The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
Correct and that is what this referendum is about. The ability to change, to be in control, to change our laws if Parliament wants to.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
Actually the beans cost £2.60 and you get a promissory note worth £0.60 off your next shop. Though I do agree that the £350m figure is bullshit, I think the £280m contribution post rebate is fair and the £200m net contribution is also fair.
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
Leavers remind me of my favourite joke:
A man arrived at his friend's house looking shaken. What's the matter, asked the friend. It was awful I came on the train and had to sit facing backwards the whole way. That always makes me sick. Why didn't you ask the person sitting opposite to you to swap, I'm sure they would have understood, said the friend. That was the worst bit, said the man, there was no one sitting opposite me.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing again in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
Yep. It has been a great success for the Leave campaign.
For democracy, the people of the UK, their expectations and their futures..not so much.
A bit like the EU has been for working class wages and aspirations this past decade. An unmitigated clusterfuck.
There will be winners and losers from Brexit, just as there are winners and losers from EU membership.
I agree. And I was being slightly provocative because Topping likes to be so himself.
But I think - on balance - it's fair to say that the lower earners have done worse out of the EU this past decade than higher earners. Not just financially, but in terms of access to public services, housing etc.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
First, parliament has never said they want to change a tax rate but the EU said we couldn't. Gordon Brown said he wanted to lower it as much as possible, and all of a sudden Leave have taken it upon themselves to commit to zero rating VAT on home energy supplies.
But no parliament has wanted to lower VAT only to have it disallowed by the EU.
Because Parliament generally doesn't vote in a way it knows to be illegal. So what? Doesn't mean it wouldn't if it weren't.
What the £350m figure does demonstrate, like the rise of Trump, is the era of post truth politics is upon us
Populism is all that matters. Governing will be someone else's problem
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
Can you honestly see the thousands of working class folk round where I live being £4300 a year worse off? Most of the poor feckers don't have that much disposable income a year.
I heard Hilary Benn last night on QT re Brexit economics. If you believed that 'we cannot leave' because of one reason or another (usually because the EU will try to damage us if we do), then the EU is cast not as a friend, but as a jailer.
You cannot leave, it therefore becomes a prison. Is that the image of the EU that the remain camp really wishes to project?
Who cares about paypackets/payslips/baked beans - the point is the public have got the figure of £350m per week in their head, give or take.
If it is attacked by Remain, the figure will be explained more by Leave and so will resonate even further.
The public will likely think .. oh right - I can see where you are coming from now on gross versus net - but shit £10 billion per year?
That money could be spent better on providing care for Doreen down the road who has a gammy knee and who can't get out and about like she used to and has now had her care allowance cut. Why are we sending £10 billion a year or £350 million per week to the EU? It's a joke etc etc.
Manic Eddie Izzard following on from the three angry, shouty representatives on the ITV referendum show. Bad night for Remain.
Is it worth enduring for the Izzard entertainment? Twitter was extremely funny.
Izzard looked shocked when a member of the audience shouted SHUT UP! at him when he kept talking over all the other speakers. He was like a spoilt child.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
First, parliament has never said they want to change a tax rate but the EU said we couldn't. Gordon Brown said he wanted to lower it as much as possible, and all of a sudden Leave have taken it upon themselves to commit to zero rating VAT on home energy supplies.
But no parliament has wanted to lower VAT only to have it disallowed by the EU.
Because Parliament generally doesn't vote in a way it knows to be illegal. So what? Doesn't mean it wouldn't if it weren't.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Complete garbage. Schäuble has absolutely no part to play in deciding whether or not we choose to stay in the EEA. It depends entirely on whether we move from the EU to EFTA. We would have two years to make that decision and there is not a thing that Germany can do about it as it would be entirely a decision for the existing EFTA members.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
That is not actually correct. The EEA agreement is between the countries of EFTA and the countries of the EU. Each of the countries signed as an individual signatory. The EU did not sign on their behalf. As such, as long as we are not in breach of the treaty terms which say signatories must be a member of either the EU or EFTA, we will remain a member of the EEA after we leave the EU as long as we join EFTA.
I've not expressed any change in my likely Leave vote since I first stated it. A substantial change would be needed to sway me. Rudd making vile innuendo about Boris or Blair popping up to impart his wisdom does not make me want to change my mind.
Mr. Eagles, still more popular than Top Gear
On a more serious note, a two hour political debate getting 3m viewers is not bad.
It's shite.
The seven way debate last year got 8 million, and the five way one got 4 million
Anyone who thinks we're getting a higher turnout than the general election is crazy.
Double edged sword for Remainers. They cling on to the fact that the ratings for the debate were a lot lower than the GE, but that does suggest a lower level of interest and possibly a lower turnout (which might be good for Remain, but who knows).
Low turnout means extremely low young people turnout which will hurt Remain.
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
Leavers remind me of my favourite joke:
A man arrived at his friend's house looking shaken. What's the matter, asked the friend. It was awful I came on the train and had to sit facing backwards the whole way. That always makes me sick. Why didn't you ask the person sitting opposite to you to swap, I'm sure they would have understood, said the friend. That was the worst bit, said the man, there was no one sitting opposite me.
You fail to understand your own logic. We are in the position of the man who feels sick, there is nobody opposite to stop us from changing which direction we face.
You are saying we shouldn't change seats because we don't need to as there is an opportunity to do so.
How does that make sense? Lets grasp the opportunity and change seats rather than sat where we are feeling queasy.
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
They are not of course comparable figures.
Remain have made an estimate for some years hence. Whether it is accurate or not is a topic for debate, but it's not provably false.
Leave's number is a concrete lie, and they know it, and don't care.
That is the point about post truth politics.
Normally you would expect different sides to make different estimates, debate the merits of models, forecasts, policies and comparisons.
Here a flat lie is presented as fact, and compounded with a series of additional promises predicated on the lie. No debate, no nuance. Flat lie, defended to the hilt.
Mr. Eagles, thanks for those comparison figures. Cameron was at the seven-way/8m debate, yes?
The valid comparison would seem to be the five-way. Still a drop, from 4m to 3m, though.
He was, the comparison can be made with the Farage/Cameron Q&A, with 4 million viewers.
Dave is box office, everybody else, not so much.
Those 3m who were prepared to sit through Angela Eagles? I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you....
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
They are not of course comparable figures.
Remain have made an estimate for some years hence. Whether it is accurate or not is a topic for debate, but it's not provably false.
Leave's number is a concrete lie, and they know it, and don't care.
That is the point about post truth politics.
Normally you would expect different sides to make different estimates, debate the merits of models, forecasts, policies and comparisons.
Here a flat lie is presented as fact, and compounded with a series of additional promises predicated on the lie. No debate, no nuance. Flat lie, defended to the hilt.
It is provably false as GDP is not a measure of family incomes, it includes government spending and business expenditure too. Family income is a fraction of GDP but they've dishonestly divided the (fake) change in GDP between the number of families and said that's a family change ... when it demonstrably isn't.
To get a family change would require taking the change in the family proportion of GDP which would be a considerably lower figure.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
As a City boy, I'm surprised you don't understand the difference between a discount and a rebate.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Complete garbage. Schäuble has absolutely no part to play in deciding whether or not we choose to stay in the EEA. It depends entirely on whether we move from the EU to EFTA. We would have two years to make that decision and there is not a thing that Germany can do about it as it would be entirely a decision for the existing EFTA members.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
That is not actually correct. The EEA agreement is between the countries of EFTA and the countries of the EU. Each of the countries signed as an individual signatory. The EU did not sign on their behalf. As such, as long as we are not in breach of the treaty terms which say signatories must be a member of either the EU or EFTA, we will remain a member of the EEA after we leave the EU as long as we join EFTA.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
Leavers remind me of my favourite joke:
A man arrived at his friend's house looking shaken. What's the matter, asked the friend. It was awful I came on the train and had to sit facing backwards the whole way. That always makes me sick. Why didn't you ask the person sitting opposite to you to swap, I'm sure they would have understood, said the friend. That was the worst bit, said the man, there was no one sitting opposite me.
You fail to understand your own logic. We are in the position of the man who feels sick, there is nobody opposite to stop us from changing which direction we face.
You are saying we shouldn't change seats because we don't need to as there is an opportunity to do so.
How does that make sense? Lets grasp the opportunity and change seats rather than sat where we are feeling queasy.
No. Leavers constantly say: "we're not allowed to do this, we're not allowed to do that".
And of course we are allowed to do anything we want. If we really had minded about the EU we would be out by now. But as it is, very recently, and it is a credit to UKIP that we have arrived here, enough people have wanted a say on the matter.
Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty (minus Fiscal Compact, of course), etc were all carried out by a democratically elected government. It was, in effect, what the people wanted.
That is my point. If enough people want something, they can have it under our current system, where parliament is sovereign.
If it's just that not enough people want the same thing as you, well then I have less sympathy.
I get a paypacket. It is my salary for which I get an email PDF of my payslip and my money arrives in my bank account later that week. I live in the 21st century and that is not against the definition of the word.
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
They are not of course comparable figures.
Remain have made an estimate for some years hence. Whether it is accurate or not is a topic for debate, but it's not provably false.
Leave's number is a concrete lie, and they know it, and don't care.
That is the point about post truth politics.
Normally you would expect different sides to make different estimates, debate the merits of models, forecasts, policies and comparisons.
Here a flat lie is presented as fact, and compounded with a series of additional promises predicated on the lie. No debate, no nuance. Flat lie, defended to the hilt.
Whether the £4,300 figure is true or not isn't the issue. The issue is that Remain have put it out in such a way as to be interpreted as £4,300 worse off relative to today.
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
That's no different to the situation where Parliament wants to do something, but other British law says they can't. They always have the option of changing the thing that prevents them from doing it if they really want to, in this case by leaving the EU. Parliament is sovereign.
Leavers remind me of my favourite joke:
A man arrived at his friend's house looking shaken. What's the matter, asked the friend. It was awful I came on the train and had to sit facing backwards the whole way. That always makes me sick. Why didn't you ask the person sitting opposite to you to swap, I'm sure they would have understood, said the friend. That was the worst bit, said the man, there was no one sitting opposite me.
You fail to understand your own logic. We are in the position of the man who feels sick, there is nobody opposite to stop us from changing which direction we face.
You are saying we shouldn't change seats because we don't need to as there is an opportunity to do so.
How does that make sense? Lets grasp the opportunity and change seats rather than sat where we are feeling queasy.
No. Leavers constantly say: "we're not allowed to do this, we're not allowed to do that".
And of course we are allowed to do anything we want. If we really had minded about the EU we would be out by now. But as it is, very recently, and it is a credit to UKIP that we have arrived here, enough people have wanted a say on the matter.
Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty (minus Fiscal Compact, of course) were all carried out by a democratically elected government. It was, in effect, what the people wanted.
That is my point. If enough people want something, they can have it under our current system, where parliament is sovereign.
If it's just that not enough people want the same thing as you, well then I have less sympathy.
No we are not allowed to if we are in the EU.
We are now deciding if we want to continue not being allowed to do what we want, or if we want to exercise our right to leave and then be allowed to do what we want. If we remain we continue to not be allowed to do what we want, if we leave we can.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
As a City boy, I'm surprised you don't understand the difference between a discount and a rebate.
You see a policy at an Insurance company with a £50 cashback offer.
You pay £230.00 at point of sale and got £50 back 3 months later.
It turns out that the £50.00 cashback can only be spent how the insurance company want you to spend it.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Complete garbage. Schäuble has absolutely no part to play in deciding whether or not we choose to stay in the EEA. It depends entirely on whether we move from the EU to EFTA. We would have two years to make that decision and there is not a thing that Germany can do about it as it would be entirely a decision for the existing EFTA members.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
That is not actually correct. The EEA agreement is between the countries of EFTA and the countries of the EU. Each of the countries signed as an individual signatory. The EU did not sign on their behalf. As such, as long as we are not in breach of the treaty terms which say signatories must be a member of either the EU or EFTA, we will remain a member of the EEA after we leave the EU as long as we join EFTA.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
It may be that @rcs1000 is used to the google meeting approach. Standing only, short and to the point, no extended agenda and max 15 minutes...
Evidence that Priti Patel knows Leave is going to lose?
Top Brexiteer Priti Patel today broke ranks by saying it is unnecessary for David Cameron to go head-to-head in a live EU debate with rivals Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Despite fellow Leave campaigners trying to push the Prime Minister into facing them, employment minister Ms Patel said there were already enough TV debates. Her words come days after Mr Johnson and Mr Gove demanded a “face-to-face” TV clash with Mr Cameron, arguing it was what “the public deserve”.
In a further conciliatory move towards Downing Street, Ms Patel made clear she was not targeting Mr Cameron or George Osborne when claiming leading Remainers are too rich to care about the EU’s impact on the poor.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
The bit that says Parliament wants to do something (such change a tax rate) but the EU says we can't.
First, parliament has never said they want to change a tax rate but the EU said we couldn't. Gordon Brown said he wanted to lower it as much as possible, and all of a sudden Leave have taken it upon themselves to commit to zero rating VAT on home energy supplies.
But no parliament has wanted to lower VAT only to have it disallowed by the EU.
Wasn't there some fuss recently over VAT on certain ladies' products? On domestic fuel my memory is that Gordon Brown said he would like to zero rate it but could not and so lowered it as much as he was allowed to, which is a bit different. My memory could be at fault of course.
However, if Parliament wishes to Zero rate a product that is currently subject to a non-zero rate. It cannot because of EU rules.
But we quibble over small things. The fundamental point is that EU law, over which we have limited influence and which can be imposed on us by QMV not to mention judicial activism in the ECJ, is supreme. You are either comfortable with that or you are not.
Who cares about paypackets/payslips/baked beans - the point is the public have got the figure of £350m per week in their head, give or take.
If it is attacked by Remain, the figure will be explained more by Leave and so will resonate even further.
The public will likely think .. oh right - I can see where you are coming from now on gross versus net - but shit £10 billion per year?
That money could be spent better on providing care for Doreen down the road who has a gammy knee and who can't get out and about like she used to and has now had her care allowance cut. Why are we sending £10 billion a year or £350 million per week to the EU? It's a joke etc etc.
To go back to the payslip. Would you get rid of the deductions on your payslip (which go to others) if you got a similtaneous paycut, of unknown magnitude and for unknown duration?
BTW: I am yet to meet anyone working in the NHS who believes that being in the EU damages the NHS. There are Leavers, but for other reasons, mostly the same as the rest of the country.
Evidence that Priti Patel knows Leave is going to lose?
Top Brexiteer Priti Patel today broke ranks by saying it is unnecessary for David Cameron to go head-to-head in a live EU debate with rivals Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Despite fellow Leave campaigners trying to push the Prime Minister into facing them, employment minister Ms Patel said there were already enough TV debates. Her words come days after Mr Johnson and Mr Gove demanded a “face-to-face” TV clash with Mr Cameron, arguing it was what “the public deserve”.
In a further conciliatory move towards Downing Street, Ms Patel made clear she was not targeting Mr Cameron or George Osborne when claiming leading Remainers are too rich to care about the EU’s impact on the poor.
Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.
In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.
“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. “If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”
Complete garbage. Schäuble has absolutely no part to play in deciding whether or not we choose to stay in the EEA. It depends entirely on whether we move from the EU to EFTA. We would have two years to make that decision and there is not a thing that Germany can do about it as it would be entirely a decision for the existing EFTA members.
That's my understanding too. EFTA decides on membership and membership gives access to the EEA. I am fairly certain the EU won't negotiate anything seriously on a bilateral basis with the UK, and certainly not within two years of Article 50 being triggered. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that Leave means EEA with no change to immigration.
I have heard that Norway is uncomfortable with the thought of the UK dominating the EEA space, but I guess not uncomfortable enough to block membership
Having read the EFTA/EEA page, I'm a little less confident than I was.
It's worth reading in full. Specifically, the EEA agreement appears to be between the EU and Norway, Litchenstein and Iceland - not between the EU and EFTA. Therefore, I don't think there is anything automatic about joining the EEA were we to join EFTA.
That being said, it is in no-one's interests for things to be difficult, and therefore I suspect something that looked very like EFTA/EEA would be where we end up.
That is not actually correct. The EEA agreement is between the countries of EFTA and the countries of the EU. Each of the countries signed as an individual signatory. The EU did not sign on their behalf. As such, as long as we are not in breach of the treaty terms which say signatories must be a member of either the EU or EFTA, we will remain a member of the EEA after we leave the EU as long as we join EFTA.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
The £4,300 per year figure is much more of a lie than the £350m per week. Undoubtedly.
Remain are just angry and have fallen into a classic Leave trap of promoting Leave's figure for them which the public in turn are absorbing. There's a bit of reverse causality in there too because the Leave figure is believable, the Remain modelling estimate is complete horseshit and people can sniff that out from a mile away.
Does anybody have a list of what councils/areas are likely to declare first. Always feel these give a good betting opportunity as they tend to panic people. If it's going to be the likes of Basildon, Bassetlaw and Sunderland then feels like a good time to buy leave now and sell once these results are in.
Sunderland - needs leave to be 53-47 for it to be a thai on Chris Hanretty's model.
53%+ means Leave love you long time?
I worked out some figures based on the 2015 election and the forecast (based on opinion as to likelihood to vote) came out as a statistical tie. It depended on Labour voters being heavily for Remain though and from what has been reported, that seems less likely to be as heavy as previously expected.
Remain can win this in a simple statement. "Vote Remain or the price of your cigs and beer will go up a lot." - Panem et circences
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
That's their problem. That's democracy.
You don't think that such dishonesty erodes trust in democracy?
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
They are not of course comparable figures.
Remain have made an estimate for some years hence. Whether it is accurate or not is a topic for debate, but it's not provably false.
Leave's number is a concrete lie, and they know it, and don't care.
That is the point about post truth politics.
Normally you would expect different sides to make different estimates, debate the merits of models, forecasts, policies and comparisons.
Here a flat lie is presented as fact, and compounded with a series of additional promises predicated on the lie. No debate, no nuance. Flat lie, defended to the hilt.
Fair enough.
And like I said, I despised Gordon Brown for magicking-up figures for years. But even though the £4300 figure is more technically defensible, it isn't any more morally defensible because it just plays on people's fears without being necessarily true. A dirty, deniable political trick.
I was willing to vote Remain if, at the start, they'd proven to me what the positives were. The fact that Remain have almost entirely focused on fear has provoked me to vote Brexit out of spite.
I still think Remain will win, and I'll still support Cameron and the government. But I do think the EU is facing a very uncertain - if not disastrous - future, and the government may look stupider keeping us in it than they would've otherwise.
This meme that the EU is some maturing, improving club of grandeur and ever-perpetuating wealth must be a doozy to the Greeks.
Yes remember the small print: "Offer valid for delivery from 8/6/2016 until 28/6/2016"
If you're deciding on 23/6 where you'll be tied to for next few years then ignore the discounted offer that expires 28/6 and look at the real price. The bigger number.
What was also interesting about the debate last night, was that the Leavers all arrived together on the Battle Bus, whereas the Remainers arrived in separate cars. They probably didn't speak to each other beforehand and it showed.
Although not a Boris fan, I thought he was an excellent "wing-man." He was deferential to his team mates and let them shine and they grew in confidence. He still quite a poor speaker but he did well not to respond to the blatant sledging. Amber Rudd embarrassed herself. Angela Eagle was worse than dire and Nicola Sturgeon just grated.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
The £350m figure has been a brilliant success. It's quintessentially Brownian.
Gordon Brown was the best politician in the history of the universe ever at counting, double counting and triple counting. He knew that voters have short attention spans and repetition sticks. All the public ever knew with Brown (people like me bought it over and over too) was that Labour were investing, reinvesting and investing extra and new money in the NHS. When in reality, Brown was talking about the same money.
I don't think Vote Leave have dough-balled the truth anywhere near as much as Brown did in his prime, but it;s sure been effective, and my FB feed is full of easily-won-over people talking about getting our £350m a week back. Indeed, my mother-in-law was only last week saying how disgusted she was that we were sending that money to Brussels each week when we could be spending it on care homes. I didn't bother entering into a deep financial discussion to correct her. I just let her kick the cat.
It's been a great success. And the Remain camp know it.
That Brexit had a YouGov 21pt lead on the NHS isn't a coincidence.
It is a result of all the tabloid reports of people being disadvantaged - e.g. having to give birth on trolleys as there is a shortage of midwives due to increased number of births by immigrants. If I was a potential new father, I would not want my wife to go through that!
Anyone got the time at which the Eddie Izzard slap down occurred? I want to see it but don't want to sit through QT.
I haven't watched it but from the comments I gather it was at 4:23, 5:32, 5:49, 6:45, 7:23, 9:34, 12:34, 14:45, 16:34, 18:23, 19:32, 25:49, 26:45, 27:23, 29:34, 32:34, 34:45, 36:34 and 40:23.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
As a City boy, I'm surprised you don't understand the difference between a discount and a rebate.
You see a policy at an Insurance company with a £50 cashback offer.
You pay £230.00 at point of sale and got £50 back 3 months later.
It turns out that the £50.00 cashback can only be spent how the insurance company want you to spend it.
How much did the policy cost you?
£230 + acceptance other non-monetary conditions
The funamental difference is that a discount is a price reduction. A rebate is a decision by one contracting party not to take all of the money that it is owed.
That's why my wealth manager always rebates the fees it charges me, but never discounts them. It doesn't engage in price competition as a matter of principle
Who cares about paypackets/payslips/baked beans - the point is the public have got the figure of £350m per week in their head, give or take.
If it is attacked by Remain, the figure will be explained more by Leave and so will resonate even further.
The public will likely think .. oh right - I can see where you are coming from now on gross versus net - but shit £10 billion per year?
That money could be spent better on providing care for Doreen down the road who has a gammy knee and who can't get out and about like she used to and has now had her care allowance cut. Why are we sending £10 billion a year or £350 million per week to the EU? It's a joke etc etc.
To go back to the payslip. Would you get rid of the deductions on your payslip (which go to others) if you got a similtaneous paycut, of unknown magnitude and for unknown duration?
BTW: I am yet to meet anyone working in the NHS who believes that being in the EU damages the NHS. There are Leavers, but for other reasons, mostly the same as the rest of the country.
There's no guarantee of a pay cut and a longer term chance of a pay rise, plus you get a much bigger say on how management should proceed in the future without them fobbing you off with a "well the group level managers in Brussels are saying we can't do it" response.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
That's their problem. That's democracy.
You don't think that such dishonesty erodes trust in democracy?
No. That is the nature of democracy, if it erodes trust in those politicians you kick them out.
In other systems like dictatorships or set ups like the EU where you can't kick them out then that is far worse.
Anyone got the time at which the Eddie Izzard slap down occurred? I want to see it but don't want to sit through QT.
I haven't watched it but from the comments I gather it was at 4:23, 5:32, 5:49, 6:45, 7:23, 9:34, 12:34, 14:45, 16:34, 18:23, 19:32, 25:49, 26:45, 27:23, 29:34, 32:34, 34:45, 36:34 and 40:23.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
That's their problem. That's democracy.
You don't think that such dishonesty erodes trust in democracy?
No. That is the nature of democracy, if it erodes trust in those politicians you kick them out.
And who will the alternative be when it comes time to kick out the liars who said Brexit would bring an end to free movement? Corbyn, McDonald and Abbott. Don't be surprised when they win, and your dream of a free-trading, liberal, capitalist Britain turns into dust.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
Sounds easy, I'm in the Brexit working group, literally every day is like a nightmarish version of PB where we have a group of people spouting vapid bilge which we need to turn into gold for our managers.
The issue is moving the UK from one membership leg to the other (EU to EFTA). In the opposite direction (Austria) it proved not to be an issue - and in fact took about 6 years before they bothered to do it. In the opposite direction, we will still need to add a protocol amending the treaty. EFTA secretariat has said that this is a 'Political Issue' - but if an article 50 negotiation reaches an EEA conclusion, the actual passing of a protocol should be a formality.
And in the meantime, the Brexit negotiators who won a referendum on the basis of ending free movement will have to win a General Election on the basis of keeping free movement. Good luck with that.
That's their problem. That's democracy.
You don't think that such dishonesty erodes trust in democracy?
No. That is the nature of democracy, if it erodes trust in those politicians you kick them out.
And who will the alternative be when it comes time to kick out the liars who said Brexit would bring an end to free movement? Corbyn, McDonald and Abbott. Don't be surprised when they win, and your dream of a free-trading, liberal, capitalist Britain turns into dust.
If they win they will have a term of no longer than five years before I get another chance to kick them out.
Far better than if they take over in a non-democracy and can rule forever.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
Sounds easy, I'm in the Brexit working group, literally every day is like a nightmarish version of PB where we have a group of people spouting vapid bilge which we need to turn into gold for our managers.
Anyone got the time at which the Eddie Izzard slap down occurred? I want to see it but don't want to sit through QT.
I haven't watched it but from the comments I gather it was at 4:23, 5:32, 5:49, 6:45, 7:23, 9:34, 12:34, 14:45, 16:34, 18:23, 19:32, 25:49, 26:45, 27:23, 29:34, 32:34, 34:45, 36:34 and 40:23.
Remain's £4,300 is ridiculous. They made up a new metric - household GDP.
But actually not all GDP relates to households. So even if one believes their forecasts about GDP the translation to households was indefensible.
Absolutely. Osborne debased the Treasury with that figure.
Leave have played it well, they critiqued it a little at the time but allowed the public's bullshitometer to spot it. I've not heard much about £4,300 per year for a few weeks so I assume that strategy worked.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
I suggest that very few here will share your view that there the prospect of another UK referendum on EU membership any time soon if Remain win. If you are of that view, the question of whether the UK could lose some or all of our rebate should not be dismissed in reaching our decision now.
It's been 41 years since the last time we had a chance to decide. So we can't leave the EU any time we want. We can only decide on the EU's membership on the very rare occasions when They let us have a referendum.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
Sounds easy, I'm in the Brexit working group, literally every day is like a nightmarish version of PB where we have a group of people spouting vapid bilge which we need to turn into gold for our managers.
Sounds like an average day on PB :-)
Yesterday we had one person say that the EU would reintroduce visitor visas for tourists. It's real head in your hands stuff sometimes.
The £350 million figure is the truth, but not the whole truth.
The £4.300 figure is bullshit.
It could possibly, taking everything into consideration and maybe examining some of the potential events and possible scenarios that might take place be, or may not, an approximate forecast.
What the £350m figure does demonstrate, like the rise of Trump, is the era of post truth politics is upon us
Populism is all that matters. Governing will be someone else's problem
I know that Leave's £350m doesn't bear entire scrutiny.
But do you admit that Remain's £4300 is also a crock of shit?
Can you honestly see the thousands of working class folk round where I live being £4300 a year worse off? Most of the poor feckers don't have that much disposable income a year.
I heard Hilary Benn last night on QT re Brexit economics. If you believed that 'we cannot leave' because of one reason or another (usually because the EU will try to damage us if we do), then the EU is cast not as a friend, but as a jailer.
You cannot leave, it therefore becomes a prison. Is that the image of the EU that the remain camp really wishes to project?
The only thing we know from the campaign is that UK is split down the middle. On the one side, those who want to leave the EU. On the other, those who want to leave the EU but are afraid.
Guy ahead of me in the café buying lunch just casually mentioned he is a Leaver and one main reason is that The Jews want us to stay in.
What the fucking hell, what shit is this? It kind of put me in a daze, I didn't think I'd heard him right until he started talking about he Rothschild's and how they want only two currencies and eventually one. And the guy serving him was totally agreeing with him.
Evidence that Priti Patel knows Leave is going to lose?
Top Brexiteer Priti Patel today broke ranks by saying it is unnecessary for David Cameron to go head-to-head in a live EU debate with rivals Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Despite fellow Leave campaigners trying to push the Prime Minister into facing them, employment minister Ms Patel said there were already enough TV debates. Her words come days after Mr Johnson and Mr Gove demanded a “face-to-face” TV clash with Mr Cameron, arguing it was what “the public deserve”.
In a further conciliatory move towards Downing Street, Ms Patel made clear she was not targeting Mr Cameron or George Osborne when claiming leading Remainers are too rich to care about the EU’s impact on the poor.
The £350 million figure is the truth, but not the whole truth.
The £4.300 figure is bullshit.
Note how Vote Leave are not bothering to directly draw attention to the latter.
There's a reason for that.
Yes all the complaining from the in campaign has just drawn more attention to the figure. My sister was extolling the virtues of being able to spend £350m extra per week on tax cuts and the NHS a few days ago, I told her it would be more like £200m, she still thought it was a lot of money.
Just flicking through QT from last night...couple of interesting things.
Eddie Izzard tried to deploy but but but Obama says we should stay and there was a huge audience laugh at that suggestion, which he then had to finish with but but but but Trump.
He later tried to deploy the "Little Englander" and it totally incensed some members of the audience...I think it might be backfiring in the way Mrs Bucket and her white van man / England flag did.
Both of the above are examples of where the Metro elite don't understand the rest of Britain. Obama is not a massive cult hero to them and that calling people a Little Englander i.e. code for thick racist, doesn't go down well, as the vast majority of people in the UK aren't and are very tolerant in general.
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
Sounds easy, I'm in the Brexit working group, literally every day is like a nightmarish version of PB where we have a group of people spouting vapid bilge which we need to turn into gold for our managers.
Sounds like an average day on PB :-)
Yesterday we had one person say that the EU would reintroduce visitor visas for tourists. It's real head in your hands stuff sometimes.
Just out of interest, how many people on your working group are over 60, i.e.old enough to remember life before the UK joined the EEC? How many are old enough to remember the EEC come to that?
Guy ahead of me in the café buying lunch just casually mentioned he is a Leaver and one main reason is that The Jews want us to stay in.
What the fucking hell, what shit is this? It kind of put me in a daze, I didn't think I'd heard him right until he started talking about he Rothschild's and how they want only two currencies and eventually one. And the guy serving him was totally agreeing with him.
Bonkers. What reality is this?
Michael Howard is Jewish and backs Leave as does Nigel Lawson
That clip from the Victoria Derbyshire debate is like a Chris Morris parody. Real-life Nathan Barley stuff with the two hipsters from remain. 'A musician and a comedian' - oh god.
I'd like to see how that young man fares after his gap-20s are over and he has decided he wants to start a family but can't get much of a mortgage on a minimum wage job. I suppose when that happens there is always mummy and daddy for help with a deposit for a house and a connection for a cushy management job.
I doubt you'd get a better vignette of old left values of looking after the working poor versus the new left-progressives, I like diversity and hummus, than in that short clip.
Marvelous thanks for posting.
Great post btw. I think the clash between old left and new left is fascinating and growing, just like the clash between shire aristocratic Tories and modernisers inflamed during the noughties.
Politics is changing rapidly, and it's getting harder to find a comfy political fit with a traditional party these days.
Anyone else think that using the £350m a week figure is a strategic success for Leave?
By using the gross figure the Leave group are merely inviting the opposition into a trap whereby the message is simply reinforced further - that it is a lot of money to give away.
In the debate last night, Leave did a very good job of explaining the difference between net and gross but the bottom line I imagine for most people is that we are giving away too much money which we could spend on the NHS.
I'm pleased they stuck with it. The ONS says on its own website it's closer to £360m.
VoteLeave keep tweeting it. The analogy with a paypacket is spot on.
Question for you:
You go into Tescos and you see that a four-pack of baked beans are on offer and marked down from £2.60 to £2.00.
You buy them.
How much did the baked beans cost you?
£2.00. But what you would be unwise to do would be to enter into a long term commitment to buy baked beans from Tesco in the knowledge that Tesco were not committed to maintaining that offer beyond the next three weeks* , after which you would be tied in to buying in at £2.60.
The premise of the Remain campaign is that the UK rebate is guaranteed long term. It's not.
Then we can leave the EU.
Is the rebate in a treaty btw? I have no idea.
I may have missed something, but I thought this referendum was being billed by all sides as determining the UK's long term future in or out of the EU, rather than just to tide us over until the outcome of the 2019 negotiations on the new budget contributions.
You have missed something.
The UK's sovereignty.
We can leave the EU any time we want. We could hold a referendum on the matter every Thursday if we fancied.
Which bit of national sovereignty is proving to be difficult to understand?
I suggest that very few here will share your view that there the prospect of another UK referendum on EU membership any time soon if Remain win. If you are of that view, the question of whether the UK could lose some or all of our rebate should not be dismissed in reaching our decision now.
It's been 41 years since the last time we had a chance to decide. So we can't leave the EU any time we want. We can only decide on the EU's membership on the very rare occasions when They let us have a referendum.
If we vote in, we are in. If we vote out, we are out.
The UK is on the EU pot on June 23rd, and we will either have to shit or get off.
I wonder why the BBC put Izzard next to Farage? If you wanted a good debate, I would have thought putting them as far apart as possible would have been sensible.
My sister tells me after dining with a senior figure at the US embassy that the Trump camp already wields considerable influence there and that Trump and co are assuming Leave will win because, from their strange point of view, it's going to win with their help so how could it lose? She also says the embassy itself is planning for a Leave win and the probabilities doing the rounds there, in one or two other US agencies in London, and in NATO in Brussels, are 80-20 Leave-Remain. She further reports that British military figures she meets are in even less doubt.
A leave is a catastrophe for US interests, and for Britain's relationship with the US as a result, so that would appear to confirm the parallel universe surrealism of the people surrounding the Trump campaign.
In the real world, Trump has just won the Republican nomination with the greatest number of primary voters in US history. SurrealBritain would be a more accurate alias.
For accuracies' sake, he hasn't. he didn't even win as many as Hillary.
Guy ahead of me in the café buying lunch just casually mentioned he is a Leaver and one main reason is that The Jews want us to stay in.
What the fucking hell, what shit is this? It kind of put me in a daze, I didn't think I'd heard him right until he started talking about he Rothschild's and how they want only two currencies and eventually one. And the guy serving him was totally agreeing with him.
Bonkers. What reality is this?
Michael Howard is Jewish and backs Leave as does Nigel Lawson
I don't think that argument would wash with the conspiraloons. They can work backwards from anything that happens to explain how it was planned by dark forces.
I even heard one loony theory that Donald Trump was 'the chosen one' by the shadowy establishment.
Just flicking through QT from last night...couple of interesting things.
Eddie Izzard tried to deploy but but but Obama says we should stay and there was a huge audience laugh at that suggestion, which he then had to finish with but but but but Trump.
He later tried to deploy the "Little Englander" and it totally incensed some members of the audience...I think it might be backfiring in the way Mrs Bucket and her white van man / England flag did.
Both of the above are examples of where the Metro elite don't understand the rest of Britain. Obama is not a massive cult hero to them and that calling people a Little Englander i.e. code for thick racist, doesn't go down well, as the vast majority of people in the UK aren't and are very tolerant in general.
Wait, are your sure because we definitely had a whole bunch of people saying that the in campaign had focus grouped the line and that it was bullet proof. Are you really suggesting that calling middle England Tories "little Englanders" is backfiring, well I never would have predicted that one.
Guy ahead of me in the café buying lunch just casually mentioned he is a Leaver and one main reason is that The Jews want us to stay in.
What the fucking hell, what shit is this? It kind of put me in a daze, I didn't think I'd heard him right until he started talking about he Rothschild's and how they want only two currencies and eventually one. And the guy serving him was totally agreeing with him.
The debate was B team so what do you expect? Plus not one head to head between Cameron and Farage, even Scotland had two Salmond v Darling head to heads
I'm surprised that no one has discussed the referendum with @rcs1000 other than @Charles.
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
Same here - I was asked about it by an Australian client earlier this week
Sounds easy, I'm in the Brexit working group, literally every day is like a nightmarish version of PB where we have a group of people spouting vapid bilge which we need to turn into gold for our managers.
Sounds like an average day on PB :-)
Yesterday we had one person say that the EU would reintroduce visitor visas for tourists. It's real head in your hands stuff sometimes.
Just out of interest, how many people on your working group are over 60, i.e.old enough to remember life before the UK joined the EEC? How many are old enough to remember the EEC come to that?
The chair and his deputy are old enough to have voted. No one else is I think.
The debate was B team so what do you expect? Plus not one head to head between Cameron and Farage, even Scotland had two Salmond v Darling head to heads
Give it a couple of weeks and Top Gear will be wishing for those kind of viewing figures...
The debate was B team so what do you expect? Plus not one head to head between Cameron and Farage, even Scotland had two Salmond v Darling head to heads
Comments
Dave is box office, everybody else, not so much.
A man arrived at his friend's house looking shaken.
What's the matter, asked the friend.
It was awful I came on the train and had to sit facing backwards the whole way. That always makes me sick.
Why didn't you ask the person sitting opposite to you to swap, I'm sure they would have understood, said the friend.
That was the worst bit, said the man, there was no one sitting opposite me.
But I think - on balance - it's fair to say that the lower earners have done worse out of the EU this past decade than higher earners. Not just financially, but in terms of access to public services, housing etc.
You cannot leave, it therefore becomes a prison. Is that the image of the EU that the remain camp really wishes to project?
If it is attacked by Remain, the figure will be explained more by Leave and so will resonate even further.
The public will likely think .. oh right - I can see where you are coming from now on gross versus net - but shit £10 billion per year?
That money could be spent better on providing care for Doreen down the road who has a gammy knee and who can't get out and about like she used to and has now had her care allowance cut. Why are we sending £10 billion a year or £350 million per week to the EU? It's a joke etc etc.
If my uncle was a woman, etc...
I attended three business meetings yesterday. None related to the referendum. All three diverted onto lengthy discussions about it. I didn't do the diverting in any of the three cases.
You are saying we shouldn't change seats because we don't need to as there is an opportunity to do so.
How does that make sense? Lets grasp the opportunity and change seats rather than sat where we are feeling queasy.
Remain have made an estimate for some years hence. Whether it is accurate or not is a topic for debate, but it's not provably false.
Leave's number is a concrete lie, and they know it, and don't care.
That is the point about post truth politics.
Normally you would expect different sides to make different estimates, debate the merits of models, forecasts, policies and comparisons.
Here a flat lie is presented as fact, and compounded with a series of additional promises predicated on the lie. No debate, no nuance. Flat lie, defended to the hilt.
To get a family change would require taking the change in the family proportion of GDP which would be a considerably lower figure.
It was an outright LIE.
And of course we are allowed to do anything we want. If we really had minded about the EU we would be out by now. But as it is, very recently, and it is a credit to UKIP that we have arrived here, enough people have wanted a say on the matter.
Maastricht, Lisbon Treaty (minus Fiscal Compact, of course), etc were all carried out by a democratically elected government. It was, in effect, what the people wanted.
That is my point. If enough people want something, they can have it under our current system, where parliament is sovereign.
If it's just that not enough people want the same thing as you, well then I have less sympathy.
Labour could do with Gisela Stuart on their front bench.
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/740991699355328513
We are now deciding if we want to continue not being allowed to do what we want, or if we want to exercise our right to leave and then be allowed to do what we want. If we remain we continue to not be allowed to do what we want, if we leave we can.
You pay £230.00 at point of sale and got £50 back 3 months later.
It turns out that the £50.00 cashback can only be spent how the insurance company want you to spend it.
How much did the policy cost you?
However, if Parliament wishes to Zero rate a product that is currently subject to a non-zero rate. It cannot because of EU rules.
But we quibble over small things. The fundamental point is that EU law, over which we have limited influence and which can be imposed on us by QMV not to mention judicial activism in the ECJ, is supreme. You are either comfortable with that or you are not.
BTW: I am yet to meet anyone working in the NHS who believes that being in the EU damages the NHS. There are Leavers, but for other reasons, mostly the same as the rest of the country.
She knows Remain is magic, Leave is tragic
Remember:
tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=252004443
Emotional, angry, obsessed.
Like some demented twitterer.
Remain are just angry and have fallen into a classic Leave trap of promoting Leave's figure for them which the public in turn are absorbing. There's a bit of reverse causality in there too because the Leave figure is believable, the Remain modelling estimate is complete horseshit and people can sniff that out from a mile away.
http://www.doesntgrowontrees.co.uk/ten-money-blasts-from-the-past/pay-packet/
Ask anyone who gets one of these, which figure is their pay this week
And like I said, I despised Gordon Brown for magicking-up figures for years. But even though the £4300 figure is more technically defensible, it isn't any more morally defensible because it just plays on people's fears without being necessarily true. A dirty, deniable political trick.
I was willing to vote Remain if, at the start, they'd proven to me what the positives were. The fact that Remain have almost entirely focused on fear has provoked me to vote Brexit out of spite.
I still think Remain will win, and I'll still support Cameron and the government. But I do think the EU is facing a very uncertain - if not disastrous - future, and the government may look stupider keeping us in it than they would've otherwise.
This meme that the EU is some maturing, improving club of grandeur and ever-perpetuating wealth must be a doozy to the Greeks.
If you're deciding on 23/6 where you'll be tied to for next few years then ignore the discounted offer that expires 28/6 and look at the real price. The bigger number.
Although not a Boris fan, I thought he was an excellent "wing-man." He was deferential to his team mates and let them shine and they grew in confidence. He still quite a poor speaker but he did well not to respond to the blatant sledging. Amber Rudd embarrassed herself. Angela Eagle was worse than dire and Nicola Sturgeon just grated.
Lets try a dictionary definition:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pay-packet
noun
British salary or wages or the envelope that the salary or wages come in ⇒ He goes out gambling as soon as he gets his pay packet.
An envelope of wages is just one definition, it is not the sole one. It can also mean salary or wages in general.
Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.
The funamental difference is that a discount is a price reduction. A rebate is a decision by one contracting party not to take all of the money that it is owed.
That's why my wealth manager always rebates the fees it charges me, but never discounts them. It doesn't engage in price competition as a matter of principle
In other systems like dictatorships or set ups like the EU where you can't kick them out then that is far worse.
But actually not all GDP relates to households. So even if one believes their forecasts about GDP the translation to households was indefensible.
But no, clearly gross pay would never appear on a pay packet would it?
Far better than if they take over in a non-democracy and can rule forever.
Leave have played it well, they critiqued it a little at the time but allowed the public's bullshitometer to spot it. I've not heard much about £4,300 per year for a few weeks so I assume that strategy worked.
It's been 41 years since the last time we had a chance to decide. So we can't leave the EU any time we want. We can only decide on the EU's membership on the very rare occasions when They let us have a referendum.
It's very simple.
The £350 million figure is the truth, but not the whole truth.
The £4.300 figure is bullshit.
There's a reason for that.
Ok you're right - it is bullshit.
What the fucking hell, what shit is this? It kind of put me in a daze, I didn't think I'd heard him right until he started talking about he Rothschild's and how they want only two currencies and eventually one. And the guy serving him was totally agreeing with him.
Bonkers. What reality is this?
Eddie Izzard tried to deploy but but but Obama says we should stay and there was a huge audience laugh at that suggestion, which he then had to finish with but but but but Trump.
He later tried to deploy the "Little Englander" and it totally incensed some members of the audience...I think it might be backfiring in the way Mrs Bucket and her white van man / England flag did.
Both of the above are examples of where the Metro elite don't understand the rest of Britain. Obama is not a massive cult hero to them and that calling people a Little Englander i.e. code for thick racist, doesn't go down well, as the vast majority of people in the UK aren't and are very tolerant in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqSZ0QhgIw4
Politics is changing rapidly, and it's getting harder to find a comfy political fit with a traditional party these days.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says
UK manufacturing set to boom as new opportunities in UK markets open up for UK firms.
£100m annual UK balance of payment deficit eliminated at a stroke.
The UK is on the EU pot on June 23rd, and we will either have to shit or get off.
I even heard one loony theory that Donald Trump was 'the chosen one' by the shadowy establishment.