"UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".
"Someone's rattled."
So a Chancellor making threats to the electorate that he can never carry out is a success? What is your definition of failure?
In the event of Leave, Osborne is toast. If he stays on, he will have pledged to commit political suicide - even if he could get it through, which he can't.
Can you guide me through his logic, I really can't follow it. The only other possible explanation is that he thinks there is a pool of the feeble-minded he can scare.
The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.
Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.
and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up
Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.
That isn't true. Don't be silly.
Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.
Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.
Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.
I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.
One reason I'm voting Leave is that I don't more houses built in my village (or yours). I'd be delighted for house prices to come down.
If you build ten £500,000 houses on 5 acres of farmland, the country is £5M 'richer'. But are we better off? Remainers say, yes, for sure. Leavers, not so certain....
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
Mr. Pulpstar, interesting post. I did wonder some time ago if couples (ahem, or friends) might vote in cancelling pairs, as happened in the Scottish vote.
Nothing has changed from my early May hypothesis, IMHO.
British voters *as a whole* want to give the UK and the EU a very nasty shock, and then deliver the closest Remain vote humanly possible. So voters will now calibrate themselves back a tad from Leave to deliver it, in my view.
That then puts our EU membership on probation. "One last chance" etc.
I agree the public probably are thinking along those lines, the danger for remain being that tactical voting isn't always guaranteed to work. It's like the Scottish election, with RISE and greens etc saying to split votes, tactically not voting for the SNP, backfired and ended with them losing the majority
It's probably easier to get the tactical result you want with First Past the Post than it is with FPTP combined with PR.
For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.
If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?
John McDonnell confirms Labour would vote against Osborne's budget. Osborne really is an idiot.
Was waiting for this and glad Labour have come out against it. Osborne hasnt thought this through.
He has. What he is essentially promising in the event of a Leave vote is a general election.
You really think that is within his powers from the backbenches?
Problem is, even if Boris or someone from the Tory hard-right seizes control, they'll still have to rely on the Tory moderates to get their emergency budget through. And Labour won't support it no matter what. The Tories will not want a general election. I suspect Cameron, Osborne, Boris and Gove will come to an agreement on the thrust of the emergency budget, around which both Tory Leavers and Remainers can unite.
Is there a budget around which all Tories can unite? There certainly isn't a vision for leave they can agree on. A lot will want EEA/EFTA, the diehards will want a complete break.
Indeed - the diehards and a lot of kippers are gonna be hugely disappointed following a post leave fudge. I reckon it could push Plato to join EDL having abandoned Labour/Conservative in short order.
Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
It won't be eliminated even if we Remain, Osbrown's plan is based on savings he wont get through parliament, and on the fanciful idea that there won't be any sort of economic downturn in the next three and a half years.
So,. that's a No then and an admission that the Tories were not forced into the strategy they all supported out of economic necessity, but instead chose to impose the levels of austerity they have for ideological reasons. And Tory Leavers claim to care about ordinary working people who have borne the brunt of that austerity. :-D
Compared to what I think of Osborne, most of the things Mr @Alanbrooke says could be considered a generous tribute
UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".
Someone's rattled.
Yes, it's getting very tense. Leave need to calm down here. Someone like Gove needs to say, 'Of course the Conservative government may have to review our economic priorities should these new circumstances come about. It will be discussed at Cabinet, of course, but the chancellor is ultimately responsible for the economics of the country.' That would demonstrate that Leave are under no illusions about the significance of Brexit and the vital need for stability and certainty thereafter. Faffing around in a panic will just unnerve everyone and undermine their cause.
Those rebel Cons MPs had better get a move on because Dave has told us that he will invoke pretty quickly.
Plus not sure how some of the more strident Leavers (perhaps some on here?) would react to a Leave vote followed by what many would suspect would be some kind of backroom deal to keep us in.
My money is on a prompt invocation.
If he intends to resign then it would be utterly inappropriate for him to do so, and I don't believe he would. That is properly a decision of the incoming PM.
If he intends to stay and fight (no comment on how feasible that is) then he can make the decision.
I doubt he will invoke Article 50 immediately. But of course he is saying today that he will, because it increases the perceived risk. Basically he's lying to the people.
Yes. Same kind of lie as the referendum promise. We soon got to the bottom of that little ruse, though, didn't we?
Cons Leavers are falling over themselves to say they want Dave to stay. Dave has only said two things about post-Leave: 1) I will invoke Article 50 very quickly; and 2) there will be an emergency budget.
Before a British general election, senior civil servants meet with leading figures in non-governmental parties to discuss certain aspects of implementing their policies if they form the next government.
Have the Treasury and other civil servants, and bods from the Bank of England, met with bods from the Commission, the European Central Bank, etc., to discuss frameworks - and even contingencies - following a vote for Brexit?
Surely they must have?
A lot of money's there to be made.
It's not comparable to a general election, because there's no Brexit manifesto, and indeed we don't even know the general political direction of a post-Brexit world or how the negotiations with our EU friends would pan out. Civil servants and the Bank of England can't do anything other than put in place some short-term market stabilisation measures, whilst they wait for their political masters to tell them what to do next.
The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.
Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.
and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up
Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.
That isn't true. Don't be silly.
He's actually correct to an extent.
61% of all voters are prepared to tolerate an economic slowdown to sort the migrant situation out.
The people who appear least willing are based in the south, are ABs, university educated and they want to protect their incomes and pensions.
They are the 'I'm alright, Jacques' voters.
"61% of all voters are prepared to tolerate an economic slowdown to sort the migrant situation out."
I just don't believe this. In the abstract yes, maybe, as a hypothetical question. But when the shutters start coming down and people start getting the redundancy notices, and being told their pension scheme has gone into administration, then they'll be singing a different tune.
The same poll found that 68% of voters are not prepared to make any financial sacrifice to reduce immigration from the EU.
Basically, people are happy to Leave if it does not cost them anything.
If you think Remain is having a bad week, then spare a thought for Orlando.
First the young pop star was shot, then that awful terrorist attack, and now a toddler taken by an alligator in front of his father in the DISNEY resort! Extraordinary.
One reason I'm voting Leave is that I don't more houses built in my village (or yours). I'd be delighted for house prices to come down.
If you build ten £500,000 houses on 5 acres of farmland, the country is £5M 'richer'. But are we better off? Remainers say, yes, for sure. Leavers, not so certain....
UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".
Someone's rattled.
Yes, it's getting very tense. Leave need to calm down here. Someone like Gove needs to say, 'Of course the Conservative government may have to review our economic priorities should these new circumstances come about. It will be discussed at Cabinet, of course, but the chancellor is ultimately responsible for the economics of the country.' That would demonstrate that Leave are under no illusions about the significance of Brexit and the vital need for stability and certainty thereafter. Faffing around in a panic will just unnerve everyone and undermine their cause.
Yes, of course the Leave campaign should have to come out and answer for Osborne's mess.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Why is anyone surprised by Osborne's point on the public finances? If the economy is smaller as a result of Brexit, which pretty much every informed observer (including most of those who think Brexit would be good in the long term) agrees will be the case for at least a couple of years, then the public finances will be hit. I suppose you could accuse him of stating the obvious.
Irrespective of if you are a remainer or leaver, he is throwing the Tory party under the bus with this action. Labour would be fools to not recite for ever more that as soon as the going got tough the first instinct of a Tory Chancellor was to cut the NHS and Education and raise taxes on working people. He threw away your detox efforts in one idiotic statement, and for nothing, because he would never get that budget through the commons anyway.
Yes, even in the event of a remain Labour have some very big attack lines if Osborne sticks around. He has contemplated cuts to schools'n'ospitals, something most Tories have shied away from since 2005. "The chancellor said that in the event of Brexit he would cut the NHS budget, today we are facing a similar loss of GDP because of a recession he made, he has ready made plans to cut the NHS and education budgets" or something along those lines.
Can I admit something now? I thought this referendum debate would be dull. It's been anything but. Thank you, Dave and George, for the unintentional amusement. Keep up the good work.
"Another broadside please, Captain BoJo. Grapeshot this time. Send the scurvy knaves down to Davy Jones' Locker."
"No need, Admiral, they seem to be scuttling their own ship. The rats are coming down the gangplank already."
John McDonnell confirms Labour would vote against Osborne's budget. Osborne really is an idiot.
Was waiting for this and glad Labour have come out against it. Osborne hasnt thought this through.
He has. What he is essentially promising in the event of a Leave vote is a general election.
You really think that is within his powers from the backbenches?
Fixed term parliaments mean that neither prime ministers or governments can call an election without a large enough majority vote in parliament. The opposition can block an election and takeover minority government instead.
So Labour REMAINERS could govern with the support of some rebel Conservative REMAINERS.
Those rebel Cons MPs had better get a move on because Dave has told us that he will invoke pretty quickly.
Plus not sure how some of the more strident Leavers (perhaps some on here?) would react to a Leave vote followed by what many would suspect would be some kind of backroom deal to keep us in.
My money is on a prompt invocation.
If he intends to resign then it would be utterly inappropriate for him to do so, and I don't believe he would. That is properly a decision of the incoming PM.
If he intends to stay and fight (no comment on how feasible that is) then he can make the decision.
I doubt he will invoke Article 50 immediately. But of course he is saying today that he will, because it increases the perceived risk. Basically he's lying to the people.
ON the other hand he can legitimately claim he is respecting the result of the referendum he called. No going back. There are practical arguments for triggering Article 50 (minimise uncertainty) as well as arguments for not doing so, as you point out. I am genuinely curious which way he will go.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
John McDonnell confirms Labour would vote against Osborne's budget. Osborne really is an idiot.
Was waiting for this and glad Labour have come out against it. Osborne hasnt thought this through.
He has. What he is essentially promising in the event of a Leave vote is a general election.
You really think that is within his powers from the backbenches?
Fixed term parliaments mean that neither prime ministers or governments can call an election without a large enough majority vote in parliament. The opposition can block an election and takeover minority government instead.
So Labour REMAINERS could govern with the support of some rebel Conservative REMAINERS.
Well I guess they could, but the whole lot would loss the whip and get deselected by their CCP pretty sharply so it would spell the end of their careers.
Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.
Those rebel Cons MPs had better get a move on because Dave has told us that he will invoke pretty quickly.
Plus not sure how some of the more strident Leavers (perhaps some on here?) would react to a Leave vote followed by what many would suspect would be some kind of backroom deal to keep us in.
My money is on a prompt invocation.
If he intends to resign then it would be utterly inappropriate for him to do so, and I don't believe he would. That is properly a decision of the incoming PM.
If he intends to stay and fight (no comment on how feasible that is) then he can make the decision.
I doubt he will invoke Article 50 immediately. But of course he is saying today that he will, because it increases the perceived risk. Basically he's lying to the people.
ON the other hand he can legitimately claim he is respecting the result of the referendum he called. No going back. There are practical arguments for triggering Article 50 (minimise uncertainty) as well as arguments for not doing so, as you point out. I am genuinely curious which way he will go.
Addendum - He would only lie if he DIDN'T call Article 50.
Why is anyone surprised by Osborne's point on the public finances? If the economy is smaller as a result of Brexit, which pretty much every informed observer (including most of those who think Brexit would be good in the long term) agrees will be the case for at least a couple of years, then the public finances will be hit. I suppose you could accuse him of stating the obvious.
I'd say the reaction is revulsion more than surprise.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital economics say differently. The long term picture will be entirely dictated by the government and how aggressive it is in completing trade agreements and opening up our economy, I'm not going to agree with Minford, but having the flexibility to use tariff drops to get trade deals signed is a big win for us as a nation of importers. If we become the open, trading nation I would like to see then I have no doubt we will be better off, if we fall into a protectionist closed/planned economy style of governance then we probably won't be. I think the key is that the British people will decide on what kind of country we will be, not some unelected commissioner in Brussels.
The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.
Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.
and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up
Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.
That isn't true. Don't be silly.
Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.
Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.
Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.
I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.
Can't help thinking that you are giving some of your fellow Leavers credit for more noble motives than they deserve.....It's all about immigrants where I live (West Sussex coast) . It's an area of high employment, and lots of pensioners, the Eastern Europeans are generally pleasant and hard working, but the old people do not like them being here.
I'm not accusing all Leavers of being swivel eyed racists but to pretend immigration isn't the major factor behind a lot of pensioners votes in the South is disingenuous.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
No, and they have to pay an upfront fee for NHS use as well. The problem at the moment is the government is busy cutting back on legal immigration from embassies and consulates because there are so many illegals which they appear unable to control, and its the only way to keep the lid on the numbers at the moment. The percentage of non-EU immigrant visas rejected went up by almost 20% this year, are we to believe that the standard of application suddenly got a fifth worse ?
first a singer from The Voice is killed outside a night club then the Pulse massacre then a 2 year old is taken by an alligator paddling in a lake at Disney World.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
Our tax and benefits system is broken, and that needs to change irrespective of the budget.
Most other countries have a contributory element and/or are more generous up-front, with benefits tailing off rapidly over time (which means people don't feel stressed on first losing their job, but are incentivised to take the first opportunity that comes along). And no-where else in the world has an in-work system like ours.
Like it or not, we've created a monster that discourages Brits from working, and encourages people from overseas to come here.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
No, and they have to pay an upfront fee for NHS use as well. The problem at the moment is the government is busy cutting back on legal immigration from embassies and consulates because there are so many illegals which they appear unable to control, and its the only way to keep the lid on the numbers at the moment. The percentage of non-EU immigrant visas rejected went up by almost 20% this year, are we to believe that the standard of application suddenly got a fifth worse ?
There are still 155,000 non-EU immigrants coming to the UK every year, which (IIRC) is almost a record. So, the cut backs aren't working too well.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?
Ed Vaizy acting like a robot/puppet of Osborne and getting cut to ribbons by A.Neil. What a c**t!
Vaizy was completely out of his depth and has been put up by REMAIN without any grasp of the financial figures involved. He is quite good at talking about luvviedom.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
The PwC figures are interesting because they imply higher than current trend growth in a post-brexit scenario since there is likely to be a short term hit of around 3-4 points. In their worst case scenario it is the same.
Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.
And 90% of Twitter is going for Remain
More seriously, I am glad they heeding the warnings of their late, former MP.
Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.
The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.
Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.
and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up
Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.
That isn't true. Don't be silly.
Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.
Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.
Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.
I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.
Can't help thinking that you are giving some of your fellow Leavers credit for more noble motives than they deserve.....It's all about immigrants where I live (West Sussex coast) . It's an area of high employment, and lots of pensioners, the Eastern Europeans are generally pleasant and hard working, but the old people do not like them being here.
I'm not accusing all Leavers of being swivel eyed racists but to pretend immigration isn't the major factor behind a lot of pensioners votes in the South is disingenuous.
Some will be xenophobes, sure. And some Remainers hold an active detestation of their own country.
But I don't believe, and nor is it my experience that, more than 50% of the electorate are.
Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.
Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.
There are threats that if REMAIN wins, then Top Gear will feature wall to wall Chris Evans, will be renamed Gear Sans Frontieres, one of the two weekly stars in a rallycross car will be able to play the joker, there will be simultaneous translation of Evans shouting into French, and Stuart Hall will be brought in for commentary and sundry other things.
John McDonnell confirms Labour would vote against Osborne's budget. Osborne really is an idiot.
Was waiting for this and glad Labour have come out against it. Osborne hasnt thought this through.
He has. What he is essentially promising in the event of a Leave vote is a general election.
You really think that is within his powers from the backbenches?
Fixed term parliaments mean that neither prime ministers or governments can call an election without a large enough majority vote in parliament. The opposition can block an election and takeover minority government instead.
So Labour REMAINERS could govern with the support of some rebel Conservative REMAINERS.
Well I guess they could, but the whole lot would loss the whip and get deselected by their CCP pretty sharply so it would spell the end of their careers.
Err, not necessarily. Many constituency parties are avowedly non-Corbynite.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
No, and they have to pay an upfront fee for NHS use as well. The problem at the moment is the government is busy cutting back on legal immigration from embassies and consulates because there are so many illegals which they appear unable to control, and its the only way to keep the lid on the numbers at the moment. The percentage of non-EU immigrant visas rejected went up by almost 20% this year, are we to believe that the standard of application suddenly got a fifth worse ?
There are still 155,000 non-EU immigrants coming to the UK every year, which (IIRC) is almost a record. So, the cut backs aren't working too well.
That number includes those that arrive for example down the channel tunnel, plus asylum seekers, the current system is set up to regularise those that arrive here illegally rapidly, they get financial help to appeal and a fairly generous set of rules for the basis on which they can appeal. People who are rejected outside the country have to pay their own way, and have an absurdly tight appeals process to the extent that they are not allowed to present any further evidence to counter the objection made by the immigration officer, the appeal is made purely on the basis of the initial submission (ie, did the officer make the correct decision given the evidence available at the time) prior to last october this was not the case.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.
Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.
No of course not. Non-EU migrants tend to be highly skilled and highly paid. The new rules over foreign spouses is another deterrent for low income migration from outside the EU.
If we left, we may be able to do it within the EEA, and definitely be able to do it outside of the EEA.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?
I don't suppose they would. We would be voting to become a less prosperous country relative to our peers. At some point, in the famous long run, the one also when Leavers think we will have passed our hockey stick/Nike tick and be thriving, we will be much, much less important as a country on the world stage.
Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.
Someone said to me once: there is no long-term, there is merely a succession of short-terms.
Human beings have very high internal discount rates, hence many people's dubious life decisions. Focusing on 2040 will not move a single vote either way, and if we try it, we'll lose this election.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
The PwC figures are interesting because they imply higher than current trend growth in a post-brexit scenario since there is likely to be a short term hit of around 3-4 points. In their worst case scenario it is the same.
Some of the predictions expect higher growth after BrExit because of an expected drop in the GBP making British exports more attractive.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?
Well, Leave evidently care about the lesser sum of £350m/week.
Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.
Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.
There are threats that if REMAIN wins, then Top Gear will feature wall to wall Chris Evans, will be renamed Gear Sans Frontieres, one of the two weekly stars in a rallycross car will be able to play the joker, there will be simultaneous translation of Evans shouting into French, and Stuart Hall will be brought in for commentary and sundry other things.
The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.
Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.
and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up
Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.
That isn't true. Don't be silly.
Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.
Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.
Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.
I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.
Can't help thinking that you are giving some of your fellow Leavers credit for more noble motives than they deserve.....It's all about immigrants where I live (West Sussex coast) . It's an area of high employment, and lots of pensioners, the Eastern Europeans are generally pleasant and hard working, but the old people do not like them being here.
I'm not accusing all Leavers of being swivel eyed racists but to pretend immigration isn't the major factor behind a lot of pensioners votes in the South is disingenuous.
Some will be xenophobes, sure. And some Remainers hold an active detestation of their own country.
But I don't believe, and nor is it my experience that, more than 50% of the electorate are.
I don't disagree. Just saying it's a lot more than people in London imagine, and they are not going to be happy or accept any deal that doesn't involve massively reduced immigration numbers and not just from the EU.
For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.
If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?
I was going to say "the status quo would prevail", which in this context would mean continued membership. But I checked, and amazingly (source):
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a hanging chads scenario where a broken down van carrying a ballot box or an egregious instance of cheating make all the difference isn't.
If you take the certain to vote figures in that STV poll then repercentage them it's a fraction off 70/30 for Remain. Never the less the " Trend is your friend " and it's a big shift to Leave since the last poll.
Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.
Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.
There are threats that if REMAIN wins, then Top Gear will feature wall to wall Chris Evans, will be renamed Gear Sans Frontieres, one of the two weekly stars in a rallycross car will be able to play the joker, there will be simultaneous translation of Evans shouting into French, and Stuart Hall will be brought in for commentary and sundry other things.
Once again, people are falling over themselves to lap up the rhetoric and not thinking about the reality of a LEAVE vote.
Voting LEAVE starts a process confirmed by the invoking of Article 50 by which Britain will instigate negotiations to leave the European Union. It's a right every state has and I imagine has always had.
Let's talk turmoil and uncertainty - there's plenty of that about all the time. The FTSE fell 12% between December 30th 2015 and February 11th 2016 but the world didn't end and indeed many cheered the slump in world oil prices (apart from those having a daily jibe at the SNP) that was the primary cause.
Whether inside the EU or outside, global financial markets react (or generally over-react) to events. The result of the Spanish election and indeed the upcoming elections in the US and Germany will all cause turmoil and uncertainty let alone other events or a cold winter or a mild winter.
Yes, political uncertainty doesn't help but if memory serves, the stock market surged on the Monday after the 2010 GE not because of the impending Coalition but because of a Greek bailout. We perhaps over-emphasise our importance on the global stage.
On Friday June 24th, the air will be full not of recrimination and fear but reconciliation and hope. Whichever side wins knows it has to a) restore confidence in Government and b) mend fences within parties and throughout Government. That won't be easy and doubtless some of the rancour of the campaign will live on but the winners will be conciliatory (though not on here I suspect) as well as the losers.
In and of itself, the very fact of a result will end uncertainty - we will all know where we stand or what we're standing in depending on your perspective. Reassurance will be everything - whichever side wins will, if they have any sense, be offering that by the bucket load.
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.
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
Wow! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads make all the difference isn't.
The referendum isn't binding, so a tie is a perfectly cogent outcome.
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads make all the difference isn't.
Are the odds higher or lower than the Vote Leave £50m footie competition?
I read that 10 days before an election is when views start to firm up. If that's the case remain are in trouble as they've had a shocking few days and appear to be losing support. Is it possible for remain to change enough minds over the next week? I assume it is but the football and enough events may conspire against them. The odds confuse me though, how many more polls will it take before potential crossover and why are they not moving more? is it the sheer weight of money or are the punters and bookies dismissing the polls?
Mr. Pulpstar, interesting post. I did wonder some time ago if couples (ahem, or friends) might vote in cancelling pairs, as happened in the Scottish vote.
Nothing has changed from my early May hypothesis, IMHO.
British voters *as a whole* want to give the UK and the EU a very nasty shock, and then deliver the closest Remain vote humanly possible. So voters will now calibrate themselves back a tad from Leave to deliver it, in my view.
That then puts our EU membership on probation. "One last chance" etc.
I agree the public probably are thinking along those lines, the danger for remain being that tactical voting isn't always guaranteed to work. It's like the Scottish election, with RISE and greens etc saying to split votes, tactically not voting for the SNP, backfired and ended with them losing the majority
It's probably easier to get the tactical result you want with First Past the Post than it is with FPTP combined with PR.
For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.
If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?
It's ridiculous to try to vote tactically in a referendum. It's stupid to vote to punish 'Politician X' . Vote for what you want and accept the consequences.
Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.
And 90% of Twitter is going for Remain
More seriously, I am glad they heeding the warnings of their late, former MP.
The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.
So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?
We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.
The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.
So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.
NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.
Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?
I don't suppose they would. We would be voting to become a less prosperous country relative to our peers. At some point, in the famous long run, the one also when Leavers think we will have passed our hockey stick/Nike tick and be thriving, we will be much, much less important as a country on the world stage.
Not really, we will still have one of five UNSC seats and vetoes, we will still have a permanent nuclear deterrent, we will still be the fifth largest global economy, we will still be one of a handful of nations which can project forces globally. Not being in the EU isn't the end of the world and neither is it the end of our diplomatic and foreign policy power. If it was then we wouldn't be being bossed by Russia on Syria and Ukraine.
Mr. Cide, morris dancers are fearless. If we frolic in lace and bells waving our wiffle sticks in public, do you really mean to suggest I might be afraid of posting a mere rock song to a website?
Mr. Llama, quite. As I said a loooong time ago now, Cameron's claiming he's offering us a choice of ham or razorblade sandwiches. And that he said a few months ago he'd happily eat the razorblades. But now he's realised they're terribly dangerous.
He's definitely lying, the question is only whether it's then or now.
For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.
If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?
I was going to say "the status quo would prevail", which in this context would mean continued membership. But I checked, and amazingly (source):
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads, a broken down van carrying a ballot box or an egregious instance of cheating make all the difference isn't.
Why should there be provision for a tie? Referenda are advisory and not legally binding anyway. You only need a result if the result is binding.
Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.
For me personally- no it wouldn't be worth it. I'd vote for a democracy and a recession over a dictatorship every time.
But I don't agree with your analysis that that is what is being voted on. I'm voting remain in the EU- I am not voting for a European Superstate.
Not really, we will still have one of five UNSC seats and vetoes, we will still have a permanent nuclear deterrent, we will still be the fifth largest global economy, we will still be one of a handful of nations which can project forces globally. Not being in the EU isn't the end of the world and neither is it the end of our diplomatic and foreign policy power. If it was then we wouldn't be being bossed by Russia on Syria and Ukraine.
I'm not so sure we can project forces globally; we're currently without an aircraft carrier.
Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.
And 90% of Twitter is going for Remain
More seriously, I am glad they heeding the warnings of their late, former MP.
Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.
For me personally- no it wouldn't be worth it. I'd vote for a democracy and a recession over a dictatorship every time.
But I don't agree with your analysis that that is what is being voted on. I'm voting remain in the EU- I am not voting for a European Superstate.
For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.
If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?
I was going to say "the status quo would prevail", which in this context would mean continued membership. But I checked, and amazingly (source):
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
I'm following up to my own post here, but of course there's no legal provision for what must happen in the event that either side gets a majority; never mind about a tie!
If you take the certain to vote figures in that STV poll then repercentage them it's a fraction off 70/30 for Remain. Never the less the " Trend is your friend " and it's a big shift to Leave since the last poll.
Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.
For me personally- no it wouldn't be worth it. I'd vote for a democracy and a recession over a dictatorship every time.
But I don't agree with your analysis that that is what is being voted on. I'm voting remain in the EU- I am not voting for a European Superstate.
Too right. There is already legislation for a referendum should any additional powers be transferred to EU e.g. in the event of creation of an EU superstate.
Comments
"UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".
"Someone's rattled."
So a Chancellor making threats to the electorate that he can never carry out is a success? What is your definition of failure?
In the event of Leave, Osborne is toast. If he stays on, he will have pledged to commit political suicide - even if he could get it through, which he can't.
Can you guide me through his logic, I really can't follow it. The only other possible explanation is that he thinks there is a pool of the feeble-minded he can scare.
Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.
I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.
If you build ten £500,000 houses on 5 acres of farmland, the country is £5M 'richer'. But are we better off? Remainers say, yes, for sure. Leavers, not so certain....
This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...
Cons Leavers are falling over themselves to say they want Dave to stay. Dave has only said two things about post-Leave: 1) I will invoke Article 50 very quickly; and 2) there will be an emergency budget.
Basically, people are happy to Leave if it does not cost them anything.
This may explain Osborne's latest move.
First the young pop star was shot, then that awful terrorist attack, and now a toddler taken by an alligator in front of his father in the DISNEY resort! Extraordinary.
What a terrible series of events for a city.
"Another broadside please, Captain BoJo. Grapeshot this time. Send the scurvy knaves down to Davy Jones' Locker."
"No need, Admiral, they seem to be scuttling their own ship. The rats are coming down the gangplank already."
So Labour REMAINERS could govern with the support of some rebel Conservative REMAINERS.
PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.
I'm not accusing all Leavers of being swivel eyed racists but to pretend immigration isn't the major factor behind a lot of pensioners votes in the South is disingenuous.
first a singer from The Voice is killed outside a night club
then the Pulse massacre
then a 2 year old is taken by an alligator paddling in a lake at Disney World.
Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.
Most other countries have a contributory element and/or are more generous up-front, with benefits tailing off rapidly over time (which means people don't feel stressed on first losing their job, but are incentivised to take the first opportunity that comes along). And no-where else in the world has an in-work system like ours.
Like it or not, we've created a monster that discourages Brits from working, and encourages people from overseas to come here.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhF0-MeRwg0
More seriously, I am glad they heeding the warnings of their late, former MP.
Also, more public support FOR a second indy referendum than AGAINST one.
As I say, chaos.
But I don't believe, and nor is it my experience that, more than 50% of the electorate are.
Scottish EU referendum poll:
Remain: 53% (-13)
Leave: 32% (+3)
(via Ipsos Mori)
Chgs. from April.
The poll doesn't say that. Look at the article rather than jumping in the posts of DanSmith
If we left, we may be able to do it within the EEA, and definitely be able to do it outside of the EEA.
Seemed a reasonable question to me but she declined several times to answer it.
Human beings have very high internal discount rates, hence many people's dubious life decisions. Focusing on 2040 will not move a single vote either way, and if we try it, we'll lose this election.
"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"
Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a hanging chads scenario where a broken down van carrying a ballot box or an egregious instance of cheating make all the difference isn't.
Voting LEAVE starts a process confirmed by the invoking of Article 50 by which Britain will instigate negotiations to leave the European Union. It's a right every state has and I imagine has always had.
Let's talk turmoil and uncertainty - there's plenty of that about all the time. The FTSE fell 12% between December 30th 2015 and February 11th 2016 but the world didn't end and indeed many cheered the slump in world oil prices (apart from those having a daily jibe at the SNP) that was the primary cause.
Whether inside the EU or outside, global financial markets react (or generally over-react) to events. The result of the Spanish election and indeed the upcoming elections in the US and Germany will all cause turmoil and uncertainty let alone other events or a cold winter or a mild winter.
Yes, political uncertainty doesn't help but if memory serves, the stock market surged on the Monday after the 2010 GE not because of the impending Coalition but because of a Greek bailout. We perhaps over-emphasise our importance on the global stage.
On Friday June 24th, the air will be full not of recrimination and fear but reconciliation and hope. Whichever side wins knows it has to a) restore confidence in Government and b) mend fences within parties and throughout Government. That won't be easy and doubtless some of the rancour of the campaign will live on but the winners will be conciliatory (though not on here I suspect) as well as the losers.
In and of itself, the very fact of a result will end uncertainty - we will all know where we stand or what we're standing in depending on your perspective. Reassurance will be everything - whichever side wins will, if they have any sense, be offering that by the bucket load.
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.
Mr. Llama, quite. As I said a loooong time ago now, Cameron's claiming he's offering us a choice of ham or razorblade sandwiches. And that he said a few months ago he'd happily eat the razorblades. But now he's realised they're terribly dangerous.
He's definitely lying, the question is only whether it's then or now.
53 / 85 = 62% "Remain"; 38% "Leave"
But I don't agree with your analysis that that is what is being voted on. I'm voting remain in the EU- I am not voting for a European Superstate.
But during the last parliament a pollster had a weekly tracking poll. One of the questions they asked was
'If you met PM today what one topic would you raise with him'
At the height of the phone hacking scandal, less than 2% raised the issue of phone hacking
I'm seeing Emmanuel Macron in an hour. Any questions from PBers for France's economy minister?
(I cannot guarantee to ask any of them)