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.
Will there be the same Government after the referendum. At present there's a small Tory majority, but if Brexit happens Cameron will be out and the race for Tory leader (and PM) could be very bitter.
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.
No way, @SouthamObserver isn't one of those types. Especially since a prolonged downturn would make it much more likely that Corbyn and his acolytes will enter Downing Street. Some on here I think may be wishing for the worst if it is Brexit but I can't imagine he would.
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.
EEA without the Financial Services Passport would be even worse than any other deal that anyone has ever suggested.
What this illustrates is the obvious point that the outcome of the negotiations is entirely uncertain, since there will be 27 other countries pushing for their own priorities. It could be very messy indeed, which is why I think Brexit triggering a downturn comparable in magnitude to 2008/9 is reasonably likely (say a 20% chance if we do get a Leave result).
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.
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.
Precisely. In the West too many people make a fetish of elections as being the be all and end all of civil society. It's this kind of thinking which led people to believe that holding elections in places like Iraq and Afghanistan would create instant democracy. It's about much more than that.
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.
It seems Jobabob's life has no room for faith. All faith is a leap in the dark. including faith in oneself.
The images of Geldof turning up on a Gin Palace to rant and swear at hard working fishermen is another huge own goal for the Remain team. Not only does it look bad (entitled, wealthy, immigrant, turning up his nose at the WWC) but it's given it a lot more publicity than it would have gained otherwise.
Better Together was a bad, poorly run campaign. But Stronger In makes Better Together look like a slick machine.
Anywho, like a week ago, I am personally still in two minds about how to vote. I think a "Remain" vote is on balance better for the country (though I don't think leaving would really make that much tangible difference to the country either way), but I really don't want to endorse the vile "Remain" campaign and encourage the politicos to use similar tactics in future.
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.
I think that would only be on the table for the UK if we got the ability to restrict unskilled migration. Otherwise I don't see how they could discriminate against an EEA nation, given that they are full participants of the single market and would therefore be given the financial passport.
The images of Geldof turning up on a Gin Palace to rant and swear at hard working fishermen is another huge own goal for the Remain team. Not only does it look bad (entitled, wealthy, immigrant, turning up his nose at the WWC) but it's given it a lot more publicity than it would have gained otherwise.
Better Together was a bad, poorly run campaign. But Stronger In makes Better Together look like a slick machine.
At least he didn't scream "give us your money, just give us your f##king money" at them...
that would be an interesting turn of events if Scotland keeps the UK in the EU, a godsend for UKIP I think!
Yes, if it is 51% to 49% Remain I think it is highly likely England will have voted Leave, maybe Wales too but the UK Remain thanks to Scotland and NI!
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
I didn't even bother asking if my builder was going to vote for Brexit last night.
I'm not sure how we could cautiously leave the EU.
Do a bit of planning first, as I suggested four years ago?
If it were possible to pull together a coalition with an agreed Brexit plan it would have happened and would be fighting general elections. It hasn't because no such consensus exists within a broad enough group of people.
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.
Unionists have an old-fashioned kind of British patriotism, which makes it quite natural for them to vote Leave. I'd recommend anyone to Steve Bruce's book The Edge of the Union, who wants to know what makes Unionists tick.
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.
No way, @SouthamObserver isn't one of those types. Especially since a prolonged downturn would make it much more likely that Corbyn and his acolytes will enter Downing Street. Some on here I think may be wishing for the worst if it is Brexit but I can't imagine he would.
You are correct. I really want to be proved wrong. I want my posts to be thrown back at me a year from now. I want to have to eat my words and to congratulate Leavers on their sang-froid and foresight. I want to drink beer and wine with them and buy them nice lunches. All to say thank-you. Honestly and genuinely.
I have kids, I am a shareholder in a business that trades internationally. The last thing I want is the years of uncertainty, downturn and damage to Brand Britain that I am anticipating. To be wrong would be great.
The images of Geldof turning up on a Gin Palace to rant and swear at hard working fishermen is another huge own goal for the Remain team. Not only does it look bad (entitled, wealthy, immigrant, turning up his nose at the WWC) but it's given it a lot more publicity than it would have gained otherwise.
Better Together was a bad, poorly run campaign. But Stronger In makes Better Together look like a slick machine.
At least he didn't scream "give us your money, just give us your f##king money" at them...
We should send him up the Rhine with a megaphone...
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.
EEA without the Financial Services Passport would be even worse than any other deal that anyone has ever suggested.
What this illustrates is the obvious point that the outcome of the negotiations is entirely uncertain, since there will be 27 other countries pushing for their own priorities. It could be very messy indeed, which is why I think Brexit triggering a downturn comparable in magnitude to 2008/9 is reasonably likely (say a 20% chance if we do get a Leave result).
It amazes me more folk don't seem to realise this. An exit deal needs 28 seperate governments to sign off on it.27 of them on the other side of the table. Even if most of them don't real care what the UK deal looks like the capacity to extract pork barrel from the process is enormous. For added entertainment value one country or more could decide to have a referendum on our exit deal.
I cannot believe that any prominent figure in the leave campaign could negotiate an EEA style deal. For us to leave the EU and retain free movement is surely the most absurd thing ever. Forget the economics it's politically mad.
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.
You are misrepresenting the point. Brexit will of itself create a large hole in public finances. That is new. Whether it adds to other holes is moot.
I cannot believe that any prominent figure in the leave campaign could negotiate an EEA style deal. For us to leave the EU and retain free movement is surely the most absurd thing ever. Forget the economics it's politically mad.
I think it's at least 75% likely to happen if we leave the EU. It's a political compromise.
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.
No way, @SouthamObserver isn't one of those types. Especially since a prolonged downturn would make it much more likely that Corbyn and his acolytes will enter Downing Street. Some on here I think may be wishing for the worst if it is Brexit but I can't imagine he would.
You are correct. I really want to be proved wrong. I want my posts to be thrown back at me a year from now. I want to have to eat my words and to congratulate Leavers on their sang-froid and foresight. I want to drink beer and wine with them and buy them nice lunches. All to say thank-you. Honestly and genuinely.
I have kids, I am a shareholder in a business that trades internationally. The last thing I want is the years of uncertainty, downturn and damage to Brand Britain that I am anticipating. To be wrong would be great.
To be honest, I'm not expecting either economic collapse, nor an upsurge in growth, post-Brexit.
It amazes me more folk don't seem to realise this. An exit deal needs 28 seperate governments to sign off on it.27 of them on the other side of the table. Even if most of them don't real care what the UK deal looks like the capacity to extract pork barrel from the process is enormous. For added entertainment value one country or more could decide to have a referendum on our exit deal.
It amazes me that people keep forgetting that the EU has no say in if we join EFTA or not, and that if we move from the EU to EFTA we retain out EEA membership, about which they have no say either.
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.
It seems you are saying the only engine of economic growth available to the UK is immigration. What about getting productivity gains going again? I am no expert in this subject, but it seems obvious to me that importing migrants to fill ever more low skills jobs is a contributor to our lack of gains in productivity in recent years, as well as taxing infrastructure and welfare.
Average wages do not go up without productivity gains - whatever the level of immigration. Using immigration as a crutch to underpin the top line GDP figure is a no win game in the long run. Far better to have targeted immigration to ensure a supply of skill sets that enable the economy to evolve into higher value added sectors with export potential, rather than trying to compete in low cost industries.
I cannot believe that any prominent figure in the leave campaign could negotiate an EEA style deal. For us to leave the EU and retain free movement is surely the most absurd thing ever. Forget the economics it's politically mad.
I think it's at least 75% likely to happen if we leave the EU. It's a political compromise.
Agreed. Rump Remainers will join with more moderate Leavers and outvote the diehards on both sides. We will end up with a compromise that is designed to not deliver what either side wants - neither an ability to control our own affairs nor participation in the EU.
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
I didn't even bother asking if my builder was going to vote for Brexit last night.
Both sides are uneasy coalitions frantically trying to paper over the cracks in their team whilst pointing at the cracks appearing in their opponent's team.
How much is there really in common between a upper middle class "I'm all right Jacques" professional worried about his private school fees, mortgage and pension, a lefty sociology student and a Hamstead champagne socialists or trustafarian on one side. On the other you have the free-trade libertarians crammed in with the old labour protectionists, the socially dislocated pensioners and the white van men feeling the pinch on their wages.
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.
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.
It seems you are saying the only engine of economic growth available to the UK is immigration. What about getting productivity gains going again? I am no expert in this subject, but it seems obvious to me that importing migrants to fill ever more low skills jobs is a contributor to our lack of gains in productivity in recent years, as well as taxing infrastructure and welfare.
Average wages do not go up without productivity gains - whatever the level of immigration. Using immigration as a crutch to underpin the top line GDP figure is a no win game in the long run. Far better to have targeted immigration to ensure a supply of skill sets that enable the economy to evolve into higher value added sectors with export potential, rather than trying to compete in low cost industries.
I'm not really saying that - I'm saying that we are not in a great place to start.
If you wind back to when Brown was in Downing Street, people thought his reelection would cause the markets to lose confidence in the UK Treasury. Osborne has, through luck or judgement, steadied the ship and many people are now confident to take an even bigger risk by voting for Brexit, but we still have major structural issues. The last 6 years suggest that fixing them over the medium term is realistic if things stay the same, but if they don't, we'll need to fix them more quickly, and that will involve real pain to real people.
It amazes me more folk don't seem to realise this. An exit deal needs 28 seperate governments to sign off on it.27 of them on the other side of the table. Even if most of them don't real care what the UK deal looks like the capacity to extract pork barrel from the process is enormous. For added entertainment value one country or more could decide to have a referendum on our exit deal.
It amazes me that people keep forgetting that the EU has no say in if we join EFTA or not, and that if we move from the EU to EFTA we retain out EEA membership, about which they have no say either.
I thought that too, but am no longer so certain. I think the EU will need to ratify the arrangements with the UK, in that the UK is mentioned in treaty articles or protocols. That might normally be a formality but going against the express wishes of the EU on the basis that they have no say would be a very foolish thing to do. In any case Norway does have a veto over membership of EFTA and their PM has made it clear she thinks EEA won't work for the UK. Norway's view will need to be addressed.
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.
You are misrepresenting the point. Brexit will of itself create a large hole in public finances. That is new. Whether it adds to other holes is moot.
No I am not, all sorts of things Osborne has done in the last six years have added holes to the public finances, he has dealt with all of these by adding slightly more taxes or cuts here and there, but mostly by extending the time until he has cleared the debt. If he supported Leave he would do exactly the same here.
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.
You are misrepresenting the point. Brexit will of itself create a large hole in public finances. That is new. Whether it adds to other holes is moot.
Can someone tells me where, when and how this huge hole in the budget happens? Serious question, I can't be bothered to read long documents to find out myself.
But it strike me as not really being a priori bound to happen. What will change in the first year after Brexit is announced. Some uncertainty is reduced, other uncertainty that already exists comes into sharper focus. Otherwise, I trading status does not change much for two years on most people's reckoning.
So where is this huge hit coming from and when? Is it coming solely from the much predicted economic correction/recession/crash reducing revenues? From some lost revenue source that being in the EU magically bestows on us? From increased costs caused by leaving?
I am genuinely at a loss as to how it gets to 30bn GBP. Say our economy is 2 trillion for round sums. We have a hit of 2%, so 40bn is lost to GDP. Say taxation of this is 20%, revenues are down 8bn. How do we get to 30bn?
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.
It seems you are saying the only engine of economic growth available to the UK is immigration. What about getting productivity gains going again? I am no expert in this subject, but it seems obvious to me that importing migrants to fill ever more low skills jobs is a contributor to our lack of gains in productivity in recent years, as well as taxing infrastructure and welfare.
Average wages do not go up without productivity gains - whatever the level of immigration. Using immigration as a crutch to underpin the top line GDP figure is a no win game in the long run. Far better to have targeted immigration to ensure a supply of skill sets that enable the economy to evolve into higher value added sectors with export potential, rather than trying to compete in low cost industries.
I'm not really saying that - I'm saying that we are not in a great place to start.
If you wind back to when Brown was in Downing Street, people thought his reelection would cause the markets to lose confidence in the UK Treasury. Osborne has, through luck or judgement, steadied the ship and many people are now confident to take an even bigger risk by voting for Brexit, but we still have major structural issues. The last 6 years suggest that fixing them over the medium term is realistic if things stay the same, but if they don't, we'll need to fix them more quickly, and that will involve real pain to real people.
No gain without pain. Personally, I find the short sharp shock resulting in a move to new habits easier than sustained discipline. So, it seems, do countries. Witness Japan and France, vs UK and Germany.
I wondered the same, especially as the Chairman of Britain Stronger In Europe is on the record as saying "Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change". He isn't a nobody either, as executive chairman of Marks and Spencer a world wide business with 80,000 employees.
BMG have tweeted this morning saying poll results attributed to them are in fact a hoax and untrue. The poll showed Leave in front by 45% vs 41% Remain.
Awkward if BMG real results are also 45% LEAVE v 41% REMAIN.
Very few of the comments agree with his thesis. Going 6 to1 against.
My boss showed me the article - his uncle (Michael Fraser) wrote the memo for Harold Macmillan. I like the quote from Harold "I'm always hearing about the middle class.What is it they really want?" Things have changed since 1957!
Comments
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/statement-managing-director/
What this illustrates is the obvious point that the outcome of the negotiations is entirely uncertain, since there will be 27 other countries pushing for their own priorities. It could be very messy indeed, which is why I think Brexit triggering a downturn comparable in magnitude to 2008/9 is reasonably likely (say a 20% chance if we do get a Leave result).
Better Together was a bad, poorly run campaign. But Stronger In makes Better Together look like a slick machine.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
I have kids, I am a shareholder in a business that trades internationally. The last thing I want is the years of uncertainty, downturn and damage to Brand Britain that I am anticipating. To be wrong would be great.
It seems you are saying the only engine of economic growth available to the UK is immigration. What about getting productivity gains going again? I am no expert in this subject, but it seems obvious to me that importing migrants to fill ever more low skills jobs is a contributor to our lack of gains in productivity in recent years, as well as taxing infrastructure and welfare.
Average wages do not go up without productivity gains - whatever the level of immigration. Using immigration as a crutch to underpin the top line GDP figure is a no win game in the long run. Far better to have targeted immigration to ensure a supply of skill sets that enable the economy to evolve into higher value added sectors with export potential, rather than trying to compete in low cost industries.
How much is there really in common between a upper middle class "I'm all right Jacques" professional worried about his private school fees, mortgage and pension, a lefty sociology student and a Hamstead champagne socialists or trustafarian on one side. On the other you have the free-trade libertarians crammed in with the old labour protectionists, the socially dislocated pensioners and the white van men feeling the pinch on their wages.
If you wind back to when Brown was in Downing Street, people thought his reelection would cause the markets to lose confidence in the UK Treasury. Osborne has, through luck or judgement, steadied the ship and many people are now confident to take an even bigger risk by voting for Brexit, but we still have major structural issues. The last 6 years suggest that fixing them over the medium term is realistic if things stay the same, but if they don't, we'll need to fix them more quickly, and that will involve real pain to real people.
But it strike me as not really being a priori bound to happen. What will change in the first year after Brexit is announced. Some uncertainty is reduced, other uncertainty that already exists comes into sharper focus. Otherwise, I trading status does not change much for two years on most people's reckoning.
So where is this huge hit coming from and when? Is it coming solely from the much predicted economic correction/recession/crash reducing revenues? From some lost revenue source that being in the EU magically bestows on us? From increased costs caused by leaving?
I am genuinely at a loss as to how it gets to 30bn GBP. Say our economy is 2 trillion for round sums. We have a hit of 2%, so 40bn is lost to GDP. Say taxation of this is 20%, revenues are down 8bn. How do we get to 30bn?
Genuine attempts at enlightenment welcomed.
Awkward if BMG real results are also 45% LEAVE v 41% REMAIN.