It must be said that if Leave were to win (and i still expect remain) then Reckless and in particular Carswell will be the men who kick started Dave's downfall. Some turnaround.
Or Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell were ultimately responsible for securing The UK's place at the heart of the EU.
As if we would have ever had a vote without their actions.
The referendum was announced long before they ratted to UKIP.
A remarkably panglossian view of a lengthy, complex and high stakes divorce process with myriad variables. I respect the view the marriage is dead and divorce is needed. I'm bewildered by such confidence the divorce will be handed so well.
Thanks for the response and it's good to see you back posting. We were at one time political kindred spirits - possibly not so much any more but you were always one of the posters whose cogent analysis provided a welcome alternative to the sniping, jibing, jeering, 1980s pop references, Punic War references and the rest of the pot pourri of self-indulgence.
As to your reference, I would simply say it is in everyone's interests to make the divorce amicable and reasonable. As in all good negotiations, no one will get everything they want but there will be something for everyone.
Satisfactory and cordial negotiations will mitigate against economic and political uncertainty and turmoil - the tone will be set on Friday June 24th when everyone will be smiling and positive (whether teeth are gritted or not).
Mike has just posted the latest polls by date of fieldwork. Looking at them, the ComRes one is actually pretty old. the three latest are all showing decent leave leads. It seems fair to conclude, I think, that the Big Mo is absolutely and completely with Leave.
The ComRes poll fieldwork only ended on Monday night, a bit harsh to say it is old.
Started on I0th, though. Probably picked up the move to Leave a bit later. Hence the very narrow Remain lead.
Why is David Cameron so obsessed with Mark Reckless?
Sheesh, move on man, you destroyed him.
Unfortunately not.
You exported him to Wales.
He was born in Monmouthshire - unless you regard it as part of England?
I am not an expert, but Google has him born in London on 6 Jan 1970.
Sorry - sorry, yes you're right!
I was thinking of Hamilton
Neil Hamilton does indeed now claim to have been born into a mining family in Wales. As a collier’s boy, growing up in a village, he led the mourners after the big pit exploded.
His dad, and his grandpa hoped and dreamt that little Neil would find an easier way to earn his living than the dark life down the pit.
It must be said that if Leave were to win (and i still expect remain) then Reckless and in particular Carswell will be the men who kick started Dave's downfall. Some turnaround.
Or Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell were ultimately responsible for securing The UK's place at the heart of the EU.
As if we would have ever had a vote without their actions.
The referendum was announced long before they ratted to UKIP.
Was Churchill a "ratter"?
Churchill eventually came back to his senses, so he's not really a ratter.
£2.5bn from NHS, £1.2bn from defence and £1.15bn from education are sorts of cuts any Chancellor would have to consider
No foreign aid reduction in there, then?
Only things to hurt and annoy voters. A better question would be why no cut in housing benefit and in work benefits for migrants - as allowed by the European Court yesterday....
Not so much. Swingette to DK – =most will break back Remain.
Don't think so - many people kept quiet in the Sindyref due to Nationalist 'exuberance'. They know this time that Scotland favours 'Remain' so are keeping mum.
I don't know what your particular area of expertise is, but I'm confident I know what it's not.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
My point is that if he intends to call Article 50 immediately and does do so, it wouldn't be a lie. Whether you think that a sensible thing to do is another matter.
FWIW I am two thirds with you, but I can see counter arguments. No-one is going to agree on anything post Brexit (factions within the Conservative party, other UK parties, factions within the EU, and potential EFTA partners). This forces the issue. And this step is demanded by the Brexit result. There is a political need to be seen to respect democracy in a timely manner.
Of course if he acts on his statement then he isn't lying.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
On timing, they clearly need to have a worked out strategy, and I'm sure that there are developed options. But you need to get a new PM in place quickly - you may well get a holding action agreed by all the candidates implemented immediately, but I don't think the public cares about the precise mechanics provided that their decision is implemented in a respectable timeframe
This makes sense. On reflection the time prior to triggering Article 50 would be just to get the negotiating teams together and for them to work out their starting positions and to sound some of the other players - Norway and so on. Probably a small number of months. But there will unlikely be any "pre-negotiation" of the kind implied by Vote Leave. It's not how the EU works and politically and in terms of managing uncertainty I don't think triggering Article 50 can be dragged out beyond getting to that starting position.
In this case, Cameron would explain to the public the reasons for the temporary delay in triggering Article 50, which he would note were agreed with his potential successors.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
Apart from the scaremongering hyperbole, great post
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
I'm almost utterly convinced Leave will triumph, but one strange thought lingers: in this media savvy/social media age, are the respondents simply using the polling to give the incumbent politicians a fright, with every intention of voting the complete opposite once they've seen them squirm enough? Just a daydream...
A remarkably panglossian view of a lengthy, complex and high stakes divorce process with myriad variables. I respect the view the marriage is dead and divorce is needed. I'm bewildered by such confidence the divorce will be handed so well.
Thanks for the response and it's good to see you back posting. We were at one time political kindred spirits - possibly not so much any more but you were always one of the posters whose cogent analysis provided a welcome alternative to the sniping, jibing, jeering, 1980s pop references, Punic War references and the rest of the pot pourri of self-indulgence.
As to your reference, I would simply say it is in everyone's interests to make the divorce amicable and reasonable. As in all good negotiations, no one will get everything they want but there will be something for everyone.
Satisfactory and cordial negotiations will mitigate against economic and political uncertainty and turmoil - the tone will be set on Friday June 24th when everyone will be smiling and positive (whether teeth are gritted or not).
I left the Liberal Democrats in 2012 and haven't joined another party. I thought I'd keep the ' Yellow ' in the name for old times sake. It seems you've been on a journey as well !
My point is that if he intends to call Article 50 immediately and does do so, it wouldn't be a lie. Whether you think that a sensible thing to do is another matter.
FWIW I am two thirds with you, but I can see counter arguments. No-one is going to agree on anything post Brexit (factions within the Conservative party, other UK parties, factions within the EU, and potential EFTA partners). This forces the issue. And this step is demanded by the Brexit result. There is a political need to be seen to respect democracy in a timely manner.
Of course if he acts on his statement then he isn't lying.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
On timing, they clearly need to have a worked out strategy, and I'm sure that there are developed options. But you need to get a new PM in place quickly - you may well get a holding action agreed by all the candidates implemented immediately, but I don't think the public cares about the precise mechanics provided that their decision is implemented in a respectable timeframe
This makes sense. On reflection the time prior to triggering Article 50 would be just to get the negotiating teams together and for them to work out their starting positions and to sound some of the other players - Norway and so on. Probably a small number of months. But there will unlikely be any "pre-negotiation" of the kind implied by Vote Leave. It's not how the EU works and politically and in terms of managing uncertainty I don't think triggering Article 50 can be dragged out beyond getting to that starting position.
In this case, Cameron would explain to the public the reasons for the temporary delay in triggering Article 50, which he would note were agreed with his potential successors.
That's how I'd play it.
But I have no intention of being PM any time soon.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
The difference between 2 years and 2 years + 3 months is irrelevant if it secures a better settlement.
In today's REAL Scottish MORI poll SNP voters more than 2-1 for Remain. Briefing yesterday from the Brexiteers on the basis of an 80 strong cross break confounded. Rely not on cross breaks but on real polls.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
You do realise that this playbook will be used against Labour and Corbyn in his turn.
If we ever get to a stage where Corbyn actually looks like taking power, we will have the same scare stories about damage to the markets, financial confidence eroded, nose-diving house prices, London property market spooked, pensions destroyed.
Your argument is an argument that can be made against any political change whatsoever (from leaving Europe to Scottish independence to removal of tax loopholes to eliminating wage inequality).
It will "upset the markets”, who "dislike uncertainty”. It will “destroy investment”, which is “creating wealth for the country”. It is just Fear Porn.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
I'm almost utterly convinced Leave will triumph, but one strange thought lingers: in this media savvy/social media age, are the respondents simply using the polling to give the incumbent politicians a fright, with every intention of voting the complete opposite once they've seen them squirm enough? Just a daydream...
On polling day, there will be a shift to remain. It's just the magnitude that's unclear, as well as uncertainty about the true position going into the day.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
you cant be very high up in your international business if you keep throwing hissy fits. Perhaps you need to take a step away from the outlandish hyperbole and try and make a more convincing case for remaining.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
A few eurosceptic fanatics and between 45 and 55% of the electorate.
like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
Again, "fellow travellers" would be your shorthand for between 45 and 55% of the electorate.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
You do realise that this playbook will be used against Labour and Corbyn in his turn.
If we ever get to a stage where Corbyn actually looks like taking power, we will have the same scare stories about damage to the markets, financial confidence eroded, nose-diving house prices, London property market spooked, pensions destroyed.
Your argument is an argument that can be made against any political change whatsoever (from leaving Europe to Scottish independence to removal of tax loopholes to eliminating wage inequality).
It will "upset the markets”, who "dislike uncertainty”. It will “destroy investment”, which is “creating wealth for the country”. It is just Fear Porn.
That would be completely right about Corbyn, why shouldn't it be said about him too?
My point is that if he intends to call Article 50 immediately and does do so, it wouldn't be a lie. Whether you think that a sensible thing to do is another matter.
FWIW I am two thirds with you, but I can see counter arguments. No-one is going to agree on anything post Brexit (factions within the Conservative party, other UK parties, factions within the EU, and potential EFTA partners). This forces the issue. And this step is demanded by the Brexit result. There is a political need to be seen to respect democracy in a timely manner.
Of course if he acts on his statement then he isn't lying.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
On timing, they clearly need to have a worked out strategy, and I'm sure that there are developed options. But you need to get a new PM in place quickly - you may well get a holding action agreed by all the candidates implemented immediately, but I don't think the public cares about the precise mechanics provided that their decision is implemented in a respectable timeframe
This makes sense. On reflection the time prior to triggering Article 50 would be just to get the negotiating teams together and for them to work out their starting positions and to sound some of the other players - Norway and so on. Probably a small number of months. But there will unlikely be any "pre-negotiation" of the kind implied by Vote Leave. It's not how the EU works and politically and in terms of managing uncertainty I don't think triggering Article 50 can be dragged out beyond getting to that starting position.
In this case, Cameron would explain to the public the reasons for the temporary delay in triggering Article 50, which he would note were agreed with his potential successors.
That's how I'd play it.
But I have no intention of being PM any time soon.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
Apart from the obscenities, I'm the same as you, I do 90+% of my work outside the UK. I am a fervent Leaver though as I have no trust in the undemocratic EU and feel the philosophy/culture is at variance to that in the UK/Ireland
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
I would. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 2019 we exit so that is three years potentially but the government is going to want to be reelected in 2020. To do so they need to demonstrate that they have done the job and done it well. To be able to project themselves as continuity of good economic management and the opposition as a risk.
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
George Osborne has a way of delivering possibly accurate, but unwelcome, news with an aggressive smirk that annoys people.
He had the same effect during Scotland's independence campaign when he ruled iScotland out of the sterling zone. There was an immediate move to Yes in the polls. OTOH enough people realised the truth of the matter when they came to vote. Of course that particular bombshell had seven months to sink in.
That economic and political turmoil means less money for public services only has nine days to work this time. He's on an accelerated programme.
A remarkably panglossian view of a lengthy, complex and high stakes divorce process with myriad variables. I respect the view the marriage is dead and divorce is needed. I'm bewildered by such confidence the divorce will be handed so well.
Thanks for the response and it's good to see you back posting. We were at one time political kindred spirits - possibly not so much any more but you were always one of the posters whose cogent analysis provided a welcome alternative to the sniping, jibing, jeering, 1980s pop references, Punic War references and the rest of the pot pourri of self-indulgence.
As to your reference, I would simply say it is in everyone's interests to make the divorce amicable and reasonable. As in all good negotiations, no one will get everything they want but there will be something for everyone.
Satisfactory and cordial negotiations will mitigate against economic and political uncertainty and turmoil - the tone will be set on Friday June 24th when everyone will be smiling and positive (whether teeth are gritted or not).
I don't know about making the "divorce amicable" - what the Leavers want is to carrying on with all the benefits without any of the obligations. A bit like shagging the mistress whilst bring around the laundry every weekend for the wife to do !
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
You do realise that this playbook will be used against Labour and Corbyn in his turn.
If we ever get to a stage where Corbyn actually looks like taking power, we will have the same scare stories about damage to the markets, financial confidence eroded, nose-diving house prices, London property market spooked, pensions destroyed.
Your argument is an argument that can be made against any political change whatsoever (from leaving Europe to Scottish independence to removal of tax loopholes to eliminating wage inequality).
It will "upset the markets”, who "dislike uncertainty”. It will “destroy investment”, which is “creating wealth for the country”. It is just Fear Porn.
That would be completely right about Corbyn, why shouldn't it be said about him too?
If you don’t want to see any political change whatsoever, then fine.
The scenes on the Thames today are quite illuminating. Fishermen fighting for their livelihoods being harassed by metro liberals on a party boat.
The Brexit "flahship" is apparently owned by a millionaire
@hugorifkind: So, British fishermen. Was reading up last week. We tend to think of them as locals from small communities, bravely struggling on. Right?
@hugorifkind: Is balls. British owned ships, frequently employing Philippines or Thai fishermen at bare minimum wage. Bare minimum of local employment.
I wouldn't waste your money on Cardiff having the highest remain vote. The city is emptying of students fast, turnout for Cardiff Central may look very low on the day. If the remain campaign are relying on the young, I think they are done, outside of the people I can normally talk politics with (old Uni friends), other people my age are not interested.
Coming into work today the RMT were giving out vote leave leaflets at Cardiff Central train station, first bit of literature I've had other than the government leaflet over a month ago.
Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy. And everyone's geared up for Leave winning.
Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
I would. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 2019 we exit so that is three years potentially but the government is going to want to be reelected in 2020. To do so they need to demonstrate that they have done the job and done it well. To be able to project themselves as continuity of good economic management and the opposition as a risk.
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
Not sure there'll be anything hanging over us. Six months of turmoil post-Brexit vote will concentrate a lot of minds.
He had the same effect during Scotland's independence campaign when he ruled iScotland out of the sterling zone. There was an immediate move to Yes in the polls. OTOH enough people realised the truth of the matter when they came to vote. Of course that particular bombshell had seven months to sink in.
It had the advantage of being true, his latest missive, not so much. Corbyn and McDonnell won't support it, 50+ of his own MPs won't support it, even the SNP wont support it, its dead in the water and lies there bobbing around as a bit of an embarrassment for him, whilst handing excellent attack lines to Labour, at no cost to them, which they will have finely tuned by 2020.
Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy. And everyone's geared up for Leave winning.
The only sensible conclusion is that there will be some pain, followed by a period where growth will be approximately the same as it would have been if we stayed. Leaving the EU will not destroy the British economy any more than it will add rocket boosters.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
I would. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 2019 we exit so that is three years potentially but the government is going to want to be reelected in 2020. To do so they need to demonstrate that they have done the job and done it well. To be able to project themselves as continuity of good economic management and the opposition as a risk.
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
Not sure there'll be anything hanging over us. Six months of turmoil post-Brexit vote will concentrate a lot of minds.
I get the impression you are going to be horribly disappointed if there isn't months of turmoil.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
Apart from the obscenities, I'm the same as you, I do 90+% of my work outside the UK. I am a fervent Leaver though as I have no trust in the undemocratic EU and feel the philosophy/culture is at variance to that in the UK/Ireland
Not sure why Leavers keep dragging Ireland into things. The Irish are not going to leave the EU and feel a very strong bond with Europe, especially the Catholic south.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
I'm almost utterly convinced Leave will triumph, but one strange thought lingers: in this media savvy/social media age, are the respondents simply using the polling to give the incumbent politicians a fright, with every intention of voting the complete opposite once they've seen them squirm enough? Just a daydream...
On polling day, there will be a shift to remain. It's just the magnitude that's unclear, as well as uncertainty about the true position going into the day.
Maybe. Every other assessment about how this Referendum vote would go has been wrong to date....
More positive poll is pushing the pound and the markets up a bit. The next week is likely to show extreme volatility. Expect more companies to follow Rolls Royce and make their intentions clear. I've no problem with Brexit winning, but it would be so much better if this was the result of people realising the consequences and being prepared to accept them. Pension funding, both state and private, is the biggest concern.
BBC News are asking if unemployment figures show that productivity problems are a result of the flow of cheap labour from non-UK nationals and saying there is no sign of Brexit fears in pay rise information.
BBC News are asking if unemployment figures show that productivity problems are a result of the flow cheap labour from non-UK nationals, and saying there is no sign of Brexit fears in pay rise information.
So they moved on from some of their earlier conspiracy theories about falling unemployment...they put out some right old cobblers over the past few years.
I wouldn't waste your money on Cardiff having the highest remain vote. The city is emptying of students fast, turnout for Cardiff Central may look very low on the day. If the remain campaign are relying on the young, I think they are done, outside of the people I can normally talk politics with (old Uni friends), other people my age are not interested.
Coming into work today the RMT were giving out vote leave leaflets at Cardiff Central train station, first bit of literature I've had other than the government leaflet over a month ago.
I'd agree with that. My neighbours are kippers. There's still plenty of students though they may be diversifying out of Cathays. Old school residents have been fighting back.
The scenes on the Thames today are quite illuminating. Fishermen fighting for their livelihoods being harassed by metro liberals on a party boat.
The Brexit "flahship" is apparently owned by a millionaire
@hugorifkind: So, British fishermen. Was reading up last week. We tend to think of them as locals from small communities, bravely struggling on. Right?
@hugorifkind: Is balls. British owned ships, frequently employing Philippines or Thai fishermen at bare minimum wage. Bare minimum of local employment.
The scenes on the Thames today are quite illuminating. Fishermen fighting for their livelihoods being harassed by metro liberals on a party boat.
The Brexit "flahship" is apparently owned by a millionaire
@hugorifkind: So, British fishermen. Was reading up last week. We tend to think of them as locals from small communities, bravely struggling on. Right?
@hugorifkind: Is balls. British owned ships, frequently employing Philippines or Thai fishermen at bare minimum wage. Bare minimum of local employment.
I am sure that sort of high handed tweet will be stacking in the Remain votes in places like Aberdeen, Hull, Plymouth and Newlyn.
Osborne's threatened budget of tax rises and spending cuts was met with 57 Conservative MPs signing a letter opposing it in next to no time. The Chancellor is very much in the firing line for the Leave campaigners having made economic fears central to the campaign to say in the EU. There's a range of scenarios that I believe make an Osborne departure in 2016 better than 50:50 and the 7/4 should be taken.
Scenario 1. Remain wins comfortably in the end and both Cameron and Osborne unite the Tory benches and both stay in post for at least the rest of the year.
Scenario 2. Remain wins by a narrow margin and Tory civil war erupts. Cameron won't feel obliged to leave in 2016 but will be under pressure to go sooner than 2019/20. A reshuffle takes places and Osborne is moved to another role such as Foreign Secretary. This will possibly boost his future leadership chances and placate opponents.
Scenario 3. Leave wins and Cameron departs. A new leader is elected in 2016 and is compelled to appoint a new Chancellor.
Scenario 4. Leave wins, Cameron departs and Osborne somehow wins the leadership and therefore is no longer Chancellor.
Scenario 5. Leave wins and Cameron departs. A new leader is elected in 2016. Osborne didn't stand but is retained to provide some economic continuity.
Scenarios 1 and 5 don't appear to be particularly likely right now though can't be dismissed. While there will be other scenarios, the likelihood of Osborne leaving the role of Chancellor by the end of the year seems reasonably likely. If you agree with me that today's developments will rebound on Osborne then the chances of him going later this year look even greater and the prices with William Hill looks even better value. I'd say there is a 60% chance Osborne will leave his post this year and not a 36% chance which the odds imply.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
Jobabob knows what is outside his door, he knows the way to work, he knows what his job is. He has a level of certainty that enables him to deal with the unexpected and which may encourage him to take appropriate, measured risks that, on balance, are likely to deliver benefits if they come off and will not have too much of a downside if they don't. That is life.
Leave is asking the British public to take a complete gamble based on no kind of precedence with no notion of what may happen next, just wild guesses. So wild in fact, that there are completely different predictions of where things may end up.
We need the great risk takers. But we need them to act as individuals. Entire countries are best off being a little more cautious.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
I would. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 2019 we exit so that is three years potentially but the government is going to want to be reelected in 2020. To do so they need to demonstrate that they have done the job and done it well. To be able to project themselves as continuity of good economic management and the opposition as a risk.
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
Indeed - but a quick exit will be the one which leaves us in the single market with little or no change on Free Movement but no say in decision-making. Full blown exit will take longer and be much more painful. Gove, Hannan and others in the Leave camp have already made it clear they are ready to compromise because they know the vote will be close. the result - millions of kippers and leave voters wondering what it was all for. I'm far from convinced the tory party will survive this kind of mess even with Labour as f***** up as it is.
Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy.
Have you been speaking to Charles or to me?
Neither, so far as I know! Not online but real flesh.
as a hypothetical, if Cameron were to announce his future resignation before the referendum (he could say that he doesn't want such an important decision to be decided on a personal vote for him, and he is bowing out gracefully now to neutralise the issue of kicking him and osborne), would that help remain or leave?
Maybe it's the only play remaining for BSE? A bit like when Gordon Brown announced he was resigning to help woo the LD's to Labour in 2010
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
I'm almost utterly convinced Leave will triumph, but one strange thought lingers: in this media savvy/social media age, are the respondents simply using the polling to give the incumbent politicians a fright, with every intention of voting the complete opposite once they've seen them squirm enough? Just a daydream...
On polling day, there will be a shift to remain. It's just the magnitude that's unclear, as well as uncertainty about the true position going into the day.
Maybe. Every other assessment about how this Referendum vote would go has been wrong to date....
It's the most unpredictable election I can remember or have read about. Far more so than the Scottish referendum because people's opinions are more volatile and there seems to be a vast disparity between what voters want to express and what they want to actually happen.
The scenes on the Thames today are quite illuminating. Fishermen fighting for their livelihoods being harassed by metro liberals on a party boat.
The Brexit "flahship" is apparently owned by a millionaire
@hugorifkind: So, British fishermen. Was reading up last week. We tend to think of them as locals from small communities, bravely struggling on. Right?
@hugorifkind: Is balls. British owned ships, frequently employing Philippines or Thai fishermen at bare minimum wage. Bare minimum of local employment.
He had the same effect during Scotland's independence campaign when he ruled iScotland out of the sterling zone. There was an immediate move to Yes in the polls. OTOH enough people realised the truth of the matter when they came to vote. Of course that particular bombshell had seven months to sink in.
It had the advantage of being true, his latest missive, not so much. Corbyn and McDonnell won't support it, 50+ of his own MPs won't support it, even the SNP wont support it, its dead in the water and lies there bobbing around as a bit of an embarrassment for him, whilst handing excellent attack lines to Labour, at no cost to them, which they will have finely tuned by 2020.
I think you are getting hung up on the budget detail. The point Osborne is making is that there will be a budget deficit post Brexit that is big enough to require the Chancellor to have to make difficult tax and spend decisions. That is as true as saying iScotland would not be part of the sterling zone. That fact wasn't accepted by Yes supporters ("Bullying, bluffing and blustering" in the words of Alex Salmond. Leave voters also think he is bullying, bluffing and blustering about the effect of Brexit on public finances.
He is trying to maximise his message by highlighting things that are most visible to the public in his budget scenarios - income tax, fuel duty and the NHS. He could raid pensions instead, like Gordon Brown did, but that isn't his game.
A 17C French Finance minister said that the art of taxation is to pluck the most feathers from a goose for the fewest squawks. Osborne is going for maximum squawks in this exercise. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Brexit means more feathers being taken from the goose
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
The difference between 2 years and 2 years + 3 months is irrelevant if it secures a better settlement.
Yes, up to three months before pulling the trigger is plausible. Anything beyond that would be democratically dubious, as well as being dangerous both economically (prolonging the uncertainty is absolutely the worst thing we could possibly do) and politically (bumping up against GE2020).
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
you cant be very high up in your international business if you keep throwing hissy fits. Perhaps you need to take a step away from the outlandish hyperbole and try and make a more convincing case for remaining.
It was an overreaction to you making me out to be some sort of wallflower. Apologies.
That being said, I think he has a well developed sense of constitutional proprietary, and he is also self-aware enough to know his position isn't tenable if he loses the vote (and hence Article 50 isn't his decision)
Constitutionally he is still PM, and if we vote Leave, obliged to trigger Article 50
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I sense a lot of Leavers want the vote to be Leave, but will then be pretty content just to let things carry on pretty much as they are. Despite next week's decision to pull out of the EU, I would not be surprised if we were still a member in 2020 and beyond.
I would. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 2019 we exit so that is three years potentially but the government is going to want to be reelected in 2020. To do so they need to demonstrate that they have done the job and done it well. To be able to project themselves as continuity of good economic management and the opposition as a risk.
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
Not sure there'll be anything hanging over us. Six months of turmoil post-Brexit vote will concentrate a lot of minds.
I get the impression you are going to be horribly disappointed if there isn't months of turmoil.
Nope, I will be delighted to be proved totally wrong. And I will happily hold my hand up and, if you like, buy you a slap up lunch. How about that? I do not want to see what I think will happen happening. It would be disastrous.
Been hearing from someone very senior in the city. He reckons the next ten days will be very big / rocky in the trading rooms but that in the longer term Brexit will bring Britain a stronger economy. And everyone's geared up for Leave winning.
The only sensible conclusion is that there will be some pain, followed by a period where growth will be approximately the same as it would have been if we stayed. Leaving the EU will not destroy the British economy any more than it will add rocket boosters.
We have a huge debt overhang and a demographic problem once you strip out immigration. If Brexit doesn't cause immediate massive pain as we have a big correction, then it will simply consign us to decades of stagnation.
He had the same effect during Scotland's independence campaign when he ruled iScotland out of the sterling zone. There was an immediate move to Yes in the polls. OTOH enough people realised the truth of the matter when they came to vote. Of course that particular bombshell had seven months to sink in.
It had the advantage of being true, his latest missive, not so much. Corbyn and McDonnell won't support it, 50+ of his own MPs won't support it, even the SNP wont support it, its dead in the water and lies there bobbing around as a bit of an embarrassment for him, whilst handing excellent attack lines to Labour, at no cost to them, which they will have finely tuned by 2020.
I think you are getting hung up on the budget detail. The point Osborne is making is that there will be a budget deficit post Brexit that is big enough to require the Chancellor to have to make difficult tax and spend decisions. That is as true as saying iScotland would not be part of the sterling zone. That fact wasn't accepted by Yes supporters ("Bullying, bluffing and blustering" in the words of Alex Salmond. Leave voters also think he is bullying, bluffing and blustering about the effect of Brexit on public finances.
He is trying to maximise his message by highlighting things that are most visible to the public in his budget scenarios - income tax, fuel duty and the NHS. He could raid pensions instead, like Gordon Brown did, but that isn't his game.
A 17C French Finance minister said that the art of taxation is to pluck the most feathers from a goose for the fewest squawks. Osborne is going for maximum squawks in this exercise. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Brexit means more feathers being taken from the goose
I don't think there is much in pensions left to attack that wouldn't stop people buying them full stop...
Amazing how this election has broken down along class lines.
that doesn't support the narrative that vast swathes of labour will back leave though? What's interesting is that support for leave is higher amongst C2s than amongst DEs
@HenryGManson - Good spot. Unfortunately Mr Hill doesn't like taking bets for more than tuppence ha'penny from me, but IMO anyone who can get on should go for it.
It strikes me that Osborne's fantasy emergency budget was just another iteration of project fear. Just look at what he has promised to cut, the things people care about.
He could have made a serious point, i.e. there is likely to be a hit to the economy when we leave the EU and that will have an effect on what the government can spend. He didn't he went for project fear an emergency budget (as if the economy will suddenly change the week after next) and taking his axe to education and health etc.. Additionally, he must have known that he could never get such a budget through the Commons, so the whole thing is ridiculous.
Then there is the damage he will have done to his party. As others have said he has given Labour more attack lines than you can shake a stick at and attack lines that, i think, will resonate for years to come and will be very hard to refute. I hate the term but all Cameron's work to detoxify the Conservative Party have largely been undone by his best mate in one day.
Not that long ago Cameron was telling us that the UK could thrive outside the EU. Now he tells us we will have financial and economic armageddon if we leave. Was he lying then or now? It doesn't matter because we now know we cannot trust a word he says. Regardless of the result for the good of all Cameron must be ousted as soon as the referendum is done along with his sidekick.
And, as far as he's concerned, a Norway or Swiss deal is quite possible with the UK post Brexit. With one caveat, he's looking after France's interests, and extending the Financial Services Passport to the UK post Brexit is off the table.
He was pretty pragmatic, and pretty impressive, actually. Of course, he knew his audience (fund managers), and therefore talked the talk on labour market reform. But he made the point the sheer number of strikes indicates how seriously the unions in France are taking these changes. He said the current (bitterly opposed) reforms are "only the beginning".
I'm afraid I didn't ask about a referendum in France. Nor did I ask if he was going to stand against Hollande to be the Socialist Presidential candidate.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
No, actually you are totally effing wrong about me, like you are totally effing wrong about Europe. I'm an outward-looking guy in an international business who thinks you and your fellow travellers have taken leave of your senses.
Apart from the obscenities, I'm the same as you, I do 90+% of my work outside the UK. I am a fervent Leaver though as I have no trust in the undemocratic EU and feel the philosophy/culture is at variance to that in the UK/Ireland
Not sure why Leavers keep dragging Ireland into things. The Irish are not going to leave the EU and feel a very strong bond with Europe, especially the Catholic south.
One thing that perplexes me is why Unionists in the north are so pro-leave? Or maybe you answered that in your own post.
A 17C French Finance minister said that the art of taxation is to pluck the most feathers from a goose for the fewest squawks. Osborne is going for maximum squawks in this exercise. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Brexit means more feathers being taken from the goose
Osborne said we would have a balanced budget by 2015, and then by 2017, and then by 2018 and now 2020. Clearly when the budget getting balanced is of relatively little importance to him. If he was on the Leave side not Remain, he would be quietly slipping that end date out to 2022 carefully hidden in amongst some other more eye catching announcements. His sudden conversion to a fixed date for balancing the budget given his track record to date will only be believed by the most credulous observers.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
Jobabob knows what is outside his door, he knows the way to work, he knows what his job is. He has a level of certainty that enables him to deal with the unexpected and which may encourage him to take appropriate, measured risks that, on balance, are likely to deliver benefits if they come off and will not have too much of a downside if they don't. That is life.
Leave is asking the British public to take a complete gamble based on no kind of precedence with no notion of what may happen next, just wild guesses. So wild in fact, that there are completely different predictions of where things may end up.
We need the great risk takers. But we need them to act as individuals. Entire countries are best off being a little more cautious.
I'm not sure how we could cautiously leave the EU.
Simply staggering, "Leave" have barely made an economic case worth the name and yet I think people would happily pay thousands to see George Osborne swinging in Tyburn.
Not so sure. Are they really going to vote for utter chaos for their families, total uncertainty for their children, nosediving house prices, depressed pension pots and market chaos when it comes down to it? Beyond a few eurosceptic fanatics, most people usually vote on pocketbook issues.
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
I'm guessing you don't even leave your house in the morning for fear of what lurks outside your front door.
Jobabob knows what is outside his door, he knows the way to work, he knows what his job is. He has a level of certainty that enables him to deal with the unexpected and which may encourage him to take appropriate, measured risks that, on balance, are likely to deliver benefits if they come off and will not have too much of a downside if they don't. That is life.
Leave is asking the British public to take a complete gamble based on no kind of precedence with no notion of what may happen next, just wild guesses. So wild in fact, that there are completely different predictions of where things may end up.
We need the great risk takers. But we need them to act as individuals. Entire countries are best off being a little more cautious.
So now Gideon is turning to Blackmail. Vote the way I say or I put 2p on Income tax and cut spending on the NHS
Slight problem Gideon old chap - after a Brexit vote you won't be Chancellor for the next budget.
Slight problem, Paul old chap.
You get no say in the matter until 2020.......
Where does this stupid idea come from that voters get no say between elections? Tell that to Maggie re poll tax. Tell that to any dictator who has ever fallen to people power.
If a policy or a politician's actions are egregious enough, there is plenty that can be done by the public, voters, campaigners, pressure groups, party members, constituent chairmen and MPs, all of whom you as an individual can influence.
Comments
As to your reference, I would simply say it is in everyone's interests to make the divorce amicable and reasonable. As in all good negotiations, no one will get everything they want but there will be something for everyone.
Satisfactory and cordial negotiations will mitigate against economic and political uncertainty and turmoil - the tone will be set on Friday June 24th when everyone will be smiling and positive (whether teeth are gritted or not).
His dad, and his grandpa hoped and dreamt that little Neil would find an easier way to earn his living than the dark life down the pit.
In this case, Cameron would explain to the public the reasons for the temporary delay in triggering Article 50, which he would note were agreed with his potential successors.
This sophistry from the Leave camp (we voted out, but not yet) is astonishing
I guess this poll might be different, but hmm...
Do either of them really think that they have a political life after 24 June irrespective of result?
The French economy would improve if a Duck-billed Platypus was in charge of the French economy :-)
But I have no intention of being PM any time soon.
If we ever get to a stage where Corbyn actually looks like taking power, we will have the same scare stories about damage to the markets, financial confidence eroded, nose-diving house prices, London property market spooked, pensions destroyed.
Your argument is an argument that can be made against any political change whatsoever (from leaving Europe to Scottish independence to removal of tax loopholes to eliminating wage inequality).
It will "upset the markets”, who "dislike uncertainty”. It will “destroy investment”, which is “creating wealth for the country”. It is just Fear Porn.
Fan of democracy are you ?
What happens in the event of an (unlikely) tie ?
If exit is still hanging over us like the sword of damocles then that will make reelection that much less likely.
He had the same effect during Scotland's independence campaign when he ruled iScotland out of the sterling zone. There was an immediate move to Yes in the polls. OTOH enough people realised the truth of the matter when they came to vote. Of course that particular bombshell had seven months to sink in.
That economic and political turmoil means less money for public services only has nine days to work this time. He's on an accelerated programme.
@hugorifkind: So, British fishermen. Was reading up last week. We tend to think of them as locals from small communities, bravely struggling on. Right?
@hugorifkind: Is balls. British owned ships, frequently employing Philippines or Thai fishermen at bare minimum wage. Bare minimum of local employment.
The following choices on the ballot paper
A) Remain and ever closer union
B ) Remain
C) Leave without single market membership
D) Leave with single market/EEA membership
Coming into work today the RMT were giving out vote leave leaflets at Cardiff Central train station, first bit of literature I've had other than the government leaflet over a month ago.
Expect more companies to follow Rolls Royce and make their intentions clear. I've no problem with Brexit winning, but it would be so much better if this was the result of people realising the consequences and being prepared to accept them.
Pension funding, both state and private, is the biggest concern.
https://next.ft.com/content/85563e82-8f44-11e3-be85-00144feab7de
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Sun_EU-Referendum-Poll_June-2016-1.pdf
Osborne's threatened budget of tax rises and spending cuts was met with 57 Conservative MPs signing a letter opposing it in next to no time. The Chancellor is very much in the firing line for the Leave campaigners having made economic fears central to the campaign to say in the EU. There's a range of scenarios that I believe make an Osborne departure in 2016 better than 50:50 and the 7/4 should be taken.
Scenario 1. Remain wins comfortably in the end and both Cameron and Osborne unite the Tory benches and both stay in post for at least the rest of the year.
Scenario 2. Remain wins by a narrow margin and Tory civil war erupts. Cameron won't feel obliged to leave in 2016 but will be under pressure to go sooner than 2019/20. A reshuffle takes places and Osborne is moved to another role such as Foreign Secretary. This will possibly boost his future leadership chances and placate opponents.
Scenario 3. Leave wins and Cameron departs. A new leader is elected in 2016 and is compelled to appoint a new Chancellor.
Scenario 4. Leave wins, Cameron departs and Osborne somehow wins the leadership and therefore is no longer Chancellor.
Scenario 5. Leave wins and Cameron departs. A new leader is elected in 2016. Osborne didn't stand but is retained to provide some economic continuity.
Scenarios 1 and 5 don't appear to be particularly likely right now though can't be dismissed. While there will be other scenarios, the likelihood of Osborne leaving the role of Chancellor by the end of the year seems reasonably likely. If you agree with me that today's developments will rebound on Osborne then the chances of him going later this year look even greater and the prices with William Hill looks even better value. I'd say there is a 60% chance Osborne will leave his post this year and not a 36% chance which the odds imply.
Leave is asking the British public to take a complete gamble based on no kind of precedence with no notion of what may happen next, just wild guesses. So wild in fact, that there are completely different predictions of where things may end up.
We need the great risk takers. But we need them to act as individuals. Entire countries are best off being a little more cautious.
2015 Tories back Leave 56% to 44%, Labour voters back Remain 71% to 29%, UKIP voters for Leave 99% to 1%
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Sun_EU-Referendum-Poll_June-2016-1.pdf
Maybe it's the only play remaining for BSE? A bit like when Gordon Brown announced he was resigning to help woo the LD's to Labour in 2010
I'm getting so confused. That's yesterday's one right?
He is trying to maximise his message by highlighting things that are most visible to the public in his budget scenarios - income tax, fuel duty and the NHS. He could raid pensions instead, like Gordon Brown did, but that isn't his game.
A 17C French Finance minister said that the art of taxation is to pluck the most feathers from a goose for the fewest squawks. Osborne is going for maximum squawks in this exercise. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Brexit means more feathers being taken from the goose
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/denmarks-former-prime-minister-wades-eu-debate-brexit-not-lead-dexit/
Oh dear.
And, as far as he's concerned, a Norway or Swiss deal is quite possible with the UK post Brexit. With one caveat, he's looking after France's interests, and extending the Financial Services Passport to the UK post Brexit is off the table.
He was pretty pragmatic, and pretty impressive, actually. Of course, he knew his audience (fund managers), and therefore talked the talk on labour market reform. But he made the point the sheer number of strikes indicates how seriously the unions in France are taking these changes. He said the current (bitterly opposed) reforms are "only the beginning".
I'm afraid I didn't ask about a referendum in France. Nor did I ask if he was going to stand against Hollande to be the Socialist Presidential candidate.
If a policy or a politician's actions are egregious enough, there is plenty that can be done by the public, voters, campaigners, pressure groups, party members, constituent chairmen and MPs, all of whom you as an individual can influence.