@blackburn63 Once again, it is futile speculating about numerical upper bounds on population capacity of the island of Britain because we cannot be in possession of all the relevant facts for determining what that upper bound might be.
PS Your inability to accept my basic point that Britain's population has grown rapidly and you are arbitrarily calling a halt to that process right now on the basis of no evidence other than your own gut instinct doesn't really qualify you to decide who looks silly.
Surely there's more than gut instinct - look at A&E waiting times, primary school places, traffic jams, overcrowded trains, even the spare capacity in the electricity system. There must be more examples.
I accept the point that we could in theory cope with this with more investment etc but in case you hadn't noticed the economy is not doing that well despite record low interest rates and the high employment figures mask a large amount of underemployment. Damian Green was on 5 live this morning trumpeting the fact that the NHS budget had been "protected" - but it needs much more than that, and it comes at the expense of cuts elsewhere anyway.
320K in a year represents ~ 0.5% population growth p.a. independent of increase due to birth rate increasing and falling death rate. I admit I do not know the net effect of this...may be about break even? But birth rate is rising.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a lot of people with a vote do not agree with you, and frankly won't be persuaded by your breathtakingly smug and patronising dismissals.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
With interest rates at record lows- government should be borrowing to pay for the infrastructure we need.
In any case- bringing in people who tend to be healthier and are of working age- helps pay for all the other people in the UK. As has been shown by a vast weight of evidence on immigration.
To be a credible deterrent people have to believe you might use it (which is why Scott as usual is talking out of his ar*e).
When your PM walks up to the renegotiations and announces to his counterparts that there is no way he could conceive of supporting the UK leaving the EU, and in fact he plans to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, how credible do you think his threats to leave were ? He had no power, and hence no result at that renegotiation because he had no credibility.
True, but nothing to do with whether we are sovereign or not.
As it happens, my view is that the Leave vote is primarily driven by the austerity measures introduced since 2010. Much of that spending had a purpose. The lack of investment rather than the number of immigrants is what is driving the frustration.
That's interesting. Would that not point to a relatively high Labour Leave vote and consequently a higher chance of a Leave win?
On topic. "A movement in the exchange rate on the result of the referendum can be expected because of uncertainty"
Well, yes, but not because the result will have created uncertainty. In fact it will move because some of the uncertainty will have been resolved. At present it is said that the probability of remain is around 0.70. The market has priced that into the current exchange rate. Either result will be a "shock" though obviously more so if Leave wins. It is argued that the new equilibrium exchange rate will be lower in that case. If so the very short term movement will overshoot the new equilibrium and then gradually rise towards it. So a jump down followed by a slow rise is what theory says will occur. And the reverse in the case that Remain wins, though somewhat attenuated because that would be less of a surprise.
So the aftermath will not be currency uncertainty, but actually greater confidence in the subsequent trend of the currency in the medium term while the real economy is adjusting.
To be a credible deterrent people have to believe you might use it (which is why Scott as usual is talking out of his ar*e).
When your PM walks up to the renegotiations and announces to his counterparts that there is no way he could conceive of supporting the UK leaving the EU, and in fact he plans to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, how credible do you think his threats to leave were ? He had no power, and hence no result at that renegotiation because he had no credibility.
True, but nothing to do with whether we are sovereign or not.
You are only sovereign if there are credible circumstances in which you would exert your sovereignty. Neither Cameron nor Corbyn would under any circumstances declare us sovereign and tell the EU to get stuffed (absent a Leave result ofc)
@blackburn63 Once again, it is futile speculating about numerical upper bounds on population capacity of the island of Britain because we cannot be in possession of all the relevant facts for determining what that upper bound might be.
PS Your inability to accept my basic point that Britain's population has grown rapidly and you are arbitrarily calling a halt to that process right now on the basis of no evidence other than your own gut instinct doesn't really qualify you to decide who looks silly.
Surely there's more than gut instinct - look at A&E waiting times, primary school places, traffic jams, overcrowded trains, even the spare capacity in the electricity system. There must be more examples.
I accept the point that we could in theory cope with this with more investment etc but in case you hadn't noticed the economy is not doing that well despite record low interest rates and the high employment figures mask a large amount of underemployment. Damian Green was on 5 live this morning trumpeting the fact that the NHS budget had been "protected" - but it needs much more than that, and it comes at the expense of cuts elsewhere anyway.
320K in a year represents ~ 0.5% population growth p.a. independent of increase due to birth rate increasing and falling death rate. I admit I do not know the net effect of this...may be about break even? But birth rate is rising.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a lot of people with a vote do not agree with you, and frankly won't be persuaded by your breathtakingly smug and patronising dismissals.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
With interest rates at record lows- government should be borrowing to pay for the infrastructure we need.
In any case- bringing in people who tend to be healthier and are of working age- helps pay for all the other people in the UK. As has been shown by a vast weight of evidence on immigration.
.....if it wasn't for the children they're having causing enormous pressure on maternity services and schools, housing, etc.
To be a credible deterrent people have to believe you might use it (which is why Scott as usual is talking out of his ar*e).
When your PM walks up to the renegotiations and announces to his counterparts that there is no way he could conceive of supporting the UK leaving the EU, and in fact he plans to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, how credible do you think his threats to leave were ? He had no power, and hence no result at that renegotiation because he had no credibility.
True, but nothing to do with whether we are sovereign or not.
You are only sovereign if there are credible circumstances in which you would exert your sovereignty. Neither Cameron nor Corbyn would under any circumstances declare us sovereign and tell the EU to get stuffed (absent a Leave result ofc)
So are you saying that if we vote to leave the EU we will not leave the EU? I disagree.
@blackburn63 Once again, it is futile speculating about numerical upper bounds on population capacity of the island of Britain because we cannot be in possession of all the relevant facts for determining what that upper bound might be.
PS Your inability to accept my basic point that Britain's population has grown rapidly and you are arbitrarily calling a halt to that process right now on the basis of no evidence other than your own gut instinct doesn't really qualify you to decide who looks silly.
Surely there's more than gut instinct - look at A&E waiting times, primary school places, traffic jams, overcrowded trains, even the spare capacity in the electricity system. There must be more examples.
I accept the point that we could in theory cope with this with more investment etc but in case you hadn't noticed the economy is not doing that well despite record low interest rates and the high employment figures mask a large amount of underemployment. Damian Green was on 5 live this morning trumpeting the fact that the NHS budget had been "protected" - but it needs much more than that, and it comes at the expense of cuts elsewhere anyway.
320K in a year represents ~ 0.5% population growth p.a. independent of increase due to birth rate increasing and falling death rate. I admit I do not know the net effect of this...may be about break even? But birth rate is rising.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a lot of people with a vote do not agree with you, and frankly won't be persuaded by your breathtakingly smug and patronising dismissals.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
With interest rates at record lows- government should be borrowing to pay for the infrastructure we need.
In any case- bringing in people who tend to be healthier and are of working age- helps pay for all the other people in the UK. As has been shown by a vast weight of evidence on immigration.
Yes and No.
Consider cases of TB in the UK, almost three quarters of which are presented by people not born in the UK. Bear in mind that anyone applying for a visa to travel to the UK is required to take a TB test, and is declined if it is positive until properly treated.
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
It's certainly coming across as an alternative manifesto in the making post Brexit. I'm expecting more of the same from VoteLeave. It's something the electorate sees as familiar/tangible/doable.
Whilst there's clear parallels with SIndy, I'd argue that the Yessers were reliant on a single commodity - oil - to buoy them up, or not as the case may be. The fundamental issues such as currency/BoE aren't in play re Brexit.
For oil read the Single Market. It is now completely clear that two years following the Leave vote we will no longer be a part of that. We have to hope that the Leave camp is correct and that removing ourselves from the Single Market will have no adverse consequences - either directly or indirectly.
I suspect that two years might become four or five quite easily. That two year limit is subject to extension by mutual agreement. It would seem entirely possible that a Boris Government (which would be soft Leave at best) and the EU would both consider it in their interest to extent that period several times as they attempt to thresh out the minutiae of the agreement. The public will probably give this the benefit of the doubt for far longer than is reasonable.
When I pointed out that 8 years for renegotiations was par for the course earlier in the year, I was assailed by indignant Leavers telling me that it was all going to be plain sailing and I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps I should publish my thread headers with a six month time lag to get universal acclaim from the slower thinking Leavers.
Eight years is preposterous.
Four or five years is just unlikely - it's not in either side's interest to drag the process out. In particular, HMG will want it resolved before the next general election, so it won't go past 2020 (unless they contrive an early election to get a mandate to negotiate, of course).
To be a credible deterrent people have to believe you might use it (which is why Scott as usual is talking out of his ar*e).
When your PM walks up to the renegotiations and announces to his counterparts that there is no way he could conceive of supporting the UK leaving the EU, and in fact he plans to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, how credible do you think his threats to leave were ? He had no power, and hence no result at that renegotiation because he had no credibility.
True, but nothing to do with whether we are sovereign or not.
You are only sovereign if there are credible circumstances in which you would exert your sovereignty. Neither Cameron nor Corbyn would under any circumstances declare us sovereign and tell the EU to get stuffed (absent a Leave result ofc)
So are you saying that if we vote to leave the EU we will not leave the EU? I disagree.
No I am saying if we Remain our sovereignty is meaningless because neither of the major parties have any inclination toward using it, they are much more comfortable sucking at the EU teat.
@blackburn63 There are three dimensions and we don't use the third one anywhere near enough. If we used that one more, we wouldn't need to cover the country with more tarmac.
In 5000 BC the population of England was about 6,000. By 1801 the population of England was just under 8 million. in 2011 the population of England was just over 53 million. We have been coping with population growth for millennia and rapid population growth for two centuries. I don't think we've yet reached anything like our conceivable limit just yet.
Prevarication.
80m, 100m, 200m - when would you cry enough?
How many more schools, hospitals, roads etc do we need to build before you join the majority of the UK who see the rapid rise in population as a problem?
Cameron foresaw the problem, he promised to cut it to sustainable levels.
Your argument, such as it is, is lost.
Half the rise in population in the ONS forecast is down to endogenous growth, and of the half that is down to migration only half is down to EU migration. Leaving the EU with an absolute halt to EU migration still results in 75% or so of the projected 4 million population rise.
I'll ask you the same question:
Do you foresee a time when we'll need to man?age population numbers: if sowhen
I see that over the next fifteen years a lot of youthful migration will be required to support the aging population. Remember the ONS projection does not expand the Labour force, the population 18-65 being stable and the increase being the over 65s and over 75s in particular. If we do not have immigration we will have an expanding elderly population and a contracting working age population.
At that point the pyramidal age distribution will have a long term stability and so our population would stabilise. I think forecasts on population more than 20 years into the future are very speculative, as fertility rates are declining worldwide.
OK have another go:
Do you foresee a time when we'll need to manage population numbers: if so when?
It maybe that your answer is NO, of course.
The numbers will manage themselves, and the 75% of the change (minimum) is happening anyway. What governments have failed to do is support the infrastructure.
It is market forces (and applying to endogenous growth and non EU migration too) and management needs to be by market forces too. Changes to our welfare state to make benefits conditional on a track record of contributions etc.
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
And Cameron would be a hero. It would be hysterical (and tragic)
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
If I were rich enough to be insulated from the effects I would agree.
I think that Remain will still scrape home, but if they do (or don't) a degree of humility on the part of the establishment bodies that advocate Remain, and European institutions would be in order.
If they were not endlessly trying to draw power away from national political institutions towards supranational bodies, and weren't so wedded to the mass migration of peoples, they would not be facing their current predicament.
I very much doubt they will learn that lesson.
In that sense they are the best long-term allies of those desiring Brexit; their actions will advance the case more than any UK national campaign could.
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
One is reminded of Black Wednesday - the effects were immediate and within a mere 5 years the government was out of power.
I'm amused to see the groupthink Leavers here - who until a few weeks ago had echo-chambered themselves into agreeing that leaving would and should mean the EEA option - have now switched 180 degrees and now agree with me (and isam, late of this parish) that leaving the EU without ending freedom of movement would be politically impossible.
Of course imigration is the one strong argument (in terms of political potency) which the Leave side have. Whether in reality leaving the EU would make that much difference is another matter; when I looked at the figures in detail, it didn't really look that way once you've taken students out of the equation. Remember that we are talking net migration, and that takes account of Brits and others leaving the UK.
Mind you, trashing the economy would be an effective way of reducing net migration - provided we manage to do this without trashing the Eurozone economy. A tricky one to get right.
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
One is reminded of Black Wednesday - the effects were immediate and within a mere 5 years the government was out of power.
Well quite. Or the sub-prime crash of 2008, Gordon Brown was immediately kicked out two years later.
It's certainly coming across as an alternative manifesto in the making post Brexit. I'm expecting more of the same from VoteLeave. It's something the electorate sees as familiar/tangible/doable.
Whilst there's clear parallels with SIndy, I'd argue that the Yessers were reliant on a single commodity - oil - to buoy them up, or not as the case may be. The fundamental issues such as currency/BoE aren't in play re Brexit.
For oil read the Single Market. It is now completely clear that two years following the Leave vote we will no longer be a part of that. We have to hope that the Leave camp is correct and that removing ourselves from the Single Market will have no adverse consequences - either directly or indirectly.
I suspect that two years might become four or five quite easily. That two year limit is subject to extension by mutual agreement. It would seem entirely possible that a Boris Government (which would be soft Leave at best) and the EU would both consider it in their interest to extent that period several times as they attempt to thresh out the minutiae of the agreement. The public will probably give this the benefit of the doubt for far longer than is reasonable.
When I pointed out that 8 years for renegotiations was par for the course earlier in the year, I was assailed by indignant Leavers telling me that it was all going to be plain sailing and I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps I should publish my thread headers with a six month time lag to get universal acclaim from the slower thinking Leavers.
Eight years is preposterous.
Four or five years is just unlikely - it's not in either side's interest to drag the process out. In particular, HMG will want it resolved before the next general election, so it won't go past 2020 (unless they contrive an early election to get a mandate to negotiate, of course).
That will be obvious to their negotiating partners through who will try to use the UK's desire for a quick deal to get it to consent to a crap one. I disagree that it is not in the other side's interest to let it drag out.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
So, @SouthamObserver and @AlastairMeeks, all this kerfuffle is over lack of infrastructure expenditure by 'the government'.
May I point out that Government finances are precarious, to say the least. And let's not even mention the external deficit.
So the Government's 'solution' is a kind of shadow taxation of the semi-skilled working classes: higher rents, lower piece rates, worse schools, longer waiting times for healthcare, crowded transport, etc.
We've had Government's of three hues within the last seven years and none has sought to grapple with the problem, probably because they benefit or even don't care.
So, it is about time we took the decision out of their hands. This referendum is a chance to so.
I'm amused to see the groupthink Leavers here - who until a few weeks ago had echo-chambered themselves into agreeing that leaving would and should mean the EEA option - have now switched 180 degrees and now agree with me (and isam, late of this parish) that leaving the EU without ending freedom of movement would be politically impossible.
Donnez moi un break. Lots of leavers on here were saying that EEA/EFTA would be the best way to go, in some cases as a halfway house to something more disconnected.
Some like me have argued that whilst this might be the best option it was a political non-starter because the bulk of the leave voters were doing so because they wanted to reduce immigration, and absent the changes to immigration would not be interested in taking the economic risk.
In any event the Leave campaign decided not to support the EEA/EFTA route, so its would be rather pointless banging on about it at this time, much as you Remainers would enjoy us knifing each other more than is currently the case.
If Leave does win - and I'm starting to think they might - I wonder how long it will take for the first Brexit moan story to appear in the Daily Mail. It's got to happen. Rural communities being devastated because of a lack of CAP subsidies? Chaos at the Passport Office as people wait six months for their EU visa? (Mail readers will soon get bored with their Brexit utopia and will be after new things to curse.)
On the basis that leave win and move towards a points system by 2020 how many will rush to this Country in the next four years, 500,000 pa or more and how do we stop them
Force all immigrants to arrive via Lerwick Airport.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Yes, it's delightful isn't it? Coming to terms with the possibility they might lose, but consoling themselves with the hope that they'll be able to rub their hands and say I told you so when the economy takes a nose dive. Such nice people.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Yes, it's delightful isn't it? Coming to terms with the possibility they might lose, but consoling themselves with the hope that they'll be able to rub their hands and say I told you so when the economy takes a nose dive. Such nice people.
If the polls are so close, any win greater than 10% points will be bad news for the polling groups. It can't be another outbreak of flocking or hurding (misprint).
How many firms have used face to face collection methods recently?
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Absolutely not. I'm genuinely very worried about the consequences for me personally. If we leave EU and everything goes swimmingly I will be very relieved and delighted.
On immigration, I think it's perfectly possible to reduce net migration to between 100-200k per year, focussing on high-skilled migration, by restricting work permits and visas, withdrawing from the EU, and qualifying, or withdrawing, from the ECHR that gives, for example, the right to family life. Migration bonds would also help.
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
On the contrary, I am facing the consequences with my eyes wide open, unlike the Brexiteers for whom the misery of little people is a price worth paying.
Singing La, La, La we can't hear you will be of no consolation in the event.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
On immigration, I think it's perfectly possible to reduce net migration to between 100-200k per year, focussing on high-skilled migration, by restricting work permits and visas, withdrawing from the EU, and qualifying, or withdrawing, from the ECHR that gives, for example, the right to family life. Migration bonds would also help.
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
As someone on the Beeb made clear last night there are jobs, especially in rural areas, where there just aren’t enough locals to do them, even allowing for bussing people in from “nearby” towns.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
Like Black Wednesday did ? Yes - for the positive.
I'm amused to see the groupthink Leavers here - who until a few weeks ago had echo-chambered themselves into agreeing that leaving would and should mean the EEA option - have now switched 180 degrees and now agree with me (and isam, late of this parish) that leaving the EU without ending freedom of movement would be politically impossible.
Of course imigration is the one strong argument (in terms of political potency) which the Leave side have. Whether in reality leaving the EU would make that much difference is another matter; when I looked at the figures in detail, it didn't really look that way once you've taken students out of the equation. Remember that we are talking net migration, and that takes account of Brits and others leaving the UK.
Mind you, trashing the economy would be an effective way of reducing net migration - provided we manage to do this without trashing the Eurozone economy. A tricky one to get right.
Nope. Stop making stuff up. Those who said it would lead to the EFTA route were in a distinct minority amongst Leavers on here. You could probably count them on one hand. And of those at least some of them still believe that EFTA will be the eventual result. Indeed if you remember I have a bet on with you on the very subject.
On immigration, I think it's perfectly possible to reduce net migration to between 100-200k per year, focussing on high-skilled migration, by restricting work permits and visas, withdrawing from the EU, and qualifying, or withdrawing, from the ECHR that gives, for example, the right to family life. Migration bonds would also help.
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
As someone on the Beeb made clear last night there are jobs, especially in rural areas, where there just aren’t enough locals to do them, even allowing for bussing people in from “nearby” towns.
There aren't enough locals available at the depressed wage levels that unlimited migration brings ?
All very revealing, the sheer nastiness of some people has been surprising.
Why are you surprised? Farage has always been nasty, so the people here embracing his agenda with glee can't expect to be viewed otherwise.
The problem you have is 50% of the party you cherish is therefore nasty. You have dug a hole too deep to ever climb out of, the referendum result is irrelevant.
It's a strange article, which actually doesn't make much sense. Once you get past the polemic, the actual content is self-contradictory:
"First, British trade with Germany will not decline significantly. As economists have long known, trade is embedded in business and social networks into which partners invest enormous social capital.".
Fair enough, that might be right, for a while at least (no timescale is mentioned). But then:
"With Europe rapidly aging and struggling to revive productivity growth, the shift to non-European markets is bound to continue. Most firms already sell to multiple markets and Brexit will prompt them to strengthen their non-European networks."
Eh? We are supposed to believe that trade networks are embedded so won't change quickly, and simultaneously to believe that we can rapidly replace lost EU trade with other, ill-defined trade elsewhere? And what is stopping firms strenghtening their non-European networks if we remain?
He also completely fails to understand what those warning about the transitional risk are saying. It's not, as he seems to think, the direct loss of exports to the EU countries. It's about the likely freeze on investment caused by the uncertainty. And, in the longer term, it's about the UK being the favoured destination for inward investment into the EU.
Headline in today's (Wolverhampton) Express and Star, "Britain's Best Selling Regional Newspaper" "Old? White? You are the problem. Labour's shadow Europe minister described old white men as 'the problem' over the EU referendum at a rally in Wolverhampton. Pat Glass made the remarks as she spoke alongside shadow chancellor John McDonnell, Rob Marris and Guardian columnist Owen Jones at the city's Grand Station, adding, 'Go and speak to your mother, your grandmother. Don't speak to your grandfather, we know the problem are older white men'. The comments were met with muted laughter. Mr McDonnell appeared to sit back and wince when Ms Glass made the remark."
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
It's not a question of entrepreneurial spirit. We can be as entrepreneurial as we want but the likelihood is that China and India will in future dwarf us economically, as you might expect from countries with 1bn+ people. Now you might say why does that matter since there are very few barriers to trade at the moment? Well the world's premier economy, the United States, may be moving towards greater protectionism and I think it's naive to think all the emerging economies are going to want pure free trade. Inside the EU we have a voice in a very large market that interests the rest of the world far more than we would on our own.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Why would anyone in the right mind want Leave to be wrong if we do vote to go? This is not an election that can be undone. If we leave we leave and there is no coming back. On that basis, we have to hope to God that Boris, Nigel & Co have called it right.
It's a strange article, which actually doesn't make much sense. Once you get past the polemic, the actual content is self-contradictory:
"First, British trade with Germany will not decline significantly. As economists have long known, trade is embedded in business and social networks into which partners invest enormous social capital.".
Fair enough, that might be right, for a while at least (no timescale is mentioned). But then:
"With Europe rapidly aging and struggling to revive productivity growth, the shift to non-European markets is bound to continue. Most firms already sell to multiple markets and Brexit will prompt them to strengthen their non-European networks."
And, in the longer terms, it's about the UK being the favoured destination for inward investment into the EU.
One wonders how Singapore attracts investment without the huge benefits of being shackled to France ?
He also completely fails to understand what those warning about the transitional risk are saying. It's not, as he seems to think, the direct loss of exports to the EU countries. It's about the likely freeze on investment caused by the uncertainty. And, in the longer term, it's about the UK being the favoured destination for inward investment into the EU.
The OECD report today already shows investment frozen as a result of the vote, never mind the outcome
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
Like Black Wednesday did ? Yes - for the positive.
Well I will be amazed if 5 years after Brexit that the economy is doing as well yet alone better than it is now. It cracks me up the criticism of Cameron and Osborne on here. Just look at the brilliant position they have guided the country too. Who on here that actually predicted that the economy would be in such fantastic shape as it is now back in 2010 when Cameron first became PM. They have performed mircales. Yet criticism is all they receive. Im sure France would love to have our economy. These are halcyon days which Brexit may ruin.
It's a strange article, which actually doesn't make much sense. Once you get past the polemic, the actual content is self-contradictory:
"First, British trade with Germany will not decline significantly. As economists have long known, trade is embedded in business and social networks into which partners invest enormous social capital.".
Fair enough, that might be right, for a while at least (no timescale is mentioned). But then:
"With Europe rapidly aging and struggling to revive productivity growth, the shift to non-European markets is bound to continue. Most firms already sell to multiple markets and Brexit will prompt them to strengthen their non-European networks."
Eh? We are supposed to believe that trade networks are embedded so won't change quickly, and simultaneously to believe that we can rapidly replace lost EU trade with other, ill-defined trade elsewhere?
He also completely fails to understand what those warning about the transitional risk are saying. It's not, as he seems to think, the direct loss of exports to the EU countries. It's about the likely freeze on investment caused by the uncertainty. And, in the longer term, it's about the UK being the favoured destination for inward investment into the EU.
Nope. The trade networks already exist with the rest of the world. We are just limited in our ability to use them because of the EU.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
So, @SouthamObserver and @AlastairMeeks, all this kerfuffle is over lack of infrastructure expenditure by 'the government'.
May I point out that Government finances are precarious, to say the least. And let's not even mention the external deficit.
So the Government's 'solution' is a kind of shadow taxation of the semi-skilled working classes: higher rents, lower piece rates, worse schools, longer waiting times for healthcare, crowded transport, etc.
We've had Government's of three hues within the last seven years and none has sought to grapple with the problem, probably because they benefit or even don't care.
So, it is about time we took the decision out of their hands. This referendum is a chance to so.
No it's not. We will still have a government. And it will make choices, just as the current one has done. If we want a different direction what we need is a general election.
If Leave does win - and I'm starting to think they might - I wonder how long it will take for the first Brexit moan story to appear in the Daily Mail. It's got to happen. Rural communities being devastated because of a lack of CAP subsidies? Chaos at the Passport Office as people wait six months for their EU visa? (Mail readers will soon get bored with their Brexit utopia and will be after new things to curse.)
Since money out > Money back CAP subsidies could be kept - if needed. Alternatively farms could start growing food rather than soil banking. There won't be an EU visa - after all until recently when going to America you filled in a (green) form en-route - if they didn't need a visa for the UK, why would the EU?
Scaremongering might work in The Guardian or Morning Star, but give the readership of PB SOME brains.
I'm starting to look forward to a Leave vote now. Yes, the economical implications might be devastating, but the ensuing drama will be gripping. For starters, every business that goes bust or relocates, every surge in unemployment, will be blamed fully and squarely on Leave - and probably on PM Boris as its personification. Whether Leave's leadership can face down the onslaught post-Brexit or is swept away by it could be the defining political story of our era. This could be horrifying and entertaining all at once.
One is reminded of Black Wednesday - the effects were immediate and within a mere 5 years the government was out of power.
The economy took off and carried on growing for more than 10 years. The Govt of the day that tried to keep in the ERM and lost, staggered on with the same PM and was severly defeated . Key lesson is that the same PM cannot lose the european argument and remain in place.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
On the contrary, I am facing the consequences with my eyes wide open, unlike the Brexiteers for whom the misery of little people is a price worth paying.
Singing La, La, La we can't hear you will be of no consolation in the event.
Surely there are two ends of a spectrum regarding the economic outcome of Leave:
1. The fundamentals of our dynamic Osborne-helmed economy are strong, in which case I fail to see how even the worst case scenario of a slightly increased financial burden upon exporters (and a slight advantage to producers supplying the domestic market) could be disastrous. Bigger problems arise in our economy by the day.
2. Our economy is a debt-inflated bubble based on nothing more than falsely overvalued property, and we're just a shock away from the whole thing crashing down around us.
If you believe number 2, and it's a view, then there's a very strong argument for saying that this is totally inevitable, and trying to keep the show on the road for a bit longer is going to make the eventual reckoning that much worse.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Quite so.
All very revealing, the sheer nastiness of some people has been surprising.
Is it? I've found so-called liberals turn very nasty indeed when their interests are threatened.
I think it is a symptom of their faith being challenged and their being forced to defend it. Their arguments are remarkable in their constant appeals to authority and faith in economists, a profession utterly discredited only recently.
Furthermore, their concern for people has been shown to be disguised self-interest, thus the constant attempts to simply not talk about immigration. Perhaps they shouldn't have had massive immigration forecasts in their economic projections?
@blackburn63 Once again, it is futile speculating about numerical upper bounds on population capacity of the island of Britain because we cannot be in possession of all the relevant facts for determining what that upper bound might be.
PS Your inability to accept my basic point that Britain's population has grown rapidly and you are arbitrarily calling a halt to that process right now on the basis of no evidence other than your own gut instinct doesn't really qualify you to decide who looks silly.
Surely there's more than gut instinct - look at A&E waiting times, primary school places, traffic jams, overcrowded trains, even the spare capacity in the electricity system. There must be more examples.
I accept the point that we could in theory cope with this with more investment etc but in case you hadn't noticed the economy is not doing that well despite record low interest rates and the high employment figures mask a large amount of underemployment. Damian Green was on 5 live this morning trumpeting the fact that the NHS budget had been "protected" - but it needs much more than that, and it comes at the expense of cuts elsewhere anyway.
320K in a year represents ~ 0.5% population growth p.a. independent of increase due to birth rate increasing and falling death rate. I admit I do not know the net effect of this...may be about break even? But birth rate is rising.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, a lot of people with a vote do not agree with you, and frankly won't be persuaded by your breathtakingly smug and patronising dismissals.
Yep, the deep cuts to public services that the Tory Leavers so enthusiastically supported have had a significant impact on public services.
With interest rates at record lows- government should be borrowing to pay for the infrastructure we need.
In any case- bringing in people who tend to be healthier and are of working age- helps pay for all the other people in the UK. As has been shown by a vast weight of evidence on immigration.
Yes and No.
Consider cases of TB in the UK, almost three quarters of which are presented by people not born in the UK. Bear in mind that anyone applying for a visa to travel to the UK is required to take a TB test, and is declined if it is positive until properly treated.
But overall- younger people are healthier than older people. They cost less than older people. This is not controversial.
If Leave does win - and I'm starting to think they might - I wonder how long it will take for the first Brexit moan story to appear in the Daily Mail. It's got to happen. Rural communities being devastated because of a lack of CAP subsidies? Chaos at the Passport Office as people wait six months for their EU visa? (Mail readers will soon get bored with their Brexit utopia and will be after new things to curse.)
Firstly, the exit will take time to negotiate. I would be very surprised if Article 50 was invoked on June 24th.
On CAP, the UK makes a larger contribution to the EU than it recieves in return. If the electorate here want to continue farmer's subsidies then we have enough money to pay CAP. Perhaps we could design a system that serves our needs better that the EU mandated CAP.
On Visas, this is a ridiculous argument. UK citizens don't need visas for places such as Japan, Haiti, South Korea, Brazil, the UAE and so on and so on and so on. Even if you require a visa (such as the US or Australia), this can be done in 10 minutes online. I don't see why a 6 month process would happen: you can get visas to Russia and China in 3 days (72 hour visa free in China now).
I agree with SouthamObserver that many of the issues we have are not caused by the EU but by our own government's incompetence. He highlighted cuts to the Navy with regard to the issues now being reported in the Channel. Where we differ is I think that it's absolutly vital to remove the EU excuse from the government (which applies to all governments). We have our issues that are best resolved here by democratic elections rather than being negotiated between 28 countries who have competing social, political and strategic agendas. I wouldn't support a party that called for nationalisation but I believe that people here should be able to vote for one. This isn't possible in the EU.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
Like Black Wednesday did ? Yes - for the positive.
Well I will be amazed if 5 years after Brexit that the economy is doing as well yet alone better than it is now. It cracks me up the criticism of Cameron and Osborne on here. Just look at the brilliant position they have guided the country too. Who on here that actually predicted that the economy would be in such fantastic shape as it is now back in 2010 when Cameron first became PM. They have performed mircales. Yet criticism is all they receive. Im sure France would love to have our economy. These are halcyon days which Brexit may ruin.
For your prediction to be true it has to be true that the EU works magnificently for the Uk but not for the other countries in the club.
On immigration, I think it's perfectly possible to reduce net migration to between 100-200k per year, focussing on high-skilled migration, by restricting work permits and visas, withdrawing from the EU, and qualifying, or withdrawing, from the ECHR that gives, for example, the right to family life. Migration bonds would also help.
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
As someone on the Beeb made clear last night there are jobs, especially in rural areas, where there just aren’t enough locals to do them, even allowing for bussing people in from “nearby” towns.
There aren't enough locals available at the depressed wage levels that unlimited migration brings ?
That may well be the case, but many of these migrants are on minimum wage. Rural depopulation has taken place though, with former low value cottages now occupied by weekenders
I'm heavily invested in Leave at 2\1 and I may invest some more today.
Three things are happening as I predicted.
First, contrary to what leading Tory Leavers promised, there is now a fight between Leave and Cameron's leadership - his leadership of both the Tory party and, more importantly, the government. It was impossible for the line to hold that "we want Britain out of the EU but we have confidence in David Cameron". If leaving the EU is so necessary, then Cameron must be an absolute disgrace as the leader of the country. Nobody on the Leave side is now saying they want him to stay. And nobody is crossing from Leave to Remain, even though there must be some quite lucrative possibilities for doing that. Some Leave voters may still expect Remain to win, but the Leave leaders expect Leave to win. Cameron is dead in the water, three weeks before voting starts.
Second, this is a seriously asymmetric conflict. Shocks were always going to favour Leave. That's bad news for Project Fear. It was hard even to imagine a big shock that would favour Remain. I'm talking about real surprises and shocks, not headlines saying Cameron or Osborne or someone from the IMF has used extreme language today.
Third, are you joking, TSE, when you talk about "great responsibility" in the same article as the financial markets? If you're not, then you're underestimating the sheer amorality of financial speculation. Nowadays traders can swarm in to bring a currency down. The currency could well collapse before 23 June, not as late as "4pm" on the day itself. Or they might carefully keep it on the edge (probably having speculated on a rise in volatility itself - this kind of speculation is done on the derivatives markets) and then push it off on the last day or some other late day. They scent blood. They will borrow huge amounts of sterling to sell it forward. That's been done before with less important currencies, such as the New Zealand dollar. There will be celebration in some parts of the City when the pound crashes. For them it will be like Christmas to the power Christmas.
The bulging trousers and bicycle clips day for the Bank of England may turn out to be 17 June. That's a triple witching day. Those who don't know what that means, look it up. The BoE boys won't have the resources to save the pound.
This story has been allowed out in a massaged way, as usual. The finance boys will already have run some private polls. They won't be sitting on the front of their seats on 23 June, nervously waiting for what is likely to happen, asking chatterer-style questions such as "what's the picture now that the morning rush is over?", "what is the weather like in the Midlands?", and "how are things going among graduates?" In our finance-dominated world, these guys make stuff happen.
It will be a coked-up blood party of "kill, kill, kill!" as hundreds of traders make not just millions, but tens or scores of millions each.
One wonders how Singapore attracts investment without the huge benefits of being shackled to France ?
Actually, I think that in some parallel universe we might have been able to take a different course, and to have spent the last forty years becoming a SIngapore with the EU as our China. That seems to be the vision of Patrick Minford. In that model we'd have no car industry (or indeed any manufacturing to speak of), but an even larger financial and business services sector.
But we didn't take that course, and getting there from where we are now would be very painful, even assuming we want the City to be even more dominant.
A week after those ONS immigration stats, immigration has been the top EU matter in the media on (I guess) 6 of those 7 days. The question is, how many of the next 20 campaigning days will immigration still be the top EU matter?
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
Like Black Wednesday did ? Yes - for the positive.
Well I will be amazed if 5 years after Brexit that the economy is doing as well yet alone better than it is now. It cracks me up the criticism of Cameron and Osborne on here. Just look at the brilliant position they have guided the country too. Who on here that actually predicted that the economy would be in such fantastic shape as it is now back in 2010 when Cameron first became PM. They have performed mircales. Yet criticism is all they receive. Im sure France would love to have our economy. These are halcyon days which Brexit may ruin.
It's OK - we sometimes DO appreciate sarcasm here - or did you really!! mean it?
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Why would anyone in the right mind want Leave to be wrong if we do vote to go? This is not an election that can be undone. If we leave we leave and there is no coming back. On that basis, we have to hope to God that Boris, Nigel & Co have called it right.
If there is a recession it will be because the PM, the Chancellor. the IMF. World Bank etc have all talked down the British economy.
getting my excuses in early....................................
On immigration, I think it's perfectly possible to reduce net migration to between 100-200k per year, focussing on high-skilled migration, by restricting work permits and visas, withdrawing from the EU, and qualifying, or withdrawing, from the ECHR that gives, for example, the right to family life. Migration bonds would also help.
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
As someone on the Beeb made clear last night there are jobs, especially in rural areas, where there just aren’t enough locals to do them, even allowing for bussing people in from “nearby” towns.
Then wages will rise, and probably prices, or the structure of the rural economy will change to higher value-add products. Which it probably will anyway once we are out of CAP and the tariff walls on agriculture produce from outside the EU comes down.
The only thing inevitable about economics is change in the structure of the economy.
I've little doubt that leaving the EU will be the wost decision this country has made in my lifetime. This is not voting on who should leave the big brother household. This will adversely affect everyone but particularly those under 40 who will miss out on so much that we've all taken for granted for decades.
It's time for everyone who has thought this through to go out and sell.
And fast.
The lunatics are taking over the asylum
In order for us to leave there needs to be about 15 million Lunatics, nice that you have such a high opinion of your fellow citizens, most of whom to be fair would not have dreamed of voting for leave if Blairite idiots had not opened the floodgates in the first place.
We are largely a tolerant live-and-let-live sort of people, had there been a steady flow of immigrants into the country of 100-150k per year, and more than proforma attempts to help them integrate, along with adequate increases in health and school provisions to support that increase I doubt we would be where we are now.
My big hope is that enough of those 15 million won't be able to drag themselves away from Jeremy Kyle long enough to vote
No wonder you moved to France, you have such a low opinion of your countrymen. We should feel honoured you're prepared to grace us with your presence.
If we do vote to Brexit I will in all probability be joining the retiree exodus whilst it's still an option.
Why the squeaky-bum reaction by the Remainers to a couple of polls?
I think it will be tight but Remain will win to Europe's relief. It will be a green light for more political union which the current government will approve. The little people have had their say and can go back to watching Jeremy Kyle while their betters can carry on ruling.
Headline in today's (Wolverhampton) Express and Star, "Britain's Best Selling Regional Newspaper" "Old? White? You are the problem. Labour's shadow Europe minister described old white men as 'the problem' over the EU referendum at a rally in Wolverhampton. Pat Glass made the remarks as she spoke alongside shadow chancellor John McDonnell, Rob Marris and Guardian columnist Owen Jones at the city's Grand Station, adding, 'Go and speak to your mother, your grandmother. Don't speak to your grandfather, we know the problem are older white men'. The comments were met with muted laughter. Mr McDonnell appeared to sit back and wince when Ms Glass made the remark."
How to cr*p on your supporters, the Ratner approach to politics from the Labour party.
I'm heavily invested in Leave at 2\1 and I may invest some more today.
Three things are happening as I predicted.
First, [Tory infighting - snip]
Second, this is a seriously asymmetric conflict. Shocks were always going to favour Leave. That's bad news for Project Fear. It was hard even to imagine a big shock that would favour Remain. I'm talking about real surprises and shocks, not headlines saying Cameron or Osborne or someone from the IMF has used extreme language today.
Third, are you joking, TSE, when you talk about "great responsibility" in the same article as the financial markets? If you're not, then you're underestimating the sheer amorality of financial speculation. Nowadays traders can swarm in to bring a currency down. The currency could well collapse before 23 June, not as late as "4pm" on the day itself. Or they might carefully keep it on the edge (probably having speculated on a rise in volatility itself - this kind of speculation is done on the derivatives markets) and then push it off on the last day or some other late day. They scent blood. They will borrow huge amounts of sterling to sell it forward. That's been done before with less important currencies, such as the New Zealand dollar. There will be celebration in some parts of the City when the pound crashes. For them it will be like Christmas to the power Christmas.
The bulging trousers and bicycle clips day for the Bank of England may turn out to be 17 June. That's a triple witching day. Those who don't know what that means, look it up. The BoE boys won't have the resources to save the pound.
This story has been allowed out in a massaged way, as usual. The finance boys will already have run some private polls. They won't be sitting on the front of their seats on 23 June, nervously waiting for what is likely to happen, asking chatterer-style questions such as "what's the picture now that the morning rush is over?", "what is the weather like in the Midlands?", and "how are things going among graduates?" In our finance-dominated world, these guys make stuff happen.
It will be a coked-up blood party of "kill, kill, kill!" as hundreds of traders make not just millions, but tens or scores of millions each.
Your second and third points run counter to each other. If there is a run on Sterling in anticipation of Brexit, prior to the vote, that will very much be a pro-Remain shock.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
At the moment the economy is flying, interest rates are very low, employment is at record levels, inflation is very low, wages are rising. Do you think Brexit will have any impact on these?
Like Black Wednesday did ? Yes - for the positive.
Well I will be amazed if 5 years after Brexit that the economy is doing as well yet alone better than it is now. It cracks me up the criticism of Cameron and Osborne on here. Just look at the brilliant position they have guided the country too. Who on here that actually predicted that the economy would be in such fantastic shape as it is now back in 2010 when Cameron first became PM. They have performed mircales. Yet criticism is all they receive. Im sure France would love to have our economy. These are halcyon days which Brexit may ruin.
For your prediction to be true it has to be true that the EU works magnificently for the Uk but not for the other countries in the club.
The simple answer is we do not know. But it is one hell of a risk to find out
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Talking Britain down - they have no confidence in our entrepreneurial spirit - its very sad.
It's not a question of entrepreneurial spirit. We can be as entrepreneurial as we want but the likelihood is that China and India will in future dwarf us economically, as you might expect from countries with 1bn+ people. Now you might say why does that matter since there are very few barriers to trade at the moment? Well the world's premier economy, the United States, may be moving towards greater protectionism and I think it's naive to think all the emerging economies are going to want pure free trade. Inside the EU we have a voice in a very large market that interests the rest of the world far more than we would on our own.
Of course the key issue is non-tarriff barriers (i.e. global standards on products). These are set by international agreement at technical working committees of the UN. Because we are in the EU, we do not have a seat at these committees. We are therefore in a position where Iceland, for example, is present at these negotiations on (for example, vehicle standards), but we are not. The negotiates on our behalf, then takes these internationally agreed standards, translates them into directives and applies them to the single market. If we are not in the EU, we can attend and negotiate these standards and implement the agreed standards into our regulations. As we are in the EU, we cannot attend these discussions.
To Richard_Navabi, investment in the UK will be dictated by factors such as taxation, ease of doing business, property rights, productivity, education, infrastructure, regualtion and so on. Many of these factors are not within our control as members of the EU.
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Why would anyone in the right mind want Leave to be wrong if we do vote to go? This is not an election that can be undone. If we leave we leave and there is no coming back. On that basis, we have to hope to God that Boris, Nigel & Co have called it right.
I doubt many members of Joe Public would but amongst the political obsessives? A fair few I would say. Most people are concerned with their quality of life and the impact of politics on it. But there's all kind of enmity and grudges between obsessives on different sides. I'd take a guess that some of those Tories on the leave side might be influenced by personal feelings towards Cameron. And some on the remain side think they're fighting against a kind of chauvinistic nationalism and an economic crisis would be sweet revenge.
They may be "healthier" - but they will call on midwifery whereas the old will not, will be a greater drain on sexual health issues, on dentistry, on sporting injuries. Plus they need housing - housing that the older people already have, need schools and universities that the older people don't, will travel to work which the older people will need to do less.
It's difficult to get accurate information on whether Hillary will be indicted or not because alot of the websites pushing the story that either she will or won't tend to have a political agenda rather than being purveyors of unvarnished truth.
At present it is said that the probability of remain is around 0.70.
No it isn't. It's said that that's the view of the betting markets, or to be more exact, the view of the money that's been placed with general-purpose mass-market bookmakers.
Probability is not a physical reality that can be measured, whether accurately or otherwise. There is no "real" probability of Remain or Leave.
If people think I'm talking crap, they should try the following problem.
You're on a game show, and you're given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick door no.1. The host, who knows what's behind all three doors, then opens another one, no. 2, to reveal a goat. He then asks whether you want to change your choice to no.3. Should you switch or not?
I can't help thinking some Remain posters here are actually hoping for economic collapse in the event of a Leave vote.
I think they'll be disappointed.
Quite so.
All very revealing, the sheer nastiness of some people has been surprising.
Is it? I've found so-called liberals turn very nasty indeed when their interests are threatened.
I think it is a symptom of their faith being challenged and their being forced to defend it. Their arguments are remarkable in their constant appeals to authority and faith in economists, a profession utterly discredited only recently.
Furthermore, their concern for people has been shown to be disguised self-interest, thus the constant attempts to simply not talk about immigration. Perhaps they shouldn't have had massive immigration forecasts in their economic projections?
Yes, liberals are notoriously illiberal.
Its the total bollox of it all, Cameron made one of his cast iron guarantees about cutting immigration, he was cheered to the rafters, now he and his glove puppet in No 11 are extolling the benefits of immigration whilst refusing to let black people in. Where is the opposition pointing it out?
Well here we are, right here, millions of us, sick and tired of the establishment and the obsequious sycophants that hang around on here parroting whatever they're told to parrot.
The referendum is actually little to do with the EU and everything to do with people having a voice.
Comments
In any case- bringing in people who tend to be healthier and are of working age- helps pay for all the other people in the UK. As has been shown by a vast weight of evidence on immigration.
What is your assessment of the odds now?
"A movement in the exchange rate on the result of the referendum can be expected because of uncertainty"
Well, yes, but not because the result will have created uncertainty. In fact it will move because some of the uncertainty will have been resolved. At present it is said that the probability of remain is around 0.70. The market has priced that into the current exchange rate. Either result will be a "shock" though obviously more so if Leave wins. It is argued that the new equilibrium exchange rate will be lower in that case. If so the very short term movement will overshoot the new equilibrium and then gradually rise towards it. So a jump down followed by a slow rise is what theory says will occur. And the reverse in the case that Remain wins, though somewhat attenuated because that would be less of a surprise.
So the aftermath will not be currency uncertainty, but actually greater confidence in the subsequent trend of the currency in the medium term while the real economy is adjusting.
Consider cases of TB in the UK, almost three quarters of which are presented by people not born in the UK. Bear in mind that anyone applying for a visa to travel to the UK is required to take a TB test, and is declined if it is positive until properly treated.
Philip Cowley
"Have you a polling accident that wasn't your fault? Been sold polls that it turned out you didn't need?" https://t.co/zXnXnCYBOF
Four or five years is just unlikely - it's not in either side's interest to drag the process out. In particular, HMG will want it resolved before the next general election, so it won't go past 2020 (unless they contrive an early election to get a mandate to negotiate, of course).
In that sense they are the best long-term allies of those desiring Brexit; their actions will advance the case more than any UK national campaign could.
Of course imigration is the one strong argument (in terms of political potency) which the Leave side have. Whether in reality leaving the EU would make that much difference is another matter; when I looked at the figures in detail, it didn't really look that way once you've taken students out of the equation. Remember that we are talking net migration, and that takes account of Brits and others leaving the UK.
Mind you, trashing the economy would be an effective way of reducing net migration - provided we manage to do this without trashing the Eurozone economy. A tricky one to get right.
All those quarters of growth, the highest employment figures ever, swept away and Chancellor Gove pleads with the World.
May I point out that Government finances are precarious, to say the least. And let's not even mention the external deficit.
So the Government's 'solution' is a kind of shadow taxation of the semi-skilled working classes: higher rents, lower piece rates, worse schools, longer waiting times for healthcare, crowded transport, etc.
We've had Government's of three hues within the last seven years and none has sought to grapple with the problem, probably because they benefit or even don't care.
So, it is about time we took the decision out of their hands. This referendum is a chance to so.
Some like me have argued that whilst this might be the best option it was a political non-starter because the bulk of the leave voters were doing so because they wanted to reduce immigration, and absent the changes to immigration would not be interested in taking the economic risk.
In any event the Leave campaign decided not to support the EEA/EFTA route, so its would be rather pointless banging on about it at this time, much as you Remainers would enjoy us knifing each other more than is currently the case.
@JohnRentoul: Once upon a recent time there was a party that came up with a new populist policy a day, while the other one won the economic argument.
Thanks
Remainders might not like it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-why-the-economic-consensus-on-brexit-is-flawed-a7057306.html
I think they'll be disappointed.
How many firms have used face to face collection methods recently?
Ladbrokes odds now:
3/10 Remain
5/2 Leave
The biggest swing to Leave in a day of the campaign #LadbrokesEU
I don't think it's economically possible to go much beneath that but less than 1 million every 5 years would be a manageable number I think and could command broad public support if we were clearly in control of the numbers and built the infrastructure to cope with it.
Singing La, La, La we can't hear you will be of no consolation in the event.
That article by Ashoka Modi is superb.
It's a strange article, which actually doesn't make much sense. Once you get past the polemic, the actual content is self-contradictory:
"First, British trade with Germany will not decline significantly. As economists have long known, trade is embedded in business and social networks into which partners invest enormous social capital.".
Fair enough, that might be right, for a while at least (no timescale is mentioned). But then:
"With Europe rapidly aging and struggling to revive productivity growth, the shift to non-European markets is bound to continue. Most firms already sell to multiple markets and Brexit will prompt them to strengthen their non-European networks."
Eh? We are supposed to believe that trade networks are embedded so won't change quickly, and simultaneously to believe that we can rapidly replace lost EU trade with other, ill-defined trade elsewhere? And what is stopping firms strenghtening their non-European networks if we remain?
He also completely fails to understand what those warning about the transitional risk are saying. It's not, as he seems to think, the direct loss of exports to the EU countries. It's about the likely freeze on investment caused by the uncertainty. And, in the longer term, it's about the UK being the favoured destination for inward investment into the EU.
"Old? White? You are the problem.
Labour's shadow Europe minister described old white men as 'the problem' over the EU referendum at a rally in Wolverhampton. Pat Glass made the remarks as she spoke alongside shadow chancellor John McDonnell, Rob Marris and Guardian columnist Owen Jones at the city's Grand Station, adding, 'Go and speak to your mother, your grandmother. Don't speak to your grandfather, we know the problem are older white men'.
The comments were met with muted laughter. Mr McDonnell appeared to sit back and wince when Ms Glass made the remark."
Scaremongering might work in The Guardian or Morning Star, but give the readership of PB SOME brains.
1. The fundamentals of our dynamic Osborne-helmed economy are strong, in which case I fail to see how even the worst case scenario of a slightly increased financial burden upon exporters (and a slight advantage to producers supplying the domestic market) could be disastrous. Bigger problems arise in our economy by the day.
2. Our economy is a debt-inflated bubble based on nothing more than falsely overvalued property, and we're just a shock away from the whole thing crashing down around us.
If you believe number 2, and it's a view, then there's a very strong argument for saying that this is totally inevitable, and trying to keep the show on the road for a bit longer is going to make the eventual reckoning that much worse.
I think it is a symptom of their faith being challenged and their being forced to defend it. Their arguments are remarkable in their constant appeals to authority and faith in economists, a profession utterly discredited only recently.
Furthermore, their concern for people has been shown to be disguised self-interest, thus the constant attempts to simply not talk about immigration. Perhaps they shouldn't have had massive immigration forecasts in their economic projections?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-britain-two-fifths-nhs-budget-spent-over-65s
On CAP, the UK makes a larger contribution to the EU than it recieves in return. If the electorate here want to continue farmer's subsidies then we have enough money to pay CAP. Perhaps we could design a system that serves our needs better that the EU mandated CAP.
On Visas, this is a ridiculous argument. UK citizens don't need visas for places such as Japan, Haiti, South Korea, Brazil, the UAE and so on and so on and so on. Even if you require a visa (such as the US or Australia), this can be done in 10 minutes online. I don't see why a 6 month process would happen: you can get visas to Russia and China in 3 days (72 hour visa free in China now).
I agree with SouthamObserver that many of the issues we have are not caused by the EU but by our own government's incompetence. He highlighted cuts to the Navy with regard to the issues now being reported in the Channel. Where we differ is I think that it's absolutly vital to remove the EU excuse from the government (which applies to all governments). We have our issues that are best resolved here by democratic elections rather than being negotiated between 28 countries who have competing social, political and strategic agendas. I wouldn't support a party that called for nationalisation but I believe that people here should be able to vote for one. This isn't possible in the EU.
Three things are happening as I predicted.
First, contrary to what leading Tory Leavers promised, there is now a fight between Leave and Cameron's leadership - his leadership of both the Tory party and, more importantly, the government. It was impossible for the line to hold that "we want Britain out of the EU but we have confidence in David Cameron". If leaving the EU is so necessary, then Cameron must be an absolute disgrace as the leader of the country. Nobody on the Leave side is now saying they want him to stay. And nobody is crossing from Leave to Remain, even though there must be some quite lucrative possibilities for doing that. Some Leave voters may still expect Remain to win, but the Leave leaders expect Leave to win. Cameron is dead in the water, three weeks before voting starts.
Second, this is a seriously asymmetric conflict. Shocks were always going to favour Leave. That's bad news for Project Fear. It was hard even to imagine a big shock that would favour Remain. I'm talking about real surprises and shocks, not headlines saying Cameron or Osborne or someone from the IMF has used extreme language today.
Third, are you joking, TSE, when you talk about "great responsibility" in the same article as the financial markets? If you're not, then you're underestimating the sheer amorality of financial speculation. Nowadays traders can swarm in to bring a currency down. The currency could well collapse before 23 June, not as late as "4pm" on the day itself. Or they might carefully keep it on the edge (probably having speculated on a rise in volatility itself - this kind of speculation is done on the derivatives markets) and then push it off on the last day or some other late day. They scent blood. They will borrow huge amounts of sterling to sell it forward. That's been done before with less important currencies, such as the New Zealand dollar. There will be celebration in some parts of the City when the pound crashes. For them it will be like Christmas to the power Christmas.
The bulging trousers and bicycle clips day for the Bank of England may turn out to be 17 June. That's a triple witching day. Those who don't know what that means, look it up. The BoE boys won't have the resources to save the pound.
This story has been allowed out in a massaged way, as usual. The finance boys will already have run some private polls. They won't be sitting on the front of their seats on 23 June, nervously waiting for what is likely to happen, asking chatterer-style questions such as "what's the picture now that the morning rush is over?", "what is the weather like in the Midlands?", and "how are things going among graduates?" In our finance-dominated world, these guys make stuff happen.
It will be a coked-up blood party of "kill, kill, kill!" as hundreds of traders make not just millions, but tens or scores of millions each.
But we didn't take that course, and getting there from where we are now would be very painful, even assuming we want the City to be even more dominant.
https://twitter.com/AlbionAwakes/status/737952922693206016
getting my excuses in early....................................
The only thing inevitable about economics is change in the structure of the economy.
I am very comfortable with that.
What exactly does that make David Cameron, then?
I think it will be tight but Remain will win to Europe's relief. It will be a green light for more political union which the current government will approve. The little people have had their say and can go back to watching Jeremy Kyle while their betters can carry on ruling.
Perhaps it is Scotland again?
To Richard_Navabi, investment in the UK will be dictated by factors such as taxation, ease of doing business, property rights, productivity, education, infrastructure, regualtion and so on. Many of these factors are not within our control as members of the EU.
Probability is not a physical reality that can be measured, whether accurately or otherwise. There is no "real" probability of Remain or Leave.
If people think I'm talking crap, they should try the following problem.
You're on a game show, and you're given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick door no.1. The host, who knows what's behind all three doors, then opens another one, no. 2, to reveal a goat. He then asks whether you want to change your choice to no.3. Should you switch or not?
Its the total bollox of it all, Cameron made one of his cast iron guarantees about cutting immigration, he was cheered to the rafters, now he and his glove puppet in No 11 are extolling the benefits of immigration whilst refusing to let black people in. Where is the opposition pointing it out?
Well here we are, right here, millions of us, sick and tired of the establishment and the obsequious sycophants that hang around on here parroting whatever they're told to parrot.
The referendum is actually little to do with the EU and everything to do with people having a voice.