politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Turnout: the EURef big unknown
Comments
-
No doubt. bailing out the mediterranean is not popular in Germany.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps in an ideal world, but his job is not do do what is "fair". It is not to do the best for the Greeks, or even the best for the EU. His job is to do what is best for Germans and he is doing that to the best of his ability.Alanbrooke said:
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.Philip_Thompson said:It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
But of course he isn't slow to ask the UK to contribute to a mess of Germany's making.0 -
Tell them not to bang the door on the way outScott_P said:Both sides can enjoy this
@faisalislam: Defeatism setting in with Remainers ...Metropolitan liberals already planning to secede from a post-Brexit UK... https://t.co/KKF4domjgL
0 -
Spot on.Chelyabinsk said:
If you haven't read Flexcit, which (by some accounts) the Civil Service are currently using to plan for Brexit, it's worth doing so. However a brief overview of the It gives some of the highlights of EFTA membership would include:FrankBooth said:
What possible benefit would efta/eea bring?
1) Cut out c.75% of the EU legislative corpus
2) Repatriate fisheries and agricultural policy
3) Lower overall membership cost, even if we opt back into additional programmes like the Single European Sky and Horizon 2020
4) 'Emergency brake' on freedom of movement via Articles 112-3
5) An independent voice on the global regulatory bodies which actually set many of the market standards we're told come from the EU
6) A veto over some aspects of EU single market legislation
7) The ability to sign our own trade deals
8) By leaving the EU, we firmly opt-out of further integration (e.g. the tax harmonisation and European army proposals which have been put on hold until after the referendum). We can then choose to use EFTA as a stepping stone to a looser bilateral deal, or remain there as long as it suits us. However, it puts Britain back in control of its own destiny.
There's a reason the Norwegians oppose EU membership by 70.8% to 17.8%0 -
That's given me an excuse to put off washing the litter tray. Many thanksFeersumEnjineeya said:Just in case anyone's at a loose end this drizzly afternoon: Nigel Farage, Gisela Stuart, Paddy Ashdown and Michael Heseltine are debating in Sutton Coldfield today at 12:00 noon.
Live streaming at: http://www.suttoncoldfieldobserver.co.uk/
0 -
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.0 -
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.AnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?0 -
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?rcs1000 said:
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.LucyJones said:
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]0 -
Miss Plato, that and EU citizens getting polling cards does not fill one with confidence in the integrity of the vote. We must hope for a decisive result so that the outcome is something that we can be sure is genuine rather than caused by such nonsense.0
-
Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.0 -
There is no check between the two. But it would be a relatively easy cross check if all was centred on the NI. It would just need the databases from the "marked" register in each electoral district to be cross checked with all other districts via the NI. It is the marked registers that political parties etc can buy after an election to see who did and who did not vote.TudorRose said:
Genuine question which I've always wondered about - how, if at all, does anyone check that someone hasn't voted twice? For example a student registered at home and at college could vote in both locations (one by post or proxy, if distance is an issue). Does anyone bother to check? I suspect I can guess the answer, but does anyone know definitively?PlatoSaid said:WTF - Registration website didn't dedupe those already on the electoral roll, so many could get two votes.
And wait for it - the website commissioners said it was *too hard* to include a look-up function to check.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deadline-chaos-means-200-000-may-be-registered-to-vote-twice-tw5mcbx9q0 -
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.0 -
Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
There's a wealth of detail in the latest ONS report:Sandpit said:
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?rcs1000 said:
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.LucyJones said:
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016
I wish more people read those, life would be much more interesting, and conceivably, more civil.
Like most people, I'm torn on immigration; there are pros and cons, but someone like me (I just scrape in as a HNWI) get pretty much all the pros, whereas my nephews (WWC in the trades) get the cons. However, I think it's lazy leadership to just fold one's arms and say, 'open, globalised economy, dear old thing, nothing to be done'.
0 -
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?0 -
If only he had spent more time worrying about the Original Citizens he might not be struggling so much.HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Tetchy? I'm having huge fun. Although, not surprised you can't recognise that...Scott_P said:
Can anyone explain why the Little Englanders are so tetchy this morning?MarqueeMark said:Depends whether you consider what Scott does as "campaigning".
You're winning! In 2 weeks Bozo will be PM and you can wear your "I agree with Nige" T-Shirt with pride.
There will be street parties. If you get bored, you can play Hunt the TRAITORS who voted Remain.
And no need to worry about trade or housing collapsing.
You can sleep at night cloaked in the warm glow of self-satisfaction.
Cheer up man!0 -
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Hundreds of postal vote packs have gone missing in County Durham too according to Northern Echo. It's a complete mess.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, that and EU citizens getting polling cards does not fill one with confidence in the integrity of the vote. We must hope for a decisive result so that the outcome is something that we can be sure is genuine rather than caused by such nonsense.
It didn't used to be like this. I never even considered our system was bent or open to abuse until about 10yrs ago. It totally erodes trust and confidence in the result.
Some wag on Twitter last night joked that after the ORB poll, the registration website would stay open until polling day...0 -
tbh, that's the kind of sophistry that repels me and I have no doubt will backfire. It's bollocks.HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Fewer than 500 people.Sandpit said:
And how much of that was constrained by various European court judgements about the right to family life and imported cousin brides?rcs1000 said:
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.LucyJones said:
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Further, is point out The decisions are by Uk courts and reference the EHCR. nevertheless, we have a much broader interpretation than do, for example, the French.0 -
Net immigrants from Commonwealth countries & their families = 73,000BenedictWhite said:
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Assuming some need for skilled immigration from elsewhere, including the EU, tens of thousands is not achievable (even if we stretched it to 99,000).0 -
Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East0
-
We do need politicians, but specifically we need politicians who have not studied PPE, not those that have.HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.0 -
I was good friends with a big wig at the New Statesman in a previous life - they called them *new arrivals*.John_M said:
tbh, that's the kind of sophistry that repels me and I have no doubt will backfire. It's bollocks.HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Many thanks for the answer - I suspected that, in practice, there was no check. Let's hope people are honest!TCPoliticalBetting said:
There is no check between the two. But it would be a relatively easy cross check if all was centred on the NI. It would just need the databases from the "marked" register in each electoral district to be cross checked with all other districts via the NI. It is the marked registers that political parties etc can buy after an election to see who did and who did not vote.TudorRose said:
Genuine question which I've always wondered about - how, if at all, does anyone check that someone hasn't voted twice? For example a student registered at home and at college could vote in both locations (one by post or proxy, if distance is an issue). Does anyone bother to check? I suspect I can guess the answer, but does anyone know definitively?PlatoSaid said:WTF - Registration website didn't dedupe those already on the electoral roll, so many could get two votes.
And wait for it - the website commissioners said it was *too hard* to include a look-up function to check.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deadline-chaos-means-200-000-may-be-registered-to-vote-twice-tw5mcbx9q
On a related question, which you may know the answer to, is it legal for one person to vote in two separate local elections on the same date? In other words could my hypothetical student vote in a local election at home on the same date as voting in a local election at their college location. I'm guessing it would be legal as the two are separate elections, but it doesn't feel quite right.0 -
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.0 -
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?0 -
Mr. M, I agree, but we're both likely Leavers (I think), so the question is how floating voters might react.
Miss Plato, is there a way for those votes to be rendered void? Otherwise it seems to be wide open to fraud. It's a disgrace.0 -
And which article in our unwritten constitution prevents us from changing the rules?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Net immigrants from Commonwealth countries & their families = 73,000BenedictWhite said:
Why do you think the target is unachievable? (As opposed to undesirable)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Assuming some need for skilled immigration from elsewhere, including the EU, tens of thousands is not achievable (even if we stretched it to 99,000).0 -
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.0 -
Nigel Lawson studied PPE, plenty of effective politicians have studied it, yes we want politicians who have studied other subjects too but I have no problem with people who want to be politicians studying politics and economics especially when they pay for itBenedictWhite said:
We do need politicians, but specifically we need politicians who have not studied PPE, not those that have.HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.0 -
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.MaxPB said:
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.0 -
Ok, I understand:Casino_Royale said:Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man.
But when did this anecdote occur? Call me simple but somehow it is not clear.....0 -
Get well soon, Remember having it in primary school, wasn't pleasant!AnneJGP said:
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?0 -
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.AnneJGP said:
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
0 -
PB is excellent when you're feeling grotty. Short comments and easy to pick up/put down/catch up.AnneJGP said:
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
I can't manage to read newspaper articles when I'm urgh - takes too much effort/focus - I jump straight to the comments and rely on others who have!0 -
Surely we are all citizens of the great EU?Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
From the article - returning officers/staff are running around like headless chickens trying to get in control.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. M, I agree, but we're both likely Leavers (I think), so the question is how floating voters might react.
Miss Plato, is there a way for those votes to be rendered void? Otherwise it seems to be wide open to fraud. It's a disgrace.0 -
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.BenedictWhite said:
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.MaxPB said:
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.0 -
In Russia, they have Federal SubjectsCharles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_subjects_of_Russia0 -
No, Mr. Charles, because I once mentioned on this site that I was not a citizen but one HM subjects and proud of it. I then got buried by people telling me I was wrong because of some Act of Parliament, the details of which I cannot remember, had decreed that we were now in fact citizens of the UK and citizens of the EU. So it is not a line I use anymore, regardless of personal feelings.Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.
Beat me too it! Why do we talk about citizenship tests - surely they should be subjectship tests...0 -
From RedBox - Boris was clapped 14 times, more than anyone else. He was also the target of 14 attempts by Remain to “play the man, not the ball”.0
-
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example has had classics courses for hundreds of yearsMortimer said:
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.0 -
LucyJones said:
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.AnneJGP said:
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?
Please don't make me laugh - it hurts. 0 -
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
0 -
Again doing what is best for Germany.Alanbrooke said:
No doubt. bailing out the mediterranean is not popular in Germany.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps in an ideal world, but his job is not do do what is "fair". It is not to do the best for the Greeks, or even the best for the EU. His job is to do what is best for Germans and he is doing that to the best of his ability.Alanbrooke said:
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.Philip_Thompson said:It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
But of course he isn't slow to ask the UK to contribute to a mess of Germany's making.
For all the talk of European harmony and all that lofty ambition, he is German pure and simple. Had Blair been half as interested in Britain as Schauble is in Germany we would never have given away so much of our rebate with nothing to show for it.0 -
Anne. It's not hard to see that you are a Leaver but are you a Labour Leaver?AnneJGP said:
Couldn't read much of it before it was covered with an ad, but I gather he wants the political elite to be allowed to get on with running us plebs without us interfering. That's the way the EU sees it. Elections, democracy, bah.Barnesian said:Here is an argument from Richard Dawkins that I think would not go down well with a Labour Leaver though it does with me.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/eu-referendum-richard-dawkins-brexit-23rd-june-ignoramuses0 -
We've moved the former most of the way there.MaxPB said:
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.BenedictWhite said:
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.MaxPB said:
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
We could also persuade the locals to breed as well. You never know it might catch on.0 -
I'd prefer to be a citizen rather than a subject!AnneJGP said:
Surely we are all citizens of the great EU?Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.HYUFD said:
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuriesMortimer said:
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!0 -
0
-
Ouch
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/if-he-wants-remain-to-prevail-eddie-izzard-needs-to-stay-out-of-the-eu-referendum-debate-a7074716.html
"If he wants Remain to prevail, Eddie Izzard needs to stay out of the EU referendum debate"0 -
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.0 -
{sigh} and trains...LucyJones said:
I think there are a fair few on here for whom normal life is a life divided neatly between bed and PB.AnneJGP said:
Thank you. Hard to believe at first (I'm old enough to think of it as a childhood illness). But it's brought normal life to a grinding halt so I'm dividing my time between bed & PB.PlatoSaid said:
Oooh mumps - horrible. And painful. Hope you feel better soon.AnneJGP said:
Many thanks for those links. I confess I hadn't even thought to google them.PlatoSaid said:
OohAnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
May I offer 'mumps' as my excuse?0 -
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.NickPalmer said:
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
*feeling naughty*NickPalmer said:
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Remind us Nick, how many Muslim majority countries are democracies?0 -
English was certainly only introduced at Oxbridge a century or so ago but the traditional training ground in the arts and humanities at Oxbridge was always classics or Greats. I studied History too at Warwick and fair to say a fair few of my contemporaries are lawyers, if they are not teaching History then law tends to be the next option down the list for Historians and more lucrative. Good to see you are using your degree in an interesting field, I now work in the world of archives, records management and information governanceMortimer said:
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.HYUFD said:
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuriesMortimer said:
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!0 -
I was in Stoke Newington last night at a wedding almost entirely ABs, all under 35s. I saw at least three Remain posters as well in people's windows.nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.
Remain central.
Of my friends, two were very strongly Remain (and both got a bit huffy at me), one was a very reluctant Remainer, another *still* on the fence, but very impressed by Andrea Leadsom, and one switcher to Leave. A couple had read my blog (and seriously thought about Leave) but decided Remain on balance. No-one was effusive about the EU.
Interestingly, almost everyone's parents are Leave.
I don't know what that means. But I don't think Remain is collapsing in London - they will get a very good vote there - but they might not all turn out.0 -
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.0 -
and doing a crap job of it if my experience of trying to get bloody leaflets to deliver is anything to go by.PlatoSaid said:
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.AnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave0 -
I remember telling a German friend of mine that I might want to go into politics at some level - she couldn't understand why I wasn't doing a PhD. Apparently this is a thing in Germany political culture...HYUFD said:
English was certainly only introduced at Oxbridge a century or so ago but the traditional training ground in the arts and humanities at Oxbridge was always classics or Greats. I studied History too at Warwick and fair to say a fair few of my contemporaries are lawyers, if they are not teaching History then law tends to be the next option down the list for Historians and more lucrative. Good to see you are using your degree in an interesting field, I now work in the world of archives, records management and information governanceMortimer said:
Interestingly, most arts subjects are relatively new at Oxbridge - Literae humaniores aside.HYUFD said:
Well scrapping most arts and language courses would take us back centuries, Oxbridge for example first has had classics courses for centuriesMortimer said:
How did we cope without culture before these courses existed?!?!HYUFD said:
We need culture, business need people who speak foreign languages and we even need politicians, students pay fees now too if they want to spend their money on these courses that it is up to themCD13 said:"Define deadwood"
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
I'm only yanking your chain by the way. I studied history - of my BNC cohort 11 are now corporate lawyers, I am the only one of us using history at all - writing gobbets was perhaps the most perfect training for rare book selling!0 -
Miss Plato, thanks for the answer.
It does not inspire confidence in the integrity of the vote.0 -
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadannunu said:
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.NickPalmer said:
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
Yet, they are not. They are focusing on London/NI/Scotland. Leave are still pushing hard in Surrey and parts of Hampshire.HYUFD said:Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East
Last night.FluffyThoughts said:
Ok, I understand:Casino_Royale said:Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man.
But when did this anecdote occur? Call me simple but somehow it is not clear.....0 -
The point is that we do not have to exclusively negotiate with the EU.FF43 said:
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Us getting other deals will benefit us anyway.0 -
You could have told him people want to have control over just how many "New Citizens" we admit each year.Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.0 -
From what I see around here the locals have no restraints on breeding. In the doctor's waiting room, the Co-op and around the village generally I see plenty of, mainly fat, young women with two or more children in tow. Most of them are single mothers, living on benefits and, of those I chat to whilst waiting in the queue, most are educationally challenged to say the least.BenedictWhite said:
We've moved the former most of the way there.MaxPB said:
We'd have to raise the pension age to 70 and end early retirement in the public sector. Neither of those are going to happen. Better to dump the unaffordable triple lock abd defined benefit schemes.BenedictWhite said:
No, you just change the ages at which pensions can be collected.MaxPB said:
Yes, the migration target completely unachieveable while we keep the triple lock for pensions and generous defined benefit schemes for the public sector.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, we aren't, but that's because the target is unachieveable.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.chestnut said:
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.FF43 said:
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.FluffyThoughts said:There is a flaw in James Dyson logic:
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
We could also persuade the locals to breed as well. You never know it might catch on.
To be blunt we need quality not just quantity.0 -
Not saying there is, just that it's not a priority. Thats all.HYUFD said:
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadannunu said:
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.NickPalmer said:
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
I saw a Leave poster yesterday and have seen leafleters from Remain and had leaflets from both sides. The big rush to register before the deadline I think shows people are really recognising how important this vote is and how close it is, tight elections almost always get high turnouts eg the highest turnout we have had for a general election since 1997 was 2015, 1992 was the highest turnout since February 1974 which was also a tight election etc. The independence referendum in Scotland also had a very high turnoutnunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
Has Cameron hired that shady outfit who Zanu-pf used to help them to victory in tbe last Zimbabwe elections?PlatoSaid said:WTF - Registration website didn't dedupe those already on the electoral roll, so many could get two votes.
And wait for it - the website commissioners said it was *too hard* to include a look-up function to check.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deadline-chaos-means-200-000-may-be-registered-to-vote-twice-tw5mcbx9q0 -
Cheating fugging Aussies.
Why would we want to leave the EU for those cheating Commonwealth types.
Try!0 -
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.0 -
That is brilliant.Casino_Royale said:ttps://twitter.com/Stronger_ln/status/741542836689076224
0 -
True but we we can mostly do those things already. We don't sell more Malaysian made Dyson vacuum cleaners to Russia just because we sell fewer insurance products to France. The upshot is that we sell less to the EU and we sell less overall - affecting the economy, employment etc. Which is why I think we will go for the EEA.BenedictWhite said:
The point is that we do not have to exclusively negotiate with the EU.FF43 said:
Fog in Channel option? It's a reasonable approach, but not one that will deliver results. Any results. Not just bad ones. As I say it is worth looking at the EU-Swiss negotiations. The former are quite content to stall for decades. The first time round, the Swiss blinked. We will see if they do the same next year following the referendum committing to the end of freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
We put a position to the EU then go and negotiate other trade deals.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
They will work out that they need access to our market though by the time they may have lost market share.
Us getting other deals will benefit us anyway.0 -
Do you know, this annoys the fuck out of me. To arrive at my present betting position[1] I did the followingCasino_Royale said:Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man. EU ref came up. He was very dismissive of my warnings about 'covering himself' on Leave, and has just gone in even deeper with another £20k. He's convinced it'll be 56:44 to Remain.
* Got Gallup's 1975 polls, "The 1975 referendum" and "Full-hearted consent" from the library via inter-library loans. (The books are great btw)
* Checked the prediction errors for the polls for about seven previous referenda on EU and UK (they are shocking btw)
* Carefully saved about £250 pcm for about three months (it would have been more but I had some unexpected expenses)
* Placed a bet on the London Mayoral in a physical betting shop to overcome fear and create a muscle memory
That's about six months of full-on work. And along comes Mr Dickless Bank Director and throws away £20K on the wrong result because his gut says so
Rich people don't deserve money, they really dont...
[1] £500pcm@5/2 and £250pcm@4/2 on LEAVE. I may have mentioned it.
0 -
I'm concerned that people like you are so easily brainwashed.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.0 -
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.0 -
Well it is not the priority in a religious festival no but that does not mean you cannot take 5 minutes out of the day to put a cross on a ballot papernunu said:
Not saying there is, just that it's not a priority. Thats all.HYUFD said:
There is a Muslim lady in my office who has registered to vote and did not vote at the last election, she is likely although not certain to vote Remain but is also observing Ramadan and fasting, there is nothing in the Koran saying you cannot vote in Ramadannunu said:
Yeah but it's supposed to be a religious time doing religous things plus remainers just won't be arsed.NickPalmer said:
Erm. You're not supposed to eat during a fast. There's nothing in the Quran that says you can't vote!nunu said:Here in North west London I have seen no posters for either side. There is no sign of an election. Even in the GE there are more signs of an election with a few small businesses displaying tory posters.
Turnout will be lower than G.E. for sure. Which will hurt remain.
Of the people I have spoken to, people who I thought were definite Remain are Leave. Forget Remain having the ethnic minority vote by more than 10% margin in London. Not going to happen. Atleast when you take into differential turnout. Leavers are pissed, and nothing but nothing will stop them whereas a lot off Remainers who are Muslim won't turn out due to fasting 20+hours a day which has not been factored in by anyone. The fast opens a quarter to ten, leaving 15 mins to vote, sorry this is going to hurt remain more.0 -
0
-
Before I disappear, there's two EURef polls tonight.
Opinium for The Observer and YouGov for The Sunday Times
The Opinium comes out around 5-7.30pmish and YouGov maybe around 10pm.0 -
In due course we will see who is right. Personally I hope I'm wrong. You, however, obviously don't care.Richard_Tyndall said:
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.
0 -
It's the webbed feet.CornishBlue said:
I'm concerned that people like you are so easily brainwashed.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.0 -
Mr. Fenman, You paint an economic apocalypse which you believe will happen. I have also thought about what might happen, best case, middle case and worst case, and I cannot share your belief or even think it a reasonable scenario.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
You might,as a starter, want to think through what you mean by "excluded from the single market". If you mean that the countries in the EU would refuse to trade with us, refuse to sell us their goods and services and refuse to buy ours, then I fear you are very wide of the mark.0 -
INocchio. The perfect mascot for LyIN' IN.Casino_Royale said:0 -
Can go nowhere without disgracing the country and the gutter press have the temerity to call them BritishFluffyThoughts said:
England fans are no different from Hibernian supported. Apart from the former can pay for themselves.malcolmg said:
EU will be praying that England votes to leave after another 2 weeks of riotsFrancisUrquhart said:I see football fans from across Europe are taking the chance to sample the delights of the south of France at this time of year & fully embracing the cafe culture!!!!!
0 -
Islams view of gender-equality does not marry with the West's. Outwith Indonesia it is a sad fact but true.HYUFD said:Well it is not the priority in a religious festival no but that does not mean you cannot take 5 minutes out of the day to put a cross on a ballot paper
0 -
I have seen Remain campaigners in West Kent which is the more prosperous part of the county, they need to expand that elsewhere in the Home Counties. The Medway Towns will be strongly for Leave as will areas like Portsmouth and most of the villages, Remain need to target prosperous commuter towns like Sevenoaks, Horsham, Reading and Guildford as well the graduate filled cities of Brighton and OxfordCasino_Royale said:
Yet, they are not. They are focusing on London/NI/Scotland. Leave are still pushing hard in Surrey and parts of Hampshire.HYUFD said:Most of the polls are showing slightly more voters saying they will vote in the EU referendum than the next general election, so I am going to put turnout at close to 70%. I still think Remain will win but I cannot see it being by a bigger margin than 52% 48% or even tighter, I think at least about 35% of Labour voters will now vote Leave which means Remain need 40%+ of Tories to vote In to have a chance with UKIP voters overwhelmingly pro Leave and a significant number of SNP voters voting Leave too (LDs and Greens will be heavily for Remain). If I were Remain I would be heavily targeting Times reading upper middle class Tories in the more prosperous parts of London and the South East
Last night.FluffyThoughts said:
Ok, I understand:Casino_Royale said:Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man.
But when did this anecdote occur? Call me simple but somehow it is not clear.....0 -
No I just think your analysis is based on fantasy and is as likely as the claims of Brexit causing WW3Fenman said:
In due course we will see who is right. Personally I hope I'm wrong. You, however, obviously don't care.Richard_Tyndall said:
An analysis that has as much credibility as your claims about the disaster of having a weak pound - which turned out to be stronger than it had been for almost the whole of the period 2009 - 2014.Fenman said:In assessing the cost of Brexit we need to think about the elements of revenge and realism. Firstly, revenge. The world is full of countries that dislike us and may well take this opportunity to take it. It looks increasingly likely that we would go through a period of being excluded from the single market coupled with significant foreign disinvestment. This may go as far as the complete transfer of major manufacturing plants to mainland Europe. I find it difficult to see unemployment being much below 3 million in 5 years time. The argument that investment from British entrepreneurs will compensate for this is difficult to believe. This is where realism creeps in. A consequence, inevitable I'm afraid, of Brexit is that the international credit rating agencies will reduce our credit rating. This will make borrowing more expensive for both the government, entrepreneurs and mortgagees. There is no question that, as foreign citizens move out a housing crisis will occur, leaving millions on negative equity. Those who respond that this will mean young people will be easily able to get on the housing ladder fail, firstly, to realise that increasing interest rates will mean that homes will still be out of their reach and secondly that cash rich pensioners will return to buy to let in droves and drive them out again.
I'm deeply concerned that those advocating Brexit seem to have thought none of these things through and have no answers to the problems I believe we will experience.
Your fantasies have no basis in reality at all.
0 -
It would make far more sense to set a target at a % of the total population, say 0.25% population growth via immigration. Sounds far more palatable.0
-
Exactly - there's nothing wrong with having to adopt single market law and regulations if you're in that single market. But the EU is much more than the single market (and is increasingly expanding into other areas) and its all that additional political union stuff we'd be relieving ourselves of by Leaving.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.0 -
The Danes are a bit worried but they're working on it:HurstLlama said:
From what I see around here the locals have no restraints on breeding. In the doctor's waiting room, the Co-op and around the village generally I see plenty of, mainly fat, young women with two or more children in tow. Most of them are single mothers, living on benefits and, of those I chat to whilst waiting in the queue, most are educationally challenged to say the least.
To be blunt we need quality not just quantity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g&ncid=newsletter-uk0 -
The EU institutions decide and we implement those decisions. There is no veto. There is a mechanism for conveying an opinion, which is not likely to be weighed particularly heavily by the EC Council or Parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EFTA members of the EEA are not told what to do by the EU institutions. For a start they are only subject to a small fraction of the legislation - that related to the single market - and they have substantial input into that followed at the last resort by a veto if they really don't agree.FF43 said:
If, as is increasingly likely, we vote for Leave, I would say EEA is the most likely outcome.rcs1000 said:
Wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If you follow the "negotiations" between EU and Switzerland you can get a good clue of how our negotiations are likely to turn out. So we trigger Article 50 and go to some Eurocrat stooge - typically Juncker - and say, "We like the idea of a single market, but no freedom of movement requirement and we want to have a veto over other aspects we dislike. Please put that to the EC Council". Juncker will then say, "Won't fly. Happy to put your proposals to the Council when you have changed your mind. You can talk to me anytime you like." Then we go, "But the clock is ticking. We may end up with nothing at all.". Juncker: "Sure. Let me know when you have changed your mind."
Given that, we can either hold off calling Article 50 indefinitely, which will keep us in a state of limbo. Or we can just accept what we get through Article 50, which likely won't be much at all. "Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off." probably isn't the end goal serious people are looking for.
Which brings us to the EEA. It has the great advantage of being off the shelf and pre-negotiated. Ostensibly membership is in the control of EFTA, not the EU and it gives us the free market. As I say, I think that is what we will end up with.
Unfortunately, I don't think the EEA will work for Britain because it retains the main things that people object to about the EU, while removing many of the foundations that keep the EU operating after a fashion. It's a package deal where we are committed not just to what's in it now but also what we will be added later. It retains the requirement to freedom of movement. And we are still subject to remote decision making out of Brussels.
Even the claimed advantage of not being part of EU instititions is actually a disadvantage. Being told what to do by EU institutions you are not a member of is worse again. That's where the EEA will break down. Right now we are reluctant members of the EU but there is a coherence to it. If as an EEA member we think we are not bound any more and we can do what we like, we will stress that relationship past breaking point.
My point is, whatever your views are on the goodness of the EU, it is better on the practicalities than the two plausible Leave options. It is going to be a huge mess.
Agree that the scope of the EEA is smaller than the EU , but is still extensive, incorporating in Article 1 of the agreement the following:
(a) the free movement of goods;
(b) the free movement of persons;
(c) the free movement of services;
(d) the free movement of capital;
(e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the rules thereon are equally respected; as well as
(f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the environment, education and social policy.
0 -
He could put anti-Remain sumbliminals into all those oddly hynotic JML gadget videos they have in hardware shops. 'Get rid of REMAINSnunu said:
and doing a crap job of it if my experience of trying to get bloody leaflets to deliver is anything to go by.PlatoSaid said:
John Mills of JMC shopping fame is the chair.AnneJGP said:
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.PlatoSaid said:Guido
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
and LEAVE filth behind with our handy electric mop!'0 -
Not in Scotland we aren't.Charles said:
Did you point out to him that Brits are not citizens, but subjects?HurstLlama said:Just back from my morning walk during which I met and chatted with Nick Herbert, my local MP. He was out canvassing for Remain. He is a good and persuasive speaker, not a bad MP (though he does have a very bad case of safe seatitis), and I think a genuinely nice bloke. It is a shame his ministerial career was brought to an abrupt halt by the disgraceful, and probably illegal action of some police officers, but that is a story for another day.
Anyway to get the point, we had a pleasant conversation during which he tried to convince me vote for remain and I explained to him why I would not be doing so. In that discussion he referred to people who come here from abroad to live as "New Citizens", never once did he mention the word "immigrant" or even "immigration". A rather ingenious attempt to reframe an issue which is unhelpful Remain I thought. I wonder if we will be hearing more of "New Citizens" in the future.0 -
To be fair:malcolmg said:Can go nowhere without disgracing the country and the gutter press have the temerity to call them British
They are English fans expressing a view on the EU-Ref. Not sure if the Welsh nor Ulster-Jocks would be as bold. The Scots could have but they failed to make the grade.0
