a leave vote for Corbyn as PM?
Hmm. I think a Leave vote would be a disaster, as noted earlier, but I also think it would quite possibly lead to a Corbyn government, as I really think the Leave Tories have underestimated the Black Wednesday style economic vortex that would follow Leave. My ideal if we did vote Leave, I think, would be general consensus that it was a horrible mistake, with Corbyn taking over and getting some genuine negotiations leading to a fresh vote.
I appreciate that it's a minority view here!
Well some of us rather naively supposed than an ex-MP in the Mother of Parliaments would be keen on this democracy lark.
Corbyn can't negotiate his way into his own home past journalists. The idea that he could conduct negotiations with other EU states is laughable.
Don't think people can't make mistakes. They always do regularly.
Look at the Austrian presidential election, 60% youth unemployment and the unresolved issues on the Euro periphery, the rise of nationalism across the EU - its like the Ottoman empire circa 1916 - its just waiting for a few final knockout blows to consign the 'project' to the dustbin of history.
....
The Ottoman Empire lasted about 100 years waiting for the 'few final knockout blows'.
Inertia is a powerful force.
Absolutely, and when the collapse comes, it comes suddenly and often with little warning, witness 1989 amongst a plethora of historical examples.
I hope plenty of PB'ers will be entering this fantastic competition!
The VAT on fuel issue was also a good idea today. Looks like a campaign grid has been drawn up over the purdah period by the leave campaign. Its time to seize the moment, its time to vote LEAVE.
Can you point me to where it states that in the legislation?
I'll look up the legislation later, but given that the whole point of the Named Person scheme is to have a single discoverable point of contact that anyone can find it is a tautology that the parent will know who the named person is.
What will a Named Person do? A Named Person will be available to listen, advise and help a child or young person and their parent(s), provide direct support or help them access other services.
which would be pretty bloody hard to do if they are an invisible secret ninja that everyone in the world knows apart from the parents.
LBC are finally doing a phone-in on "where are the Labour Party" in the EU debate. It appears Jeremy Corbyn has gone on holiday. Tells you all you need to know!!!
This is the biggest decision facing this country for many years and the opposition (who mainly want to stay in the EU) have gone AWOL.
24 Duty to communicate information about role of named persons
(1)Each service provider must publish (in such manner as it considers appropriate) information about—
(a)the operation of the named person service provided in pursuance of the arrangements made by it, including in particular—
(i)how the named person functions are, generally, exercised, and
(ii)the arrangements, generally, for contacting named persons,
(b)how the service provider generally exercises its functions under this Part, and
(c)such other matters relating to this Part as it considers appropriate.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
(a)as soon as reasonably practicable after it becomes the service provider in relation to the child or young person, and
(b)as soon as reasonably practicable after there is any change in those arrangements.
Are the likes of Farage, Johnson, and Duncan Smith on course to destroy the visionary project of Monet, Schumann and De Gasperi? Truly the Vandals at the gate.
I find your hysterical aversion to democracy truly sinister.
Absolutely!
One of the so obnoxious things that I've found about all the Remain economic scare stories is that they treat their view of the effects of Brexit in an otherwise static world. The effects of Brexit would be dynamic - with Britain leaving lots of other countries would be queueing up to leave the EU - arguably Sweden, Denmark, Hungary and Poland in the front line, and there would be a domino effect thereafter. Simply couching analysis assuming no external effects elsewhere on its own invalidates any of the remain scare tactics. But then, they could never bring themselves to admit that Brexit would set off a domino effect of the whole EU project tumbling down could they?!
And if there was a collapse of the "EU project" in the terms you describe do you think it would destroy or create value for us (and the others)?
Or would you be happy enough to have seen this imperfect but very effective economic and trade area fall apart and have to be put back together inevitably not as well as it is put together now, for all its inefficiencies.
As long as you are in the queue for a kebab, I suppose, all is not lost.
I don't see why the EU should fall apart if the UK leaves. After all, Scotland will be simultaneously out of the starting blocks trying to join it.
But just suppose it did fall apart, and it was seen as worth while to try again. Surely experience would enable it to be put back together better than it is now?
All collective action is built ultimately on trusting relationships. The falling apart would destroy a lot of trust, so there might not be the basis to start rebuilding for many years to come.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
So no requirement to tell the parents who the named person is.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
So no requirement to tell the parents who the named person is.
It is still 75% to 25% chance for Remain. I wonder what does that correspond to in polls. 53% - 47% ? or a higher margin like 55% - 45% ?
OH MY GOD, If I do ONE thing on this pissant f*****g board it will be to stamp out that misconception. It's a common misconception - even Matthew Shaddick thinks it's true[1] - but it just isn't true.
To put it simply: a big probability of a win is not a probability of a big win. If the probability of X beating Y is large, you cannot then conclude that X will beat Y by a large margin.
As a corollary, Matthew's graph[2] is simply wrong.
It is still 75% to 25% chance for Remain. I wonder what does that correspond to in polls. 53% - 47% ? or a higher margin like 55% - 45% ?
OH MY GOD, If I do ONE thing on this pissant f*****g board it will be to stamp out that misconception. It's a common misconception - even Matthew Shaddick thinks it's true[1] - but it just isn't true.
To put it simply: a big probability of a win is not a probability of a big win. If the probability of X beating Y is large, you cannot then conclude that X will beat Y by a large margin.
As a corollary, Matthew's graph[2] is simply wrong.
Finally, someone says it. However there is probably some distribution of votes which gives rise to both a big probability of a win and a probability of a big win.
Comments
No he lost it so became President there as a result of losing it. It would be as if we anointed Ed Miliband as President of Parliament.
I hope plenty of PB'ers will be entering this fantastic competition!
https://50million.uk/
Fantastic initiative by the vote LEAVE campaign.
The VAT on fuel issue was also a good idea today. Looks like a campaign grid has been drawn up over the purdah period by the leave campaign. Its time to seize the moment, its time to vote LEAVE.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD, WELL KINDA OLD THREAD
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person lists Named person's responsiblity as
What will a Named Person do?
A Named Person will be available to listen, advise and help a child or young person and their parent(s), provide direct support or help them access other services.
which would be pretty bloody hard to do if they are an invisible secret ninja that everyone in the world knows apart from the parents.
From the 31st of August when it is applied universally the Edinburgh Named Person scheme will operate as described here http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20170/girfec/1465/named_person
and my child will have a named person and I'll know who they are, because who they are is described on that page.
The whole point is that every child has a State appointed
snooperGaurdianThere is no requirement for anyone to know who they are, or what they do
This is the biggest decision facing this country for many years and the opposition (who mainly want to stay in the EU) have gone AWOL.
Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/4
24 Duty to communicate information about role of named persons
(1)Each service provider must publish (in such manner as it considers appropriate) information about—
(a)the operation of the named person service provided in pursuance of the arrangements made by it, including in particular—
(i)how the named person functions are, generally, exercised, and
(ii)the arrangements, generally, for contacting named persons,
(b)how the service provider generally exercises its functions under this Part, and
(c)such other matters relating to this Part as it considers appropriate.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
(a)as soon as reasonably practicable after it becomes the service provider in relation to the child or young person, and
(b)as soon as reasonably practicable after there is any change in those arrangements.
Got it.
To put it simply: a big probability of a win is not a probability of a big win. If the probability of X beating Y is large, you cannot then conclude that X will beat Y by a large margin.
As a corollary, Matthew's graph[2] is simply wrong.
[1] See this image on this page
[2] this image
However there is probably some distribution of votes which gives rise to both a big probability of a win and a probability of a big win.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/737731380378013696