SeanT said:

These reports of high potential turnout and massive registration numbers chime with my sense. People are engaging with this, in a way they normally don't, even at a GE

I reckon we could see turnout over 70%. Maybe well over.

We presume that favours REMAIN but does it? How many are usually-apathetic WWCs voting LEAVE to kick the Tories AND stop immigration?

For a left wing WWC voter, a LEAVE vote is a no brainer

Personally, I don't see turnout exceeding 70%, which would be well in excess of GE levels, after all in the main the referendum lacks a proper tribal element. As mentioned a few days ago I backed turnout to be between 60% - 70% at odds of 10/11 which I'm very comfortable with.
However if you remain so minded, there are some decent odds to be had with Betfair on a high turnout , where currently 70% - 75% is available at 5.5 and 75% - 80% can be had at 12.0. You can possibly do even slightly better if you ask and are prepared to be patient.

@TonyE

Actually, the ECJ rarely opines on anything to do with trade standards at all. Most product standards are now moving upstream to the global bodies. As more and more of this occurs (under the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement), then it becomes more pronounced. The EU simply rubber stamps a lot of it, from Basel to Codex, and puts it into law. A lot they don't even codify themselves, there is just an ISO reference to be followed, such as in many grocery items such as quality standards for bananas (an old favourite).

Also, the procedure for adopting such rules (where they are written at EU level or adapted) includes an EFTA stage before any EU legislative process begins - so they thrash it out first, therefore reducing the opportunity for conflict at an EEA treaty level, and causing a crisis which requires part of the deal to be suspended.

Yes, it includes an EFTA stage, early in the process. There is consultation. Hence Norway's concern to get involved as early as possible because they have felt their influence is waning on the formulation of EU laws.

But do you really think that in the latter, and crucially, voting stages, the concerns of EFTA members are given much weight at all?

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

PlatoSaid said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

These reports of high potential turnout and massive registration numbers chime with my sense. People are engaging with this, in a way they normally don't, even at a GE

I reckon we could see turnout over 70%. Maybe well over.

We presume that favours REMAIN but does it? How many are usually-apathetic WWCs voting LEAVE to kick the Tories AND stop immigration?

For a left wing WWC voter, a LEAVE vote is a no brainer

Yes, a lady in my office registered to vote last week for the referendum, she did not vote at the general election

1.6m have registered in last 30 days.

Yes which suggests turnout over 70% which would be higher than any UK wide election since 1997

How does registration now compare to the 46.4m registered at the GE 2015?

It seems to be up, Opinium at the weekend had 72% certain to vote in the referendum 67% at the next general election

Bear in mind that opinion polls *always* overstate intention to vote. The Scottish referendum had more than 80% '10/10 certain to vote and if you added up the other likelihood figures proportionately, turnout would have been above 90%.

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

These reports of high potential turnout and massive registration numbers chime with my sense. People are engaging with this, in a way they normally don't, even at a GE

I reckon we could see turnout over 70%. Maybe well over.

We presume that favours REMAIN but does it? How many are usually-apathetic WWCs voting LEAVE to kick the Tories AND stop immigration?

For a left wing WWC voter, a LEAVE vote is a no brainer

Personally, I don't see turnout exceeding 70%, which would be well in excess of GE levels, after all in the main the referendum lacks a proper tribal element. As mentioned a few days ago I backed turnout to be between 60% - 70% at odds of 10/11 which I'm very comfortable with.
However if you remain so minded, there are some decent odds to be had with Betfair on a high turnout , where currently 70% - 75% is available at 5.5 and 75% - 80% can be had at 12.0. You can possibly do even slightly better if you ask and are prepared to be patient.

It's worth pointing out the following tweets from Philip Cowley:

https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/739714306497974272
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/739718651033571328

Mr. Divvie, you might like the Vietnam special (they had bikes for that one).

notme said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Just trying to imagine the scenes in Downing Street this morning, and over at BSE HQ.

Well the fact that these kinds of ideas are leaking out must mean it is utter panic at the moment. I got a call from CCO about 30 minutes ago, I'm not sure why. I'm already campaigning in Tooting.

You got a call from CCO? Why? The party is forbidden from campaigning.

I'm not sure why, I missed the call. Normally they just email about Tooting.

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Just saw Cameron on the news humiliating himself with the Greens, Lib-Dems, etc...

Now truly it is 'Vote Blue Go Green! '

In just over two weeks David Cameron might have to resign as Prime Minister... Two weeks!!!!

It will be the defining vote of his leadership certainly

How humiliating for him this morning to stand on that platform and hear other Leaders (and Harriet Harman) take pot shots at the party of which he has led for over 10 years. He only has himself to blame and I just feel incredibly sad. It doesn't matter who wins, this has done immense damage and will fester for years.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

I ...not your problem..

The EU would have no choice but to accede. As I said we are already independent signatories to the EEA agreement and the only issue would be whether or not we would be accepted into EFTA. That decision would rest entirely with EFTA not with the EU.

Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.

But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.

This bit I am not 100% sure about, because it has not been tested. There are two conditions under which one might be a signatory to the EEA - either as a member of the EU or as a member of EFTA. I long argued as you now do, that as the conditions under which the treaty is operated do not change, so therefore there would be no issue with simply moving across, as the material circumstances of the treaty will not have changed.

However, the one problem is that there is no mechanism in the treaty itself to create alterations to it. Therefore, other options appear to do so - Under Vienna style continuity we would simply need unanimous support. This is unlikely to occur.

So therefore it must come under the auspices of the Art 50 Negotiation team, and QMV. But this is not entirely straightforward either, because the treaty must be altered by protocol, and that's probably Art 218. So it has then to be pushed through under the normal procedure (as an administrative change) rather than as a trade deal issue, so that the normal votin gprocedure in council can be used (i.e QMV).

The big bit here is that if the political will exists, then the whole thing runs like clockwork, and that's where the weight of Germany in the council is brought to bear.

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.

So UKIP picks up maybe 40 seats. Who are the conservatives going to use to get their platform through parliament, the Kippers or Corbyn. If the Kippers you know what the price will be, if Corbyn they will need dental records to identify what is left of the party.

UKIP still going after Brexit?

Wrong type of Brexit, I suppose. But it would be difficult for them at that point to say: "actually it *was* all about immigration".

notme said:

MaxPB said:

notme said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Bromptonaut said:

Leavers want Parliament to be sovereign.

Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.

no contradiction at all, no siree.

A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.

The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.

The electorate might be another matter of course.

Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.

The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..

And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.

So we are back where we started.

No because we will be outside of the EU.

Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.

That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.

If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.

I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.

That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.

Really? I didnt know that. How does an EFTA country not in the EU enforce single market breaches?

Via the EFTA court.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need PBers to vote Remain.

My holiday is scheduled to America and Canada starting June 26th, my employers have said in the event of Brexit all holidays in June and July will be cancelled as we implement our post Brexit contingency plan.

Vote Remain, so I can go on holiday. I need it after editing PB.

All this full day pre-Brexit planning, followed by cancellation of staff summer holidays .... it all sounds a little extreme. I thought you worked for a firm of northern provincial solicitors. Excuse my ignorance, but if this is the case, it's difficult to think of a profession which is less affected by the referendum outcome.
Perhaps the partners simply fancy sexing things up somewhat by moving to gay Paris?

TonyE said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

I ...not your problem..

The EU would have no choice but to accede. As I said we are already independent signatories to the EEA agreement and the only issue would be whether or not we would be accepted into EFTA. That decision would rest entirely with EFTA not with the EU.

Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.

But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.

This bit I am not 100% sure about, because it has not been tested. There are two conditions under which one might be a signatory to the EEA - either as a member of the EU or as a member of EFTA. I long argued as you now do, that as the conditions under which the treaty is operated do not change, so therefore there would be no issue with simply moving across, as the material circumstances of the treaty will not have changed.

However, the one problem is that there is no mechanism in the treaty itself to create alterations to it. Therefore, other options appear to do so - Under Vienna style continuity we would simply need unanimous support. This is unlikely to occur.

So therefore it must come under the auspices of the Art 50 Negotiation team, and QMV. But this is not entirely straightforward either, because the treaty must be altered by protocol, and that's probably Art 218. So it has then to be pushed through under the normal procedure (as an administrative change) rather than as a trade deal issue, so that the normal votin gprocedure in council can be used (i.e QMV).

The big bit here is that if the political will exists, then the whole thing runs like clockwork, and that's where the weight of Germany in the council is brought to bear.

As mentioned for the umpteenth time, EU members think that it would be inappropriate, verging on ridiculous for an economy our side to line up in the same organisation as Norway, Liechtenstein, etc..

Paristonda said:

I think talk of 'manipulating' the result is toxic for remain

Only Leavers are talking of 'manipulating' the result

Once again they stand up a straw man to shoot down

notme said:

MaxPB said:

notme said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Bromptonaut said:

Leavers want Parliament to be sovereign.

Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.

no contradiction at all, no siree.

A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.

The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.

The electorate might be another matter of course.

Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.

The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..

And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.

So we are back where we started.

No because we will be outside of the EU.

Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.

That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.

If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.

I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.

That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.

Really? I didnt know that. How does an EFTA country not in the EU enforce single market breaches?

Via the EFTA court.

MarqueeMark said:

Any MP tempted to be a bit cute and over-ride a Referendum result for Brexit

No MP is suggesting that

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.

So UKIP picks up maybe 40 seats. Who are the conservatives going to use to get their platform through parliament, the Kippers or Corbyn. If the Kippers you know what the price will be, if Corbyn they will need dental records to identify what is left of the party.

UKIP still going after Brexit?

Wrong type of Brexit, I suppose. But it would be difficult for them at that point to say: "actually it *was* all about immigration".

You can say it all you want, you will still need their votes to pass your legislative platform. You are forgetting that immigration is the number 1 issue for voters, and has been for months, also that 3/4 of voters want immigration reduced, 1/2 by a lot, I am not sure Farage would be that heartbroken if the Tories tried to campaign against him on that basis.

Exactly, but where does that leave the PB EEA solution? You are right - immigration is the number one issue for voters but PB Leavers have decided that their views can be subordinated to the greater interests of the country.

Hence the continued Single Market, continued Free Movement ain't gonna happen.

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

TonyE said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

I ...not your problem..

The EU would have no choice but to accede. As I said we are already independent signatories to the EEA agreement and the only issue would be whether or not we would be accepted into EFTA. That decision would rest entirely with EFTA not with the EU.

Much as I am pleased the VLTC crowd are apparently winning the argument over Brexit, one the dust settles it is not they who will have the final say over our new relationship. It is Parliament. It will then come down to the age old question of how they see their relationship with the electorate. In an ideal world (although one that would give a sub-optimal result for me) they would see the views of the electorate and vote accordingly. In fact I suspect they not do this and will vote for some sort of associate membership in which case they will have to face the consequences.

But as has already been pointed out, the great thing is that we will be able to vote them out in 3 or 4 years at the most if we do not like their decisions.

This bit I am not 100% sure about, because it has not been tested. There are two conditions under which one might be a signatory to the EEA - either as a member of the EU or as a member of EFTA. I long argued as you now do, that as the conditions under which the treaty is operated do not change, so therefore there would be no issue with simply moving across, as the material circumstances of the treaty will not have changed.

However, the one problem is that there is no mechanism in the treaty itself to create alterations to it. Therefore, other options appear to do so - Under Vienna style continuity we would simply need unanimous support. This is unlikely to occur.

So therefore it must come under the auspices of the Art 50 Negotiation team, and QMV. But this is not entirely straightforward either, because the treaty must be altered by protocol, and that's probably Art 218. So it has then to be pushed through under the normal procedure (as an administrative change) rather than as a trade deal issue, so that the normal votin gprocedure in council can be used (i.e QMV).

The big bit here is that if the political will exists, then the whole thing runs like clockwork, and that's where the weight of Germany in the council is brought to bear.

As mentioned for the umpteenth time, EU members think that it would be inappropriate, verging on ridiculous for an economy our side to line up in the same organisation as Norway, Liechtenstein, etc..

They can think it all they want, they can't actually do anything about it.

For the reasons that @TonyE mentioned above, it seems they can.

TOPPING said:

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.

So UKIP picks up maybe 40 seats. Who are the conservatives going to use to get their platform through parliament, the Kippers or Corbyn. If the Kippers you know what the price will be, if Corbyn they will need dental records to identify what is left of the party.

UKIP still going after Brexit?

Wrong type of Brexit, I suppose. But it would be difficult for them at that point to say: "actually it *was* all about immigration".

The Leave Tories have played this quite brilliantly. UKIP won't be able to lay a glove on Boris after this. They could go after Cameron because he fitted in with the general mood of disgruntlement, but if they try the same with Boris they'll just look petty and knee-jerk anti-Tory. Boris will own British euro-scepticism after Brexit, and Farage and Carwell will be squished irrelevancies.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

@TonyE

Actually, the ECJ rarely opines on anything to do with trade standards at all. Most product standards are now moving upstream to the global bodies. As more and more of this occurs (under the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement), then it becomes more pronounced. The EU simply rubber stamps a lot of it, from Basel to Codex, and puts it into law. A lot they don't even codify themselves, there is just an ISO reference to be followed, such as in many grocery items such as quality standards for bananas (an old favourite).

Also, the procedure for adopting such rules (where they are written at EU level or adapted) includes an EFTA stage before any EU legislative process begins - so they thrash it out first, therefore reducing the opportunity for conflict at an EEA treaty level, and causing a crisis which requires part of the deal to be suspended.

Yes, it includes an EFTA stage, early in the process. There is consultation. Hence Norway's concern to get involved as early as possible because they have felt their influence is waning on the formulation of EU laws.

But do you really think that in the latter, and crucially, voting stages, the concerns of EFTA members are given much weight at all?

They are given weight to the extent that the EU does not want to unnecessarily upset their EFTA partners and that, in the end, if the EFTA partners really don't like a regulation that has been pushed through against their will they can veto it. Norway has refused to enact directives on both Postal Services and Railways. They have not yet got to the stage where they have vetoed but have refused to ratify and have said they will veto if they are forced into a corner.

Yes of course. But suppose MiFID III says all european share trading must be conducted while wearing a PSG supporters' t-shirt. We could veto that if we wanted to but would then be unable to trade european shares.

williamglenn said:

So the EFTA court is superior to the ECJ?

In some ways it is, the ECJ must use citations from the EFTA court if a similar case has already gone through there whole the EFTA court is not bound by ECJ rulings, at least in principle. In practice there isnt a lot of disagreement. Only that the EFTA court is limited to trade disputes and enforcement of single market rules (essentially the ECJ pre Maastricht) while the ECJ will rule on anything and everything it wants to.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

notme said:

MaxPB said:

notme said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Bromptonaut said:

Leavers want Parliament to be sovereign.

Leavers explode when Parliamentarians indicate they may exercise sovereignty over matter not covered by referendum.

no contradiction at all, no siree.

A posting which ignores all the Leavers saying it is up to Parliament to decide and to accept the consequences if the public don't like their decision.

The Remainders are trying to push this line of 'oh the horror' whilst most of the Leavers on here are saying what they have always said which is as long as we Leave Parliament can decide our relationship afterwards.

The electorate might be another matter of course.

Let's suppose that a post-Leave Parliament negotiates single market plus free movement. Parliament has decided. Free movement of people in a new relationship with the EU. Call it Associate Membership.

The public throws up its hands in horror...but...but...what about immigration? You lied. Right that's it..

And at the next GE? Whose manifesto do you think will include an end to immigration, the single market and the Associate Membership? Only UKIP.

So we are back where we started.

No because we will be outside of the EU.

Invoking Article 50 is a given. Once that has happened the UK will be leaving the EU. We may well decide to stay in the EEA which has the practical result of being in the single market and having freedom of movement but we will be out of the EU and no longer subject to the vast majority of legislation they impose.

That will hive off a large number of Brexiters who will now be happy with the situation. Assuming that the Leave vote was close there will be a clear majority for the new arrangement.

If we wish to freely trade within the single market as been part of the EEA, we will have to comply with all the judgments of the ECJ to do with minimum standards.

I would find it extraordinary for us to leave the EU but not enter into either a series of bilateral agreements for access to the single market like Switzerland does, or join the EEA and be bound by all the requirements we currently have in regards to single market.

That's not true, EEA nations are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court not the ECJ.

Really? I didnt know that. How does an EFTA country not in the EU enforce single market breaches?

Via the EFTA court.

So the EFTA court is superior to the ECJ?

If you look at the EFTA website, it shows the twin pillar structure

Stark_Dawning said:

TOPPING said:

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

There will then be no political party which gives them the option which reflects their anti-immigration views. So to say "we can vote them out" is misleading. Both Lab and Cons will be pro-the deal, while only UKIP will be agin'.

So UKIP picks up maybe 40 seats. Who are the conservatives going to use to get their platform through parliament, the Kippers or Corbyn. If the Kippers you know what the price will be, if Corbyn they will need dental records to identify what is left of the party.

UKIP still going after Brexit?

Wrong type of Brexit, I suppose. But it would be difficult for them at that point to say: "actually it *was* all about immigration".

The Leave Tories have played this quite brilliantly. UKIP won't be able to lay a glove on Boris after this. They could go after Cameron because he fitted in with the general mood of disgruntlement, but if they try the same with Boris they'll just look petty and knee-jerk anti-Tory. Boris will own British euro-scepticism after Brexit, and Farage and Carwell will be squished irrelevancies.

I suspect Carswell is much closer to Boris in his views than he is to Farage.

Another election. What about the 5 year rule. Surely Labour and the SNP with some others can form a minority government and govern, happened in Canada for year and Scotland of course. Just needs an agreed programe.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need PBers to vote Remain.

My holiday is scheduled to America and Canada starting June 26th, my employers have said in the event of Brexit all holidays in June and July will be cancelled as we implement our post Brexit contingency plan.

Vote Remain, so I can go on holiday. I need it after editing PB.

All this full day pre-Brexit planning, followed by cancellation of staff summer holidays .... it all sounds a little extreme. I thought you worked for a firm of northern provincial solicitors. Excuse my ignorance, but if this is the case, it's difficult to think of a profession which is less affected by the referendum outcome.
Perhaps the partners simply fancy sexing things up somewhat by moving to gay Paris?

I stop working for them back in August 2011.

I'm Head of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs in the financial services industry these days.

Brexit is going to bugger us senseless.

I will volunteer to club in £10 so you can go and get yerself something nice.

It's just not us that'll be affected. Think of the owner of Manchester's Maserati dealership. He'll be screwed too.

Possibly in 4-5 years time, maybe longer. Perhaps he should consider switching to Sunderland built Nissans or Derby built Toyotas.

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

If there are any Gooners on here, what the hell is going on with Vardy and Mahrez? It seems to have just come out if nowhere and if Arsenal sign Vardy we may as well hand over the bloody trophy.

We're still looking for a fox, and now we might get an actual fox (not an actual one, obvs).

I think Vardy is a bit nasty for Arsenal, which is why the deal will fall through and we'll continue to win nothing, albeit playing beautifully when we can be bothered.

A Gooner mate of mine says Vardy is just using Arsenal interest to get a mega deal at Leicester singed before the start of next season.

And I can well believe that.

He is severely underpaid by any free market metric.

He will feel at home at Arsenal then who as a matter of principle are happy to lose their best players either for the sake of an extra £5k/week, or because they are six months too old.

theakes said:

Another election. What about the 5 year rule. Surely Labour and the SNP with some others can form a minority government and govern, happened in Canada for year and Scotland of course. Just needs an agreed programe.

This is the "UKIP 40 seats scenario" the Brexiteers keep missing.

If parliament votes to EFTA/EEA, and there is an election where Kippers make gains, there is still likely to be a majority in the commons for economy over xenophobia. Does not necessarily include Kippers or Tories standing on a Kipper lite ticket

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need PBers to vote Remain.

My holiday is scheduled to America and Canada starting June 26th, my employers have said in the event of Brexit all holidays in June and July will be cancelled as we implement our post Brexit contingency plan.

Vote Remain, so I can go on holiday. I need it after editing PB.

All this full day pre-Brexit planning, followed by cancellation of staff summer holidays .... it all sounds a little extreme. I thought you worked for a firm of northern provincial solicitors. Excuse my ignorance, but if this is the case, it's difficult to think of a profession which is less affected by the referendum outcome.
Perhaps the partners simply fancy sexing things up somewhat by moving to gay Paris?

I stop working for them back in August 2011.

I'm Head of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs in the financial services industry these days.

Brexit is going to bugger us senseless.

I will volunteer to club in £10 so you can go and get yerself something nice.

It's just not us that'll be affected. Think of the owner of Manchester's Maserati dealership. He'll be screwed too.

My heart goes out to him.

Indigo said:

In which case you dont have a viable government. Shame.

No less viable than the existing situation where Brexiteers are already threatening to crash it whatever happens

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

If there are any Gooners on here, what the hell is going on with Vardy and Mahrez? It seems to have just come out if nowhere and if Arsenal sign Vardy we may as well hand over the bloody trophy.

We're still looking for a fox, and now we might get an actual fox (not an actual one, obvs).

I think Vardy is a bit nasty for Arsenal, which is why the deal will fall through and we'll continue to win nothing, albeit playing beautifully when we can be bothered.

A Gooner mate of mine says Vardy is just using Arsenal interest to get a mega deal at Leicester singed before the start of next season.

Arsenal sign a striker who scores bucket loads of goals...nah, got to be a load of rubbish...Arsene only buys midfielders....lots of them...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need PBers to vote Remain.

My holiday is scheduled to America and Canada starting June 26th, my employers have said in the event of Brexit all holidays in June and July will be cancelled as we implement our post Brexit contingency plan.

Vote Remain, so I can go on holiday. I need it after editing PB.

All this full day pre-Brexit planning, followed by cancellation of staff summer holidays .... it all sounds a little extreme. I thought you worked for a firm of northern provincial solicitors. Excuse my ignorance, but if this is the case, it's difficult to think of a profession which is less affected by the referendum outcome.
Perhaps the partners simply fancy sexing things up somewhat by moving to gay Paris?

I stop working for them back in August 2011.

I'm Head of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs in the financial services industry these days.

Brexit is going to bugger us senseless.

I will volunteer to club in £10 so you can go and get yerself something nice.

It's just not us that'll be affected. Think of the owner of Manchester's Maserati dealership. He'll be screwed too.

My heart goes out to him.

It's not patriotic to make poor your fellow countrymen for ideology.

Talk to the Europhiles then. That is something they have been doing for a very long time

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need PBers to vote Remain.

My holiday is scheduled to America and Canada starting June 26th, my employers have said in the event of Brexit all holidays in June and July will be cancelled as we implement our post Brexit contingency plan.

Vote Remain, so I can go on holiday. I need it after editing PB.

All this full day pre-Brexit planning, followed by cancellation of staff summer holidays .... it all sounds a little extreme. I thought you worked for a firm of northern provincial solicitors. Excuse my ignorance, but if this is the case, it's difficult to think of a profession which is less affected by the referendum outcome.
Perhaps the partners simply fancy sexing things up somewhat by moving to gay Paris?

I stop working for them back in August 2011.

I'm Head of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs in the financial services industry these days.

Brexit is going to bugger us senseless.

I will volunteer to club in £10 so you can go and get yerself something nice.

It's just not us that'll be affected. Think of the owner of Manchester's Maserati dealership. He'll be screwed too.

My heart goes out to him.

It's not patriotic to make poor your fellow countrymen for ideology.

I'm not being ideological, I'm being practical; our political and economic future does not lie in the EU. Nor do I believe our future economic prosperity is contingent upon our continued membership. In fact, quite the opposite.

You Remainers need to come up with something better than that.

''The other thing to look at about the EFTA solution is the likelihood of drawing other countries out with us, Sweden and Denmark are the other two non-EMU nations that may decide to follow us into EFTA if we left the EU. ''

The UK heading up an association of independent recalcitrants on the Atlantic rim.

I'm sure that's JUST what the EU wants.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Am I the only one who thinks Vardy is unsuited to the way Arsenal play ?

You mean does he have the patience to wait for the preceding 253 passes before Mezut slots it to him 2yds from goal to tap in? Perhaps not.

taffys said:

''The other thing to look at about the EFTA solution is the likelihood of drawing other countries out with us, Sweden and Denmark are the other two non-EMU nations that may decide to follow us into EFTA if we left the EU. ''

The UK heading up an association of independent recalcitrants on the Atlantic rim.

I'm sure that's JUST what the EU wants.

It might not like it, but as in all crises there is also opportunity. In this case it would be to see the non EZ states depart, and allow the EZ to press to fiscal union.

SeanT said:

PlatoSaid said:

Kevin Alcock
Trust on the EU - David Cameron - Trust 17% Do not trust 71%. That is a big issue for remain.

That's worse than than last time IIRC

There must come a point at which Dave's ratings are SO bad he becomes an outright hindrance to the campaign - ie. when he shows up on TV, asking you to vote REMAIN, people then want to vote LEAVE

This is not going to plan.

I thought Remain had two definitive advantages: (1) Cameron and (2) The Economy

They have blown the first. They still have a lead on the second but it's not looking decisive at the moment.

Remain were supposed to win by 20%+

Still might, of course, but it's looking less likely every day.

What's beginning to worry me is that at the last Conservative event I was at there was a marked uptick in the number of people willing to vote for Boris in the final two of a leadership election, even vs Cameron. Dave is damaging himself, irrevocably IMO.

SouthamObserver said:

Yep, but Remainers can't. Remainers are Remainers because they are convinced that leaving the EU would be a lot worse for more people in the UK than staying inside it would be. The argument, though, has been lost. Very soon the process of leaving the EU will begin and we will start to find out whether we really are on the verge of a new golden age, or whether a lot of ordinary people are going to pay the price of Leave establishment fibs and exaggerations.

Be fair, Mr Observer. I respect you enormously for your honesty about you own side's failings (both re Labour and Remain). I also respect that you hold a view opposing mine out of deep personal conviction and just as good intentions as my own.

Some of us genuinely believe that Brexit is a better option in the medium-to-long-term, even if there will be a period of uncertainty and perhaps dislocation. This does not require us to lie or exaggerate in the slightest - it is as honestly held a belief as yours that leaving will harm too many. We just differ in our inputs and outputs.

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

Paristonda said:

I think talk of 'manipulating' the result is toxic for remain

Only Leavers are talking of 'manipulating' the result

Once again they stand up a straw man to shoot down

It's working though, isn't it?

Heh.

And it's shit like this that is going to leave the Tory Party torn asunder (probably forever). I don't see how on earth the Tory family can come together after this. And it will all be Cameron's fault, failing to have any backbone with either his party, the electorate or the EU - and treating the whole thing in his essay crisis way and hoping he'll wing it. He still might, but he has to bear the liability for giving his MPs the green light to rip each other to shreds.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

It isn't. Oil and Gas does account for 51% of their exports but that is hardly a single-product economy.

There's also rakfisk.

I was surprised to see that machinery and transport equipment account for 23% of their exports. Norway never struck me before as a heavy industry manufacturer. Daft really. It should be given it has free electricity and access to good reserves of iron ore and mineral wealth.

Edit to add the link

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/exports

oil services? floating platforms?