politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Which of the following areas will have the highest Remain s

felix said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.

Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.

and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up

Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.

That isn't true. Don't be silly.

Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.

Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.

Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.

I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting divergence in the REMAIN camps between Osborne and some of Labour's top people.

Osborne says no change in free movement beyond what is already announced.
Some senior Labour people saying that yes there should be.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/can-osborne-reform-free-movement-the-short-answer-is-no/

And Corbyn has smacked them down and sided with Osborne.

This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...

rottenborough said:

UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".

Someone's rattled.

Yes, it's getting very tense. Leave need to calm down here. Someone like Gove needs to say, 'Of course the Conservative government may have to review our economic priorities should these new circumstances come about. It will be discussed at Cabinet, of course, but the chancellor is ultimately responsible for the economics of the country.' That would demonstrate that Leave are under no illusions about the significance of Brexit and the vital need for stability and certainty thereafter. Faffing around in a panic will just unnerve everyone and undermine their cause.

John_N4 said:

Before a British general election, senior civil servants meet with leading figures in non-governmental parties to discuss certain aspects of implementing their policies if they form the next government.

Have the Treasury and other civil servants, and bods from the Bank of England, met with bods from the Commission, the European Central Bank, etc., to discuss frameworks - and even contingencies - following a vote for Brexit?

Surely they must have?

A lot of money's there to be made.

It's not comparable to a general election, because there's no Brexit manifesto, and indeed we don't even know the general political direction of a post-Brexit world or how the negotiations with our EU friends would pan out. Civil servants and the Bank of England can't do anything other than put in place some short-term market stabilisation measures, whilst they wait for their political masters to tell them what to do next.

If you think Remain is having a bad week, then spare a thought for Orlando.

First the young pop star was shot, then that awful terrorist attack, and now a toddler taken by an alligator in front of his father in the DISNEY resort! Extraordinary.

What a terrible series of events for a city.

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

UKIP now describing Osborne's intervention as a "nuclear bomb".

Someone's rattled.

Yes, it's getting very tense. Leave need to calm down here. Someone like Gove needs to say, 'Of course the Conservative government may have to review our economic priorities should these new circumstances come about. It will be discussed at Cabinet, of course, but the chancellor is ultimately responsible for the economics of the country.' That would demonstrate that Leave are under no illusions about the significance of Brexit and the vital need for stability and certainty thereafter. Faffing around in a panic will just unnerve everyone and undermine their cause.

Yes, of course the Leave campaign should have to come out and answer for Osborne's mess.

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Why is anyone surprised by Osborne's point on the public finances? If the economy is smaller as a result of Brexit, which pretty much every informed observer (including most of those who think Brexit would be good in the long term) agrees will be the case for at least a couple of years, then the public finances will be hit. I suppose you could accuse him of stating the obvious.

Irrespective of if you are a remainer or leaver, he is throwing the Tory party under the bus with this action. Labour would be fools to not recite for ever more that as soon as the going got tough the first instinct of a Tory Chancellor was to cut the NHS and Education and raise taxes on working people. He threw away your detox efforts in one idiotic statement, and for nothing, because he would never get that budget through the commons anyway.

Yes, even in the event of a remain Labour have some very big attack lines if Osborne sticks around. He has contemplated cuts to schools'n'ospitals, something most Tories have shied away from since 2005. "The chancellor said that in the event of Brexit he would cut the NHS budget, today we are facing a similar loss of GDP because of a recession he made, he has ready made plans to cut the NHS and education budgets" or something along those lines.

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

Brom said:

MP_SE said:

John McDonnell confirms Labour would vote against Osborne's budget. Osborne really is an idiot.

Was waiting for this and glad Labour have come out against it. Osborne hasnt thought this through.

He has. What he is essentially promising in the event of a Leave vote is a general election.

You really think that is within his powers from the backbenches?

Fixed term parliaments mean that neither prime ministers or governments can call an election without a large enough majority vote in parliament. The opposition can block an election and takeover minority government instead.

So Labour REMAINERS could govern with the support of some rebel Conservative REMAINERS.

@JournoStephen: STV poll: Remain still ahead, but Leave gains ground https://t.co/xefAxvXdJo #EURef https://t.co/txnuwyxQvy

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.

Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.

brokenwheel said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting divergence in the REMAIN camps between Osborne and some of Labour's top people.

Osborne says no change in free movement beyond what is already announced.
Some senior Labour people saying that yes there should be.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/can-osborne-reform-free-movement-the-short-answer-is-no/

And Corbyn has smacked them down and sided with Osborne.

This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...

Yes. Also has Corbyn or McDonnell spoken about Osborne's doomsday budget?

FF43 said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Interesting. VLTC wants pre-negotiation negotiations.

Those rebel Cons MPs had better get a move on because Dave has told us that he will invoke pretty quickly.

Plus not sure how some of the more strident Leavers (perhaps some on here?) would react to a Leave vote followed by what many would suspect would be some kind of backroom deal to keep us in.

My money is on a prompt invocation.

If he intends to resign then it would be utterly inappropriate for him to do so, and I don't believe he would. That is properly a decision of the incoming PM.

If he intends to stay and fight (no comment on how feasible that is) then he can make the decision.

I doubt he will invoke Article 50 immediately. But of course he is saying today that he will, because it increases the perceived risk. Basically he's lying to the people.

ON the other hand he can legitimately claim he is respecting the result of the referendum he called. No going back. There are practical arguments for triggering Article 50 (minimise uncertainty) as well as arguments for not doing so, as you point out. I am genuinely curious which way he will go.

Addendum - He would only lie if he DIDN'T call Article 50.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.

Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.

PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

brokenwheel said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting divergence in the REMAIN camps between Osborne and some of Labour's top people.

Osborne says no change in free movement beyond what is already announced.
Some senior Labour people saying that yes there should be.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/can-osborne-reform-free-movement-the-short-answer-is-no/

And Corbyn has smacked them down and sided with Osborne.

This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...

Yes. Also has Corbyn or McDonnell spoken about Osborne's doomsday budget?

They've said they would reject it.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.

Capital economics say differently. The long term picture will be entirely dictated by the government and how aggressive it is in completing trade agreements and opening up our economy, I'm not going to agree with Minford, but having the flexibility to use tariff drops to get trade deals signed is a big win for us as a nation of importers. If we become the open, trading nation I would like to see then I have no doubt we will be better off, if we fall into a protectionist closed/planned economy style of governance then we probably won't be. I think the key is that the British people will decide on what kind of country we will be, not some unelected commissioner in Brussels.

Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.

Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

Additionally we wouldn't be importing low wage immigration which lowers the per capita GDP. The reason the welfare bill hasn't come down as quickly as expected (it has in fact increased) is because of low paid migrants receiving tax credits and housing benefit.

Do eg Australian or American low wage migrants get tax credits or housing benefit? I'm guessing if we leave we can stop that completely and get the good side of immigration without subsidising it and making it a drain on the economy.

No, and they have to pay an upfront fee for NHS use as well. The problem at the moment is the government is busy cutting back on legal immigration from embassies and consulates because there are so many illegals which they appear unable to control, and its the only way to keep the lid on the numbers at the moment. The percentage of non-EU immigrant visas rejected went up by almost 20% this year, are we to believe that the standard of application suddenly got a fifth worse ?

There are still 155,000 non-EU immigrants coming to the UK every year, which (IIRC) is almost a record. So, the cut backs aren't working too well.

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.

Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.

PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.

Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?

MikeK said:

Ed Vaizy acting like a robot/puppet of Osborne and getting cut to ribbons by A.Neil. What a c**t!

Vaizy was completely out of his depth and has been put up by REMAIN without any grasp of the financial figures involved. He is quite good at talking about luvviedom.

kjohnw said:

Anecdote FWIW: One of our suppliers drivers from Wolverhampton just reckoned about 80% of Wolverhampton is voting LEAVE. Window Cleaner yesterday who we use in Ellesmere Port, says everyone round here voting out, hasn't met anyone remaining.

And 90% of Twitter is going for Remain

More seriously, I am glad they heeding the warnings of their late, former MP.

DanSmith said:

Scott_P said:

@JournoStephen: STV poll: Remain still ahead, but Leave gains ground https://t.co/xefAxvXdJo #EURef https://t.co/txnuwyxQvy

A 60-40 loss not out of the question for Leave which they would be delighted with.

Well you are stretching the numbers there. Look again at the poll.

Also, more public support FOR a second indy referendum than AGAINST one.

As I say, chaos.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.

Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.

There are threats that if REMAIN wins, then Top Gear will feature wall to wall Chris Evans, will be renamed Gear Sans Frontieres, one of the two weekly stars in a rallycross car will be able to play the joker, there will be simultaneous translation of Evans shouting into French, and Stuart Hall will be brought in for commentary and sundry other things.

Slackbladder said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

brokenwheel said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting divergence in the REMAIN camps between Osborne and some of Labour's top people.

Osborne says no change in free movement beyond what is already announced.
Some senior Labour people saying that yes there should be.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/can-osborne-reform-free-movement-the-short-answer-is-no/

And Corbyn has smacked them down and sided with Osborne.

This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...

Yes. Also has Corbyn or McDonnell spoken about Osborne's doomsday budget?

They've said they would reject it.

Who says McDonnell could carry his party?

SeanT said:

DanSmith said:

Scott_P said:

@JournoStephen: STV poll: Remain still ahead, but Leave gains ground https://t.co/xefAxvXdJo #EURef https://t.co/txnuwyxQvy

A 60-40 loss not out of the question for Leave which they would be delighted with.

If LEAVE only lose by 60/40 in Scotland then they will win the overall referendum very handsomely, maybe by a 10 point margin. Extraordinary.

The poll doesn't say that. Look at the article rather than jumping in the posts of DanSmith

Andrew Neil has just given up on Seema Malhotra for not answering one question. "Was Alistair Darling representing the Labour party or himself".

Seemed a reasonable question to me but she declined several times to answer it.

Patrick said:

Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.

Someone said to me once: there is no long-term, there is merely a succession of short-terms.

Human beings have very high internal discount rates, hence many people's dubious life decisions. Focusing on 2040 will not move a single vote either way, and if we try it, we'll lose this election.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.

Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.

PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.

Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?

Well, Leave evidently care about the lesser sum of £350m/week.

Tim_B said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Daily Politics - Andrew Neil says that John McDonnell says that Labour would not support Osborne's blackmail budget.

Another massive split in the REMAIN camp.

There are threats that if REMAIN wins, then Top Gear will feature wall to wall Chris Evans, will be renamed Gear Sans Frontieres, one of the two weekly stars in a rallycross car will be able to play the joker, there will be simultaneous translation of Evans shouting into French, and Stuart Hall will be brought in for commentary and sundry other things.

Will REMAIN pardon Stuart Hall?

Casino_Royale said:

midwinter said:

Casino_Royale said:

felix said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Indigo said:

TOPPING said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The politics of the aftermath is this. Whoever loses will be vindicated. Mass immigration will continue if we Remain. They'll be some sort of short and medium term economic shock if we Leave.

Mass immigration will continue if we Leave also.

and economic shocks if we Remain also, like when Greece or Italy goes t*ts up

Leavers don't care about the economy. They care about sovereignty and immigration.

That isn't true. Don't be silly.

Err - the thrust of their campaign is to downgrade the importance of the economy compared to 'sovereingty' - several prominent posters have said as much on here often.

Remainers prize short-term economic stability over everything else and think the sovereignty and democratic issues are overblown.

Leavers have their eyes on long-term economic success, self-governance and democratic renewal and think the short-term economic risk is within acceptable parameters.

I wouldn't say Remainers don't care about sovereignty and nor would i say Leavers don't care about the economy.

Can't help thinking that you are giving some of your fellow Leavers credit for more noble motives than they deserve.....It's all about immigrants where I live (West Sussex coast) . It's an area of high employment, and lots of pensioners, the Eastern Europeans are generally pleasant and hard working, but the old people do not like them being here.

I'm not accusing all Leavers of being swivel eyed racists but to pretend immigration isn't the major factor behind a lot of pensioners votes in the South is disingenuous.

Some will be xenophobes, sure. And some Remainers hold an active detestation of their own country.

But I don't believe, and nor is it my experience that, more than 50% of the electorate are.

I don't disagree. Just saying it's a lot more than people in London imagine, and they are not going to be happy or accept any deal that doesn't involve massively reduced immigration numbers and not just from the EU.

Morris_Dancer said:

Osborne to have new theme tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhF0-MeRwg0

Very brave to post something by Status Quo. You'll likely never live it down!

If you take the certain to vote figures in that STV poll then repercentage them it's a fraction off 70/30 for Remain. Never the less the " Trend is your friend " and it's a big shift to Leave since the last poll.

Once again, people are falling over themselves to lap up the rhetoric and not thinking about the reality of a LEAVE vote.

Voting LEAVE starts a process confirmed by the invoking of Article 50 by which Britain will instigate negotiations to leave the European Union. It's a right every state has and I imagine has always had.

Let's talk turmoil and uncertainty - there's plenty of that about all the time. The FTSE fell 12% between December 30th 2015 and February 11th 2016 but the world didn't end and indeed many cheered the slump in world oil prices (apart from those having a daily jibe at the SNP) that was the primary cause.

Whether inside the EU or outside, global financial markets react (or generally over-react) to events. The result of the Spanish election and indeed the upcoming elections in the US and Germany will all cause turmoil and uncertainty let alone other events or a cold winter or a mild winter.

Yes, political uncertainty doesn't help but if memory serves, the stock market surged on the Monday after the 2010 GE not because of the impending Coalition but because of a Greek bailout. We perhaps over-emphasise our importance on the global stage.

On Friday June 24th, the air will be full not of recrimination and fear but reconciliation and hope. Whichever side wins knows it has to a) restore confidence in Government and b) mend fences within parties and throughout Government. That won't be easy and doubtless some of the rancour of the campaign will live on but the winners will be conciliatory (though not on here I suspect) as well as the losers.

In and of itself, the very fact of a result will end uncertainty - we will all know where we stand or what we're standing in depending on your perspective. Reassurance will be everything - whichever side wins will, if they have any sense, be offering that by the bucket load.

John_N4 said:

David_Evershed said:

Sean_F said:

For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.

If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?

Amazingly (source):

"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"

Wow! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads make all the difference isn't.

The referendum isn't binding, so a tie is a perfectly cogent outcome.

John_N4 said:

David_Evershed said:

Sean_F said:

For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.

If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?

Amazingly (source):

"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"

Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads make all the difference isn't.

Are the odds higher or lower than the Vote Leave £50m footie competition?

David_Evershed said:

Sean_F said:

Paristonda said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, interesting post. I did wonder some time ago if couples (ahem, or friends) might vote in cancelling pairs, as happened in the Scottish vote.

Nothing has changed from my early May hypothesis, IMHO.

British voters *as a whole* want to give the UK and the EU a very nasty shock, and then deliver the closest Remain vote humanly possible. So voters will now calibrate themselves back a tad from Leave to deliver it, in my view.

That then puts our EU membership on probation. "One last chance" etc.

I agree the public probably are thinking along those lines, the danger for remain being that tactical voting isn't always guaranteed to work. It's like the Scottish election, with RISE and greens etc saying to split votes, tactically not voting for the SNP, backfired and ended with them losing the majority

It's probably easier to get the tactical result you want with First Past the Post than it is with FPTP combined with PR.

For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.

If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?

It's ridiculous to try to vote tactically in a referendum. It's stupid to vote to punish 'Politician X' . Vote for what you want and accept the consequences.

Jobabob said:

Slackbladder said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

brokenwheel said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

An interesting divergence in the REMAIN camps between Osborne and some of Labour's top people.

Osborne says no change in free movement beyond what is already announced.
Some senior Labour people saying that yes there should be.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/15/can-osborne-reform-free-movement-the-short-answer-is-no/

And Corbyn has smacked them down and sided with Osborne.

This is all quite amusing since from the beginning we were told by the media it was Leave that was the fractured campaign...

Yes. Also has Corbyn or McDonnell spoken about Osborne's doomsday budget?

They've said they would reject it.

Who says McDonnell could carry his party?

Name one Labour MP you think will vote for a Tory proposal to cut NHS spending and raise basic rate tax. Even one please.

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

The fact is that if it is vital to eliminate the deficit by 2020, and by God how many times have we been told that it is, government fiscal policy will have to be recalibrated after a Leave vote, especially if leaving does result in less government income. The only way for Tory Leavers to get round that is to admit that the deficit reduction targets they signed up to and vocally advocated were arbitrary and unnecessary.

So, which is it Leavers? Do we have to eliminate the deficit by 2020 or don't we?

We do. Structurally the finances will be better if we Leave as we will eliminate our net payments to the EU. So it all comes down to growth from there.

The stuff of sheer fantasy. This is what we are dealing with.

So do you think that our growth would be lower permanently after leaving the EU? That's really the only way we would be worse off in structural terms. The Treasury has completely lost the plot. Even the most bearish analysts say that over the long term our GDP trend growth would be the same or better, it's the short term which worries them.

NIESR say a 4-6% diminution in aggregate and an approx 1% diminution per capita over the mid- to longer term.

Capital Economics say it is more likely to be positive than negative. OpenEurope put it as broadly neutral, +0.8% to -0.6%, depending upon policy response.

PwC put our GDP per capita in 2030 as between 25-28% higher outside the EU, and 29% higher inside the EU.

Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that GDP per capita was 1% lower than would otherwise have been the case in the medium to longer term, that's neither here nor there.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the figure was $46,000 rather than $46,460, would anyone care?

I don't suppose they would. We would be voting to become a less prosperous country relative to our peers. At some point, in the famous long run, the one also when Leavers think we will have passed our hockey stick/Nike tick and be thriving, we will be much, much less important as a country on the world stage.

Not really, we will still have one of five UNSC seats and vetoes, we will still have a permanent nuclear deterrent, we will still be the fifth largest global economy, we will still be one of a handful of nations which can project forces globally. Not being in the EU isn't the end of the world and neither is it the end of our diplomatic and foreign policy power. If it was then we wouldn't be being bossed by Russia on Syria and Ukraine.

Mr. Cide, morris dancers are fearless. If we frolic in lace and bells waving our wiffle sticks in public, do you really mean to suggest I might be afraid of posting a mere rock song to a website?

Mr. Llama, quite. As I said a loooong time ago now, Cameron's claiming he's offering us a choice of ham or razorblade sandwiches. And that he said a few months ago he'd happily eat the razorblades. But now he's realised they're terribly dangerous.

He's definitely lying, the question is only whether it's then or now.

John_N4 said:

David_Evershed said:

Sean_F said:

For many people, the ideal result would be Remain 50.01%, Leave 49.99%.

If it's a draw who gets the casting vote - Speaker Bercow?

I was going to say "the status quo would prevail", which in this context would mean continued membership. But I checked, and amazingly (source):

"A government spokesperson told ITV News: 'It is vanishingly unlikely that there would be tie, with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for each outcome, and there is no specific provision for one under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000.'"

Wow! What pathetic drafting! Obviously a tie is extremely unlikely, but a result where hanging chads, a broken down van carrying a ballot box or an egregious instance of cheating make all the difference isn't.

Why should there be provision for a tie? Referenda are advisory and not legally binding anyway. You only need a result if the result is binding.

MaxPB said:

Not really, we will still have one of five UNSC seats and vetoes, we will still have a permanent nuclear deterrent, we will still be the fifth largest global economy, we will still be one of a handful of nations which can project forces globally. Not being in the EU isn't the end of the world and neither is it the end of our diplomatic and foreign policy power. If it was then we wouldn't be being bossed by Russia on Syria and Ukraine.

I'm not so sure we can project forces globally; we're currently without an aircraft carrier.

Cameron subdued?

YellowSubmarine said:

If you take the certain to vote figures in that STV poll then repercentage them it's a fraction off 70/30 for Remain. Never the less the " Trend is your friend " and it's a big shift to Leave since the last poll.

What were the certain to vote figures previously?

rkrkrk said:

Patrick said:

Here's a Q for Remainiacs. Let us assume you are right and there is a downturn for a year or two or three. Would avoiding a short term challenge like this justify a 'decision for the ages' about who we are and who gets to govern us? The scaremongering seems to me to be saying essentially 'I'll sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver tomorrow'. My own view is that the referendum is the biggest political decision voters have faced in this country for ages and will set a direction of travel for a long, long time. We should not let short-termist issues drive the vote. Do you want to be part of a European superstate by 2040? That's a better way to look at it.

For me personally- no it wouldn't be worth it. I'd vote for a democracy and a recession over a dictatorship every time.

But I don't agree with your analysis that that is what is being voted on. I'm voting remain in the EU- I am not voting for a European Superstate.

Too right. There is already legislation for a referendum should any additional powers be transferred to EU e.g. in the event of creation of an EU superstate.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Andrew Neil has just given up on Seema Malhotra for not answering one question. "Was Alistair Darling representing the Labour party or himself".

Seemed a reasonable question to me but she declined several times to answer it.

Damn silly question imo. You could ask it of any politician who ever said anything.