FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
Why ?
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result.
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
On the parliamentary arithmetic, unless Labour had a whipped vote against a new UK-EU deal I can't see it failing to pass the commons.
Let's be pessimistic: the SNP will definitely vote against, Green/SDLP/LD/Plaid too and Labour too
Conversely, Carswell/DUP/UUP/Tory leadership for (but with 40 Tory rebels and abstentions) except a dozen or so Labour Brexit rebels join them
I get about 308 MPs for the new deal and 299 against. That's with all other Labour MPs obeying the whip.
The bigger problem will be getting it through the Lords, IMHO.
The Lords should be abolished and we should have a unicameral Parliament but can you seriously imagine the unelected Lords attempting to override not just the elected Commons but a referendum result with millions of voters too?
I'd think the Crossbenchers would almost all vote in line with the referendum result for that reason. Tories plus Crossbenchers is a majority.
The Lords have become extremely adept at discovering reasons for frustrating this Government's agenda, particularly the Lib Dem undead.
Personally, I'd just take the flak and appoint another 40 Tory peers and get on with it.
Or just repeal the disbarring of the hereditaries
Champion idea! But that too would need to pass the existing Lords.
I thought the Lords had no say in Bills affecting their own existence? Wasn't that the whole point of the 1910 crisis?
No, that was over the Lords having no say over money bills.
In fact, the Lords held up the Attlee government's bill that reduced the time the Upper House could block legislation for, to the extent that it needed the 1911 version of the Parliament Act to push the amending legislation through.
Ah so they do have no power but that was from 1911?
The Lords has had no power over money bills since 1911, though it hadn't exercised the power it did have to the extent of a Budget veto for two centuries before that, hence that crisis.
The Lords does have an absolute power to block its own reform but only for about a year. In practice, effective use of its soft power has repeatedly diverted and diluted reform so as to minimise change.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
The UK was the sick man of Europe in 1975, and is now a prosperous and successful democracy. What a disaster membership of the EU has been for us.
Who can say if in the last 40 years we might have done just fine anyway, or possibly even better than we did in the EU. You don't know, I don't know, so perhaps best to stop bleating about it.
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
A psychological moment - Ladbrokes have cut Brexit odds to 2/1
Corals and Stan James both also go 2/1. The best price for LEAVE is currently Betfair Sportsbook at 2.3/1. OGH must have made a small fortune trading out his 4/1 position and it's not as if he didn't tell us at the time!
The psychological impact on Joe Public of Leave pulling ahead is an interesting one too. Those who feel Leave is a bit peer-group unacceptable, will be buoyed that they're not cranks - they're actually with the majority. Some will feel confident enough to say so/share their viewpoint.
Momentum isn't something I generally believe in, but when the serried ranks of the Establishment are lined up against you - discovering that loads of others don't believe them either is a real confidence boost.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
A Prime Minister who, let's not forget, wholly supported the Common Market. It's also clear from the repeats of coverage of the 1975 campaign that there was no secret that this had implications for the way in which we understood a sovereign nation state to operate.
I don't think it's possible to regard Thatcher's premiership and membership of the EEC as being completely independent events.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
The UK was the sick man of Europe in 1975, and is now a prosperous and successful democracy. What a disaster membership of the EU has been for us.
The UK had problems with overmighty trade unions in 1975, together with a civil war in Northern Ireland.
Other than that, it was a prosperous and successful State. Describing it as "the Sick Man of Europe" is hyperbole. The UK's standard of living was double what it had been 30 years previously.
Most of the world's countries in 1975 would have been happy to have the UK's problems.
I think you are being generous. The inflation of the 1970s stripped many millions of their savings, and hammered those on fixed incomes.
Imagine if the government implemented a tax which confiscated 75% of your savings. That's what the 1970s was like.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
The UK was the sick man of Europe in 1975, and is now a prosperous and successful democracy. What a disaster membership of the EU has been for us.
Embarrassing logical fallacy. Save it for a GCSE level audience.
Or explain how the EU transformed the British economy - that should be fun.
TSE I would agree with the idea that people would punish MPs for going against the will of the electorate, were it not for the fact that a significant part of #Leave actually want the UK to continue to have a trade agreement with Europe a la Norway etc. Besides, the alternative is to have to negotiate painful agreements which would take longer, be less advantageous, damage exports, damage the economy etc etc. Could it be that the majority in Parliament are right and we need free trade with the EU?
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
Being an MP is not like being a brain surgeon. If someone is going to operate on my brain, I want them to be properly qualified.
But, being an MP requires no special qualification. Most of the time, and with honourable exceptions, MPs will vote as they are directed by their party whips. So, while some MPs may indeed have impressive expertise in specific areas, there's no reason to believe they're more likely in general to vote in the public interest than the average voters is.
So what is the point of electing anyone then? If you are right, we might as well give up now and just appoint people to run the country like we do for jury service. You don't need to know anything, you don't need any skills or knowledge, none of them have any concept of public or national or human interest, according to you. Really? I mean, really?
I do actually have some sympathy with the view that we elect parliamentarians to do a job for us, and then spend our time distrusting anything they say or do, even more so than is deserved as wariness of the political class. Most people are happy to entrust very important decisions on issues to their MP, but not on their issue of choice, and the problem is when don't we trust them to make the decision? When should we hold referenda, can we agree on the criteria, on what issues we don't want to be represented but to take the decision ourselves? There should be rules in place, otherwise the logical endpoint is we don't want them to do anything as they cannot be trusted.
I can definitely see a case for a General Election with the parties putting up their position on how to enact a vote to leave. Of course, a GE is about much more than the EU so quite how it would turn out is anyone's guess.
That could lead to a dream scenario. Momentum (solidly for Remain) having seen Corbyn's pathetic leadership during the referendum will withdraw their support and move en masse to someone electable. Say Hilary Benn.
With a decent leader Labour would win by a distance and immediately offer another Referendum. The public having seen a year of turmoil and job losses will reverse their previous decision and we'll sail into the sunset back in the EU with a sensible Labour government with the wrecked Tory party and their UKIP allies out for a generation....
How would they get rid of Corbyn? Whether Corbyn is for or against the EU, I suspect he's quite enjoying this referendum. An early election would be ideal for him - he could even end up being PM.
As things are turning out Labour's choice of Corbyn as a leader is looking more stupid, and from my point of view, more tragic as each day goes by. Someone like Dan Jarvis would have a double digit lead by now and be cruising to No 10.
It all went wrong when Cameron tried to pretend that he had negotiated a wonderful deal in just a few weeks, when in fact it was a rubbish deal. He then compounded this crass error by rushing through a referendum at the earliest possible date ...... when he could have spent almost a further 18 months negotiating or at least trying to negotiate an acceptable settlement. The British, in large numbers, have decided quite rightly that they are not prepared to be taken as fools.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
According to the Treasury's figures Osborne missing his own targets is doing more damage to the economy than leaving the EU will. Maybe we should be having a referendum about Osborne?
We had one at the London 2012 Olympics IIRC - it was done by acclamation.
To be fair - Osborne and the Treasury have assumed (for 7 years) that Europe would start getting its act together and start growing at respectable levels. They have also been hamstrung by the political difficulties in doing economically sound ones.
All of which merely reminds us that Treasury forecasts aren't worth the paper they're written on - there are too many 'black swan' events resulting in chaotic outcomes.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
I don't think it's possible to regard Thatcher's premiership and membership of the EEC as being completely independent events.
Of course not, they were both of their time. But I seriously doubt if Callaghan had won in 1979 we'd be where we are now because of the EU, and not the PM we never had.
On the parliamentary arithmetic, unless Labour had a whipped vote against a new UK-EU deal I can't see it failing to pass the commons.
Let's be pessimistic: the SNP will definitely vote against, Green/SDLP/LD/Plaid too and Labour too
Conversely, Carswell/DUP/UUP/Tory leadership for (but with 40 Tory rebels and abstentions) except a dozen or so Labour Brexit rebels join them
I get about 308 MPs for the new deal and 299 against. That's with all other Labour MPs obeying the whip.
The bigger problem will be getting it through the Lords, IMHO.
The Lords should be abolished and we should have a unicameral Parliament but can you seriously imagine the unelected Lords attempting to override not just the elected Commons but a referendum result with millions of voters too?
I'd think the Crossbenchers would almost all vote in line with the referendum result for that reason. Tories plus Crossbenchers is a majority.
The Lords have become extremely adept at discovering reasons for frustrating this Government's agenda, particularly the Lib Dem undead.
Personally, I'd just take the flak and appoint another 40 Tory peers and get on with it.
Or just repeal the disbarring of the hereditaries
Champion idea! But that too would need to pass the existing Lords.
I thought the Lords had no say in Bills affecting their own existence? Wasn't that the whole point of the 1910 crisis?
No, that was over the Lords having no say over money bills.
In fact, the Lords held up the Attlee government's bill that reduced the time the Upper House could block legislation for, to the extent that it needed the 1911 version of the Parliament Act to push the amending legislation through.
Ah so they do have no power but that was from 1911?
The Lords has had no power over money bills since 1911, though it hadn't exercised the power it did have to the extent of a Budget veto for two centuries before that, hence that crisis.
The Lords does have an absolute power to block its own reform but only for about a year. In practice, effective use of its soft power has repeatedly diverted and diluted reform so as to minimise change.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
Why ?
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
NAFTA is a US trading block. If you want to be part of a German trading block called EFTA, then, no, you don't need democratic institutions.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Surely an oxymoron. Respecting the four freedoms means not discriminating in favour of your own citizens.
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely. We can say for sure that is was not a disaster choosing not to join the Euro.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
The UK was the sick man of Europe in 1975, and is now a prosperous and successful democracy. What a disaster membership of the EU has been for us.
Most of the world's countries in 1975 would have been happy to have the UK's problems.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
Why ?
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
NAFTA is a US trading block. If you want to be part of a German trading block called EFTA, then, no, you don't need democratic institutions.
With just one minor problem... Germany isnt a member of EFTA.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Surely an oxymoron. Respecting the four freedoms means not discriminating in favour of your own citizens.
I don't think that's true at all. Allowing people to travel across borders, and to work where they like is not the same as having to treat then as locals for the purposes of benefits.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
You can take my order on June 24th if it goes that way. I reckon I'll be displaying it by Christmas at the latest!
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely.
Doesn't this case rest on the idea that it's unthinkable that we would have benefited as Germany has? Do the people who espouse it instinctively bracket the UK with the PIGS?
If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result.
If the multiple unionist parties all ignore the will of the people or do insufficient to assuage discontent then yes, it is easy to imagine the single independence party benefiting by default.
A psychological moment - Ladbrokes have cut Brexit odds to 2/1
Corals and Stan James both also go 2/1. The best price for LEAVE is currently Betfair Sportsbook at 2.3/1. OGH must have made a small fortune trading out his 4/1 position and it's not as if he didn't tell us at the time!
The psychological impact on Joe Public of Leave pulling ahead is an interesting one too. Those who feel Leave is a bit peer-group unacceptable, will be buoyed that they're not cranks - they're actually with the majority. Some will feel confident enough to say so/share their viewpoint.
Momentum isn't something I generally believe in, but when the serried ranks of the Establishment are lined up against you - discovering that loads of others don't believe them either is a real confidence boost.
Indeed I said months ago that my worst-case scenario was a narrow Remain victory that led to this split continuing like a cancerous sore. Better either a clear Remain win, or a Leave win even by 1 vote. That way we can have some relative certainty of where we are and move on.
If Leave pulls into the lead consistently then rather than motivating 'lazy Remainers' (who by and large don't care) it could instead make mainstream and motivate those for Leave. Momentum is a good thing to have here.
TSE I would agree with the idea that people would punish MPs for going against the will of the electorate, were it not for the fact that a significant part of #Leave actually want the UK to continue to have a trade agreement with Europe a la Norway etc. Besides, the alternative is to have to negotiate painful agreements which would take longer, be less advantageous, damage exports, damage the economy etc etc. Could it be that the majority in Parliament are right and we need free trade with the EU?
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
Being an MP is not like being a brain surgeon. If someone is going to operate on my brain, I want them to be properly qualified.
But, being an MP requires no special qualification. Most of the time, and with honourable exceptions, MPs will vote as they are directed by their party whips. So, while some MPs may indeed have impressive expertise in specific areas, there's no reason to believe they're more likely in general to vote in the public interest than the average voters is.
So what is the point of electing anyone then? If you are right, we might as well give up now and just appoint people to run the country like we do for jury service. You don't need to know anything, you don't need any skills or knowledge, none of them have any concept of public or national or human interest, according to you. Really? I mean, really?
A superiority complex seems to be a qualification in your case. I've read a great many posts from your good self that smack of sanctimony, and patronise little people who aren't as marvellously perfect as you are.
IIRC @SeanT penned a brutal and accurate post a while ago. He nailed it.
''If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result. ''
Indeed Mr Morris and that's why I don't see the above scenario unfolding. Could remain seriously expect the Mark Pritchard tendency to stick with them after a leave victory (especially a clear leave victory)? When the prize of seeing off UKIP for good is before them?
Even the tory payroll vote would be wondering if the paymaster was about to change. These are politicians, not zealots.
Many labour politicians are also looking at UKIP second placers.
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
Why ?
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
NAFTA is a US trading block. If you want to be part of a German trading block called EFTA, then, no, you don't need democratic institutions.
With just one minor problem... Germany isnt a member of EFTA.
I'm jumping ahead. If you remove all the political institutions from the European project and just have a common trade area, Germany will be more politically dominant than it is today.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Surely an oxymoron. Respecting the four freedoms means not discriminating in favour of your own citizens.
I don't think that's true at all. Allowing people to travel across borders, and to work where they like is not the same as having to treat then as locals for the purposes of benefits.
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
I would assume because politicians of all shades and on all sides have spent most of the last three months lying through their teeth, and in many cases obviously and stupidly lying through their teeth. Politicians can hardly then look all surprised that the public doesn't trust them.
There's several MPs who postured as Eurosceptics to get selected/elected, and then transformed into Remainers. They'll discover what this means career wise, whatever the result.
You'd still have to pose as an Empire Loyalist to get past some of the Tory constituency parties
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely.
Doesn't this case rest on the idea that it's unthinkable that we would have benefited as Germany has? Do the people who espouse it instinctively bracket the UK with the PIGS?
No its based on looking at the average of the Eurozone, not just one member on either side.
The simple fact of the matter is that for much of the post-2007/8 crash our Bank of England monetary policy has been different from the ECB's monetary policy. We were quicker with cutting our interest rates and entering quantitative easing and now when we're looking to wind up QE the ECB is pulling the trigger on it.
If we were in the ECB then unless it had a different policy to what it has had it would have been the wrong one for us and not as agile or adept to reacting to our demands as our own Central Bank has been.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
There's only one problem with this analysis. If you break it down by class, then you get big Remain leads in AB, and a small lead in C1. As the letters get larger, Leave's share gets bigger.
If you then turnout weight those groups, it would appear that Remain is understated.
So, while I'd like your analysis to be accurate, I think you may be suffering somewhat from confirmation bias.
My hope is that differential enthusiasm wins it for Leave. The Remain vote is soft, and I think a lot of their 8 or 9 out of 10 voters simply won't turn up.
It all went wrong when Cameron tried to pretend that he had negotiated a wonderful deal in just a few weeks, when in fact it was a rubbish deal. He then compounded this crass error by rushing through a referendum at the earliest possible date ...... when he could have spent almost a further 18 months negotiating or at least trying to negotiate an acceptable settlement. The British, in large numbers, have decided quite rightly that they are not prepared to be taken as fools.
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely.
Doesn't this case rest on the idea that it's unthinkable that we would have benefited as Germany has? Do the people who espouse it instinctively bracket the UK with the PIGS?
This would be the Germany that pushed through labour relations laws and exercised pay restraint that would have been completely unacceptable in the UK and would have been screamed down by Labour ?
(Also the Germany that hasn't had any meaningful defense spending for the past half a century which gives it a fair bit more cash to play with ?)
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
According to the Treasury's figures Osborne missing his own targets is doing more damage to the economy than leaving the EU will. Maybe we should be having a referendum about Osborne?
I can't see the problem myself. Someone's got to decide on the arrangements post-Brexit. Leave clearly haven't a clue. You literally get a different answer with every Leaver you ask, and in the case of Gove the viewpoint changes within hours. Brexit is going to happen and it's going to be a real bugger's muddle. The single-market Tories are trying to assert at least some control. This is turning into a real caper.
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely.
Doesn't this case rest on the idea that it's unthinkable that we would have benefited as Germany has? Do the people who espouse it instinctively bracket the UK with the PIGS?
This would be the Germany that pushed through labour relations laws and exercised pay restraint that would have been completely unacceptable in the UK and would have been screamed down by Labour ?
So their success is down to far-sighted domestic policies and not rigging the system as critics of the Euro claim?
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
Not quite true. We were desperate to get into the EEC for the sake of economic prosperity. Have you never heard of the "sick man of Europe" label applied to the UK in the 1970s? I believe that was due to labour disputes and the unions sticking with outdated practices holding us back. The fact that Labour had to go to the IMF for a loan also suggests that the reasons for being the sick man of Europe were not unconnected with socialism.
If Denis Healey were still alive, he would remind you that he never needed to make use of the IMF loan facility that he negotiated, such was the scale of recovery in the public finances that he engineered.
''If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result. ''
Indeed Mr Morris and that's why I don't see the above scenario unfolding. Could remain seriously expect the Mark Pritchard tendency to stick with them after a leave victory (especially a clear leave victory)? When the prize of seeing off UKIP for good is before them?
Even the tory payroll vote would be wondering if the paymaster was about to change. These are politicians, not zealots.
Many labour politicians are also looking at UKIP second placers.
There's free movement and there's free movement.
If there were no in-work benefits available, I think there would be a much smaller flow of immigrants to the UK. If you needed to buy NHS health insurance, then it would be dramatically smaller.
Indeed. But if you think that the British parliament would do anything other than respect the will of the nation as expressed in a referendum then in that event, I expect you to be uncomfortably surprised.
That is not what is being proposed.
Also important to note the distinction between Government and Parliament
Parliament will respect the will of the British people (out of the EU) but there may be a majority in Parliament for EFTA/EEA
Since that is not on the ballot paper, parliament would not be subverting the will of the British people by implementing that
And it may be true that the Government would be voted out of office, but I am still not sure it would result in a UKIP majority
And for those who claim that all of this would be avoided if the Tories had a Brexiteer instead of Cameron, they had IDS. If they had him again, Ed would be PM (or Gordo for that matter)
There will no doubt be polls at the time to guide MPs and the govt.
However, given the prominence of immigration as an issue in the EURef campaign, and of the threats of Turks down the road - both of which are clearly related to freedom of movement, which itself is directly related to membership of the Single market - I can't see how a Leave can meaningfully be implemented without breaking with that membership.
Have you decided how you're going to vote yet? You're about the only person on here who hasn't made their preference known. As a Conservative with possible ambitions it's probably a wise decision.
TSE I would agree with the idea that people would punish MPs for going against the will of the electorate, were it not for the fact that a significant part of #Leave actually want the UK to continue to have a trade agreement with Europe a la Norway etc. Besides, the alternative is to have to negotiate painful agreements which would take longer, be less advantageous, damage exports, damage the economy etc etc. Could it be that the majority in Parliament are right and we need free trade with the EU?
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
Being an MP is not like being a brain surgeon. If someone is going to operate on my brain, I want them to be properly qualified.
But, being an MP requires no special qualification. Most of the time, and with honourable exceptions, MPs will vote as they are directed by their party whips. So, while some MPs may indeed have impressive expertise in specific areas, there's no reason to believe they're more likely in general to vote in the public interest than the average voters is.
So what is the point of electing anyone then? If you are right, we might as well give up now and just appoint people to run the country like we do for jury service. You don't need to know anything, you don't need any skills or knowledge, none of them have any concept of public or national or human interest, according to you. Really? I mean, really?
There is no professional qualification for being an MP. Anybody can get elected.
''A superiority complex seems to be a qualification in your case. I've read a great many posts from your good self that smack of sanctimony, and patronise little people who aren't as marvellously perfect as you are. ''
Mrs Bs comments encapsulate why the liberal democrats were destroyed last time out. Breathtaking arrogance and contempt for ordinary people, who live their lives in a far more orderly and organised fashion than many MPs.
If Leave wins, having using migration as its major theme, and freedom of movement is retained by Parliament following a vote, UKIP could have a rather good General Election result.
If the multiple unionist parties all ignore the will of the people or do insufficient to assuage discontent then yes, it is easy to imagine the single independence party benefiting by default.
One caveat; Farage has to be sidelined.
Perhaps they could make him Governor of the Falkland Islands on a 14 year term.
@MichaelLCrick: And DCS, where Vote Leave hold big event today, helpfully post instructions to drivers in four foreign languages https://t.co/Nn0YQaqZRl
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
Why ?
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
NAFTA is a US trading block. If you want to be part of a German trading block called EFTA, then, no, you don't need democratic institutions.
With just one minor problem... Germany isnt a member of EFTA.
I'm jumping ahead. If you remove all the political institutions from the European project and just have a common trade area, Germany will be more politically dominant than it is today.
All rules in EFTA are by unanimity, so no one would be forced into doing anything they didn't want to do. Also critically the EFTA Court only adjudicates on trade matters, it doesn't have the sort of federalist judicial activism that plagues the ECJ.
ALL UK polticians are distrusted on the issue of Europe with the least distrusted being Boris at minus 26! This is a bit ironic since he is clearly the one acting most out of blatent self interest. Interestingly his London figures are a pretty appalling -39 but not as appalling as Cameron at an incredible -53 across the UK and -65 in Scotland!
The only poltician with any positive rating at all is Nicola Sturgeon with +7 in Scotland which perhaps tells you why Scotland is +15 for Remain. The next most pro Remain is London at +9. Even across the UK Sturgeon is second to Boris as the least distrusted at -33.
Conclusion Remain should get Cameron off the television double quick and put on Sturgeon and -36 Corbyn. Leave should hide Farage -39 in a closet somewhere, preferably with some foreigners for company!
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
As a matter of law that's correct. As a matter of politics, it would be disastrous for those MPs who acted in such a way.
My view is that between them, UKIP and Brexit Conservatives would win the 2020 general election.
TSE I would agree with the idea that people would punish MPs for going against the will of the electorate, were it not for the fact that a significant part of #Leave actually want the UK to continue to have a trade agreement with Europe a la Norway etc. Besides, the alternative is to have to negotiate painful agreements which would take longer, be less advantageous, damage exports, damage the economy etc etc. Could it be that the majority in Parliament are right and we need free trade with the EU?
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
Well:
Let's have a referendum on the European Constitution - Oh hell France and the Netherlands have voted it down so we can't trust you lot to vote the right way, so we'll rename it the Lisbon Treaty, call it a "tidying up exercise" and sneak Gordo in under cover of darkness to sign it. Nobody will notice.
Let's abolish Tuition fees; Oh bugger that's wildly impractical and we only said it 'cos we never actually thought we'd have bums in ministerial cars so we'll forget about that. Nobody will care.
Let's reduce immigration to "tens of thousands". Oh that's a bit harder than we thought and actually there's sod all we can do about it legally as 100M in eastern Europe could turn up tomorrow if they wanted so we'll just kind of shuffle our feet and look awkward and say it's "good for the economy". So that's OK then.
That's one each from the three parties of Govt over the past ten years, I'm sure there are others.
Anyway I certainly don't want a society where our rulers are put on some kind of bloody pedestal. Sure they have power delegated to them they can run things, as far as I am concerned they don't really have to give a running commentary as much as 24 hour news seems to demand, but they are, and will remain accountable to the people.
I recall a long series of posts from Richard Tyndall arguing that the EU can't force us out of the EEA against our will. As this referendum is strictly about EU membership, a government so-minded could say that a Leave vote does not give a mandate to leave the single market anyway. A sizeable number of Brexiters have been making this very argument for a long time.
Good luck with that.
Aside from no Vote Leaver standing for no change on free movement, the EU has made it clear that for an economy the size of the UK, an EEA option is not feasible.
It's in both sides interests for there to be as little disruption as possible, so I suspect EFTA/EEA would be on the table.
At least in the short term it would have to be. The interesting thing is how to make it sustainable. You'd need to upgrade the institutional framework of EFTA/EEA so that it became, in effect, the same as Associate Member status of the EU. Perhaps the ultimate effect of an aborted Brexit will be for the EU to gain some new members on an associate basis.
I think it would be very sensible for the EU to split into:
Eurozone and Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
Robert does not formal acknowledgement of no ever closer union, no banking union, plus the EZ protection constitute de facto "associate membership"?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
No, absolutely not.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does. We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway. We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
The more publicity this sort of thing gets before the referendum the better from a brexit pov
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
Anybody seriously believing this needs help. Urgently.
You can say exactly the same about the argument that our recent relative success is due to remaining outside the eurozone, but that doesn't stop it being repeated ad nauseam.
That isnt the argument being made and you know it. We can't say for sure if we would have been better off in the Euro, although looking at the economies of the Euro countries that seems unlikely.
Doesn't this case rest on the idea that it's unthinkable that we would have benefited as Germany has? Do the people who espouse it instinctively bracket the UK with the PIGS?
No its based on looking at the average of the Eurozone, not just one member on either side.
The simple fact of the matter is that for much of the post-2007/8 crash our Bank of England monetary policy has been different from the ECB's monetary policy. We were quicker with cutting our interest rates and entering quantitative easing and now when we're looking to wind up QE the ECB is pulling the trigger on it.
If we were in the ECB then unless it had a different policy to what it has had it would have been the wrong one for us and not as agile or adept to reacting to our demands as our own Central Bank has been.
There are two differences: one is QE in the UK, and the other is that we have had much more fiscal stimulus. The UK has run big deficits, while Eurozone countries have been forced to cut spending to meet EZ budget deficit rules.
(Of course, this means that government debt-to-GDP is now falling in most Eurozone countries.)
If Denis Healey were still alive, he would remind you that he never needed to make use of the IMF loan facility that he negotiated, such was the scale of recovery in the public finances that he engineered.
And which he engineered by cutting more in one year (in percentage terms) than Osbrown has manage in almost six.
On topic: It's a referendum campaign, so don't pay any attentiom to what people say they'll do afterwards, they're all lying. What this story does is inform voters who will be assuming the UK will be in some kind of non-EU free trade area that they won't, or if they are that they won't be getting the change thay the Leave people say they'll be getting on immigration.
On what would actually happen, I think anything except specific, formal EU member could go through if there was a general election in between. The question is whether the Leave side are going to try to pull the trigger fast enough to get the thing done before that happens, and also whether there's a Tory minority prepared to bring down the government to make it happen earlier.
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
100% right. I would back that at once.
Me too. But he didn't even try, and we have been forced into a "nuclear option" referendum process.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
'It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit. '
It is grim and depressing when voters raise concerns about immigration that virtue signalling lefties always play the race card.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
Yes they could, and then massively lose the next election as leavers conclude the only party they can trust on this matter is the kippers. Farage won't get a majority, he doesn't need one, 40-50 seats would be plenty.
As a matter of law that's correct. As a matter of politics, it would be disastrous for those MPs who acted in such a way.
Probably not
The Maastricht years were a shambles, good sport for reporters like me, but grim. Yet it is diehard Maastricht disloyalists like Tebbit, John “Vulcan” Redwood and dear but daft Bill Cash who are now crying loyalty, Iain Duncan Smith, who inherited Tebbit’s Chingford seat, too. No wonder Major was so scornful.
Not since Jeremy Corbyn, serial rebel in 500 votes, appealed for loyalty from old comrades to whom he had shown little has there been such cause for dry mirth. Ah, but Iain and Jeremy were doing what they believe in and what their constituents want, will come the retort. And you think that pro-remain MPs can’t say that too?
As a matter of law that's correct. As a matter of politics, it would be disastrous for those MPs who acted in such a way.
Probably not
The Maastricht years were a shambles, good sport for reporters like me, but grim. Yet it is diehard Maastricht disloyalists like Tebbit, John “Vulcan” Redwood and dear but daft Bill Cash who are now crying loyalty, Iain Duncan Smith, who inherited Tebbit’s Chingford seat, too. No wonder Major was so scornful.
Not since Jeremy Corbyn, serial rebel in 500 votes, appealed for loyalty from old comrades to whom he had shown little has there been such cause for dry mirth. Ah, but Iain and Jeremy were doing what they believe in and what their constituents want, will come the retort. And you think that pro-remain MPs can’t say that too?
Except pro-remain MPs post a referendum would not be doing what their constituents want. You seem to have a major failure in your understanding here.
TSE I would agree with the idea that people would punish MPs for going against the will of the electorate, were it not for the fact that a significant part of #Leave actually want the UK to continue to have a trade agreement with Europe a la Norway etc. Besides, the alternative is to have to negotiate painful agreements which would take longer, be less advantageous, damage exports, damage the economy etc etc. Could it be that the majority in Parliament are right and we need free trade with the EU?
Why is it that we have allowed ourselves to get our democracy into such a state that we think politicians know less about what is good for the country than the man in the street, who knows absolutely nothing about anything to do with the subject whatsoever and believes a load of nonsense because they think the person who spouts it is more matey than the other side?
Being an MP is not like being a brain surgeon. If someone is going to operate on my brain, I want them to be properly qualified.
But, being an MP requires no special qualification. Most of the time, and with honourable exceptions, MPs will vote as they are directed by their party whips. So, while some MPs may indeed have impressive expertise in specific areas, there's no reason to believe they're more likely in general to vote in the public interest than the average voters is.
So what is the point of electing anyone then? If you are right, we might as well give up now and just appoint people to run the country like we do for jury service. You don't need to know anything, you don't need any skills or knowledge, none of them have any concept of public or national or human interest, according to you. Really? I mean, really?
There is no professional qualification for being an MP. Anybody can get elected.
Even people as articulate as Emma Two-Surnames.
Appointing a random set of people jury service style to serve for 5 years compulsiroly sounds a cracking way to replace the house of lords
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
So what is the point of electing anyone then? If you are right, we might as well give up now and just appoint people to run the country like we do for jury service. You don't need to know anything, you don't need any skills or knowledge, none of them have any concept of public or national or human interest, according to you. Really? I mean, really?
A superiority complex seems to be a qualification in your case. I've read a great many posts from your good self that smack of sanctimony, and patronise little people who aren't as marvellously perfect as you are. IIRC @SeanT penned a brutal and accurate post a while ago. He nailed it.
Miss Plato, I thought you were right at the forefront of those who deplore ad hominem attacks?
I can't see the problem myself. Someone's got to decide on the arrangements post-Brexit. Leave clearly haven't a clue. You literally get a different answer with every Leaver you ask, and in the case of Gove the viewpoint changes within hours. Brexit is going to happen and it's going to be a real bugger's muddle. The single-market Tories are trying to assert at least some control. This is turning into a real caper.
Despite the recent movement I'd still be surprised if Leave win. All the uncertainties will come in to play at the very end. Unless they're answered-which so far they haven't been-Remain should be comfortable. The polls seem to be a instant reaction to immigration which wont be uppermost in peoples minds if questions about our future are unanswered.
Everyone decrying Michael White's article should read it first.
The scenario he posits is in the post Brexit turmoil (which of course may not happen) it is both legally and politically possible for MPs to vote for a system that results in economic stability at the earliest opportunity
Anyone who claims people care more about immigrants than their mortgage or job (despite any result of the referendum) is deluding themselves
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
A thread by you on this would be very interesting - especially given Corbyn's very lukewarm speech/50-50 confusion of what Labour are officially campaigning for.
There's been a tendency almost everywhere to think Labour votes are in the bag for Remain - I'm not really seeing this myself.
If Cameron goes to Brussels after a Leave vote and comes back with an associate membership that allows some restraint on freedom of movement (whilst respecting all existing rights) and continued membership of the Single Market in exchange for a reasonable contribution (ie about half of what we are paying now) I would be genuinely ecstatic.
My only disappointment would be that he didn't get that in his original negotiations and spare us all this pain.
100% right. I would back that at once.
Me too. But he didn't even try, and we have been forced into a "nuclear option" referendum process.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
But from the EU's point of view, these are utterly unrealistic demands. While the rest of the EU would prefer the UK to remain, they are not prepared to pay any price for the privilege. Many already see the UK as always wanting the Extrawurst, and at some point they just have to say no.
Except pro-remain MPs post a referendum would not be doing what their constituents want. You seem to have a major failure in your understanding here.
See my other post
Their constituents want jobs and houses more than they want to stop immigrants, whatever they are claiming now
Brexiteers are promising them both. If it all goes tits up, MPs voting to keep the economy afloat will have the best interests of their constituents at heart
Wulfrun_Phil I agree with the principles in your analysis. The other factor for the 18-24s is that those at uni are not, in the main, at their uni on June 23rd. Will they be registered at the place they live at on that day - or care? The run rate of under 25 year olds is well under 20,000 a day (if the central website is showing all registrations). Its highest was 50k on friday. It probably needs >50k a day every day to eat into the unregistered under 25s.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll, Remain should be very worried by the age breakdown and what it implies allowing for differential turnout. Overall, Leave has a net lead of 4% out of a sample of 3495, which amounts to 140 people more favouring Leave over Remain. Apply the same methodology to the age breakdown though, and you see a lead for Leave as follows: +205 in the 65+ +138 for the 50-64s - 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead) - 162 for the 18-24s (with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
There's only one problem with this analysis. If you break it down by class, then you get big Remain leads in AB, and a small lead in C1. As the letters get larger, Leave's share gets bigger.
If you then turnout weight those groups, it would appear that Remain is understated.
So, while I'd like your analysis to be accurate, I think you may be suffering somewhat from confirmation bias.
My hope is that differential enthusiasm wins it for Leave. The Remain vote is soft, and I think a lot of their 8 or 9 out of 10 voters simply won't turn up.
Regarding confirmation bias, I'm no more immune from it than anyone else, so maybe you have a point. Generally though I believe that age is a much more important driver of differential turnout than social class. We have an older generation that pretty uniformly considers it their civic duty to vote, and a younger generation who to a large extent just can't be bothered. The differences that you see in turnout by social class are also, to some extent, a function of age related differences, because few make it into AB jobs until they get older.
I expect a civil war within Leave after the referendum is won. Gove and Boris will assume control and implement whatever flavour of Brexit takes their fancy that day. Their choice will then be condemned by the Farage-ites, who will damn them as posh-boys and traitors. We'll then see a battle royale between soft-Leave (who want to retain a semblance of free trade and internationalism) and the hard, raise-the-drawbridge, send-em-back crowd. And, of course, a thousand variations in between. There will almost certainly be a call from someone in Leave for civil disobedience, while Boris pleads for moderation and restraint.
If Parliament did seek to ignore a Brexit vote, I'm pretty sure that UKIP would sweep Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire (less Sheffield), South East London, the West Midlands (outside Birmingham), Cornwall, the South Coast at the subsequent general election.
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
Margarte Thatcher described this attitudinal group as the 'Wets' or 'Wet Tories', Conservatives with no backbone.
FPT. A first post by 'RealBritain' from the end of the last thread.
RealBritain Posts: 1 9:16AM
Roger said:
» show previous quotes "It is a deplorable indightment of the British people as much as the leaers promoting it. Their whole campaign is based on xenophobia and that's how it will be seen around the world. A reputation which Britain has built up over centuries will be lost in a single day"
RealBritain
It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit.
I agree with Roger (and I never thought I would say that) and williamglenn and a few others on this site. Leave winning would be the most depressing election result in my lifetime and the consequences for our country and the population at large don't bear thinking about. On the plus side, I am sure we can make a fortune printing "DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED REMAIN" merchandise.
The UK was a successful and prosperous democracy prior to joining the EU, and it will remain a prosperous and successful democracy if it leaves the EU.
That wasn't how it felt at the time - for a long time the UK was the 'sick man of Europe' condemned to 'irreversible decline'. The simple analysis was 'the Common Market is doing better - lets join that'.
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Well quite. The Remainers of back then wouldn't have faced down the Argies either. It'd all be too scary, and risky and hard.
It's an attitude of mind.
Could you please list the Remainers who proposed that we should not go to war with Argentina.
Jeremy Corbyn.
Not a great example, as everyone knows he's a secret Leaver!
Comments
Of course the 'Common Market' had got nowt to do with what fundamentally transformed the UK's fortunes - a Prime Minister who refused to accept the consensus of 'managed decline'....
Eurozone
and
Associate Members
The Associate Members would be outside CAP, CFP, and the political structures. They would contribute in a small way, but would not receive regional development funds. They would respect the Four Freedoms, but would be allowed to discriminate in favour of their own citizens.
Whether that happens or not is another matter altogether.
The idea that tweaks and manoeuvring will suffice is very reminiscent of Scottish Labour in winter 2014.
EFTA is a free trade area, the EU is a political project and customs union.
NAFTA has one huge economy and several smaller economies and manages not be a political project.
The Lords does have an absolute power to block its own reform but only for about a year. In practice, effective use of its soft power has repeatedly diverted and diluted reform so as to minimise change.
Momentum isn't something I generally believe in, but when the serried ranks of the Establishment are lined up against you - discovering that loads of others don't believe them either is a real confidence boost.
I don't think it's possible to regard Thatcher's premiership and membership of the EEC as being completely independent events.
Imagine if the government implemented a tax which confiscated 75% of your savings. That's what the 1970s was like.
Or explain how the EU transformed the British economy - that should be fun.
The British, in large numbers, have decided quite rightly that they are not prepared to be taken as fools.
True, but I still think the UK was weaker relative to its big neighbours than it is now. Much weaker.
And that is due to one person and one person alone. Margaret Thatcher.
To be fair - Osborne and the Treasury have assumed (for 7 years) that Europe would start getting its act together and start growing at respectable levels. They have also been hamstrung by the political difficulties in doing economically sound ones.
All of which merely reminds us that Treasury forecasts aren't worth the paper they're written on - there are too many 'black swan' events resulting in chaotic outcomes.
+205 in the 65+
+138 for the 50-64s
- 30 for the 25-49s (i.e. Remain ahead)
- 162 for the 18-24s
(with +11 difference to +140 given rounding effects)
So if the 18-24s are stripped out of it, the 4% lead for Leave would grow to about 10%.
The question is, can the Remain camp rely on the propensity of 18-24s to vote being almost identical to that of 65+s, something that YouGov assume in the absence of any turnout filter.
I'm aware of the argument that the impact of differential turnout will still be limited, because the Remain support is coming from ABC1s rather than C2DEs which break for Leave, the former being more likely to vote. But, based on my own experience of canvassing and GOTV work, the problems with getting Labour voters to turn out are very much concentrated in the younger generation, and I've never lost much sleep over getting elderly working class Labour supporters out to vote. They are also registered, as most have lived in the same properties for donkeys years, whereas IER is wreaking increasing havoc with registration of younger adults moving home frequently. So I think that the elderly C2DE vote can very much be relied upon to turn out, far more so than younger ABC1s.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xdlks5jjxo/GMB_Results_160603_UndecidedVoters_Website.pdf
Don't forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv7UoK8oJY
You can take my order on June 24th if it goes that way. I reckon I'll be displaying it by Christmas at the latest!
One caveat; Farage has to be sidelined.
If Leave pulls into the lead consistently then rather than motivating 'lazy Remainers' (who by and large don't care) it could instead make mainstream and motivate those for Leave. Momentum is a good thing to have here.
IIRC @SeanT penned a brutal and accurate post a while ago. He nailed it.
Indeed Mr Morris and that's why I don't see the above scenario unfolding. Could remain seriously expect the Mark Pritchard tendency to stick with them after a leave victory (especially a clear leave victory)? When the prize of seeing off UKIP for good is before them?
Even the tory payroll vote would be wondering if the paymaster was about to change. These are politicians, not zealots.
Many labour politicians are also looking at UKIP second placers.
of course parliament can defy the referendum result, because the British constitution clearly states that “the crown in parliament” – ie a majority of elected MPs, subject to whatever the Lords tries to moderate – is sovereign.
Since Brexiteers claim to revere the ancient British constitution, and “sovereignty” is what it’s all about – not an excess of Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi restaurants – they can hardly complain about its correct and immaculate application.
Is anyone offering odds?
What else would you put in and assuming you need the ECJ to opine on Single Market rules?
You'd still have to pose as an Empire Loyalist to get past some of the Tory constituency parties
The simple fact of the matter is that for much of the post-2007/8 crash our Bank of England monetary policy has been different from the ECB's monetary policy. We were quicker with cutting our interest rates and entering quantitative easing and now when we're looking to wind up QE the ECB is pulling the trigger on it.
If we were in the ECB then unless it had a different policy to what it has had it would have been the wrong one for us and not as agile or adept to reacting to our demands as our own Central Bank has been.
There's only one problem with this analysis. If you break it down by class, then you get big Remain leads in AB, and a small lead in C1. As the letters get larger, Leave's share gets bigger.
If you then turnout weight those groups, it would appear that Remain is understated.
So, while I'd like your analysis to be accurate, I think you may be suffering somewhat from confirmation bias.
My hope is that differential enthusiasm wins it for Leave. The Remain vote is soft, and I think a lot of their 8 or 9 out of 10 voters simply won't turn up.
(Also the Germany that hasn't had any meaningful defense spending for the past half a century which gives it a fair bit more cash to play with ?)
Bennett would happily have the shirts off many tory voters' backs if she ever got anywhere near power.
That might not be lost on some tory waverers.
I believe that was due to labour disputes and the unions sticking with outdated practices holding us back. The fact that Labour had to go to the IMF for a loan also suggests that the reasons for being the sick man of Europe were not unconnected with socialism.
If Denis Healey were still alive, he would remind you that he never needed to make use of the IMF loan facility that he negotiated, such was the scale of recovery in the public finances that he engineered.
If there were no in-work benefits available, I think there would be a much smaller flow of immigrants to the UK. If you needed to buy NHS health insurance, then it would be dramatically smaller.
(If you have and i've missed it apologies)
Mrs Bs comments encapsulate why the liberal democrats were destroyed last time out. Breathtaking arrogance and contempt for ordinary people, who live their lives in a far more orderly and organised fashion than many MPs.
ALL UK polticians are distrusted on the issue of Europe with the least distrusted being Boris at minus 26! This is a bit ironic since he is clearly the one acting most out of blatent self interest. Interestingly his London figures are a pretty appalling -39 but not as appalling as Cameron at an incredible -53 across the UK and -65 in Scotland!
The only poltician with any positive rating at all is Nicola Sturgeon with +7 in Scotland which perhaps tells you why Scotland is +15 for Remain. The next most pro Remain is London at +9. Even across the UK Sturgeon is second to Boris as the least distrusted at -33.
Conclusion Remain should get Cameron off the television double quick and put on Sturgeon and -36 Corbyn. Leave should hide Farage -39 in a closet somewhere, preferably with some foreigners for company!
My view is that between them, UKIP and Brexit Conservatives would win the 2020 general election.
We are still obliged to implement 100% of EU laws, versus the 4% Switzerland does.
We are still forbidden from unilaterally lowering tariffs or entering trade agreements with the 93% of the world not in the EU. Unlike Switzerland and Norway.
We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ while Switzerland and Norway etc are not.
Why do you think not being a part of a banking union makes up for having our hands tied with 93% of the world's population?
If leave wins clearly, you'll be able to get the 'single-market tories' into a Reliant Robin.
(Of course, this means that government debt-to-GDP is now falling in most Eurozone countries.)
On what would actually happen, I think anything except specific, formal EU member could go through if there was a general election in between. The question is whether the Leave side are going to try to pull the trigger fast enough to get the thing done before that happens, and also whether there's a Tory minority prepared to bring down the government to make it happen earlier.
I didn't want meltdown and Brexit, I wanted a better and more productive relationship with our EU partners. I had rather thought Cameron did too....
'It is grim and depressing. If people vote for a campaign that is openly, unabashedly xenophobic, and which ranges from campaigning on "foreign criminals" to ther prospect of sex attacks on British women if we stay in the EU, this country will deserve absolutely everything it gets from the economic disaster of Brexit. '
It is grim and depressing when voters raise concerns about immigration that virtue signalling lefties always play the race card.
It's an attitude of mind.
The Maastricht years were a shambles, good sport for reporters like me, but grim. Yet it is diehard Maastricht disloyalists like Tebbit, John “Vulcan” Redwood and dear but daft Bill Cash who are now crying loyalty, Iain Duncan Smith, who inherited Tebbit’s Chingford seat, too. No wonder Major was so scornful.
Not since Jeremy Corbyn, serial rebel in 500 votes, appealed for loyalty from old comrades to whom he had shown little has there been such cause for dry mirth. Ah, but Iain and Jeremy were doing what they believe in and what their constituents want, will come the retort. And you think that pro-remain MPs can’t say that too?
If we can negotiate single market access without free movement you'd have an overwhelming majority of Tories backing that. Big if.
The scenario he posits is in the post Brexit turmoil (which of course may not happen) it is both legally and politically possible for MPs to vote for a system that results in economic stability at the earliest opportunity
Anyone who claims people care more about immigrants than their mortgage or job (despite any result of the referendum) is deluding themselves
There's been a tendency almost everywhere to think Labour votes are in the bag for Remain - I'm not really seeing this myself.
"The day the betting markets changed."
Their constituents want jobs and houses more than they want to stop immigrants, whatever they are claiming now
Brexiteers are promising them both. If it all goes tits up, MPs voting to keep the economy afloat will have the best interests of their constituents at heart
The other factor for the 18-24s is that those at uni are not, in the main, at their uni on June 23rd. Will they be registered at the place they live at on that day - or care? The run rate of under 25 year olds is well under 20,000 a day (if the central website is showing all registrations). Its highest was 50k on friday. It probably needs >50k a day every day to eat into the unregistered under 25s.
Leave: 53%
Remain: 47%
https://t.co/XmeIHd7ZI0 https://t.co/kFnF8mqtij
Sounds like Dave and George are getting bitter with their "foes";
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/06/david-cameron-refererendum-tory-boris-johnson
Interesting development this morning. As you might know I have my own Geology/Archaeology business with my wife who is also a geologist.
So after having had the business for 10 years and just 2 weeks before the EU referendum this morning for the first time ever my wife gets a letter from a company called Iwoca offering EU backed finance for my business. This company says the scheme is backed by the European Investment Bank and supported by the EU and trumpets the fact it has loaned £100 million to 4,500 businesses at low interest rates.
Am I being rather cynical in wondering why, after 10 years and not a peep from these people we are suddenly getting an offer of an EU loan 2 weeks before the referendum.
Margarte Thatcher described this attitudinal group as the 'Wets' or 'Wet Tories', Conservatives with no backbone.
If it's an out vote we should leave.
And the government of the day should decide what deal we pursue instead.
If people don't like the deal negotiated... They can elect a new government who can try to change it.