politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Peston suggests that Boris might be preparing the ground to fl

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

You lost that discussion back then and, should you choose to resurrect it now, you would lose it again.

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

It's a stupid and unnecessary argument. I HATED that poster, but not because the claim they were joining - about the idea it would be (a) tomorrow and (b) unleash a tidal wave of migrants.

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

It mut be great for you, living in a fact-free world.....

Stick to your race-baiting. Your fact-checking is abysmal.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

<

What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.

This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:

https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/955476275874775041

After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.

Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.

Italy's economy is about 6% smaller than it was a decade ago. I don't think that even the most pessimistic Remain-supporting economist is predicting such an outcome for the UK.

It depends on the underlying world growth rate. The period you quote was one of little world growth that Italy underperformed. The same thing could very well happen to us in the same context if last year's 0.5% - 0.7% underperform continues. Even sinking boats lift in a rising tide however. The truth is we don't know. Will we have a long term underperform and what will the world economy look like over that period?

Some data to illustrate the point about the UK possibly looking like Italy:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KN?end=2016&locations=GB-IT&start=2006

In real terms we are not ourselves better off than we were ten years ago. If we had had a cumulative 0.5%-0.7% drag on our growth rates we would be worse off.

There's no evidence of this drag on growth. Unless you have an alternative universe generator and have been to one where the public voted to remain.

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

You lost that discussion back then and, should you choose to resurrect it now, you would lose it again.

So the meeting between Turkey and the EU the week after the referendum was a load of bolllocks then?

BBC Source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
Headline: “EU opens new phase in Turkey membership bid talks”

Turkey joining the EU is a lot like my plans for a threesome with Christina Hendricks and Karen Gillan.

I’ve thought a lot about it and made plans, but it ain’t going to happen.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

<

What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.

This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:

https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/955476275874775041

After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.

Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it lasts for a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.

Should have been? Who knows what would have happened last year if the vote had been different.

Read my comment.

* Edit possibly a bit higher than 2.2% as world growth was revised up 0.2% per the IMF figures.

I did, and didn’t read anything to suggest it should have been 2.2% or higher, or any other number for that matter.

IMF predicted 2.2% growth rate for 2017 prior to the referendum and then brought their predictions down because of it. At the same time our peers have outperformed the IMF predictions and very significantly outperformed us. So the IMF cut their prediction because of Brexit and this cut was vindicated circumstantially by what happened to the UK as well as countries like the USA, Germany and France.

And the IMF have never been wrong in a prediction before? Remind me what they said during Osborne’s tenure about the UK economy.

No-one predicts perfectly. The IMF have a better than average record. The point is that the IMF changed their prediction because of Brexit and that change is corroborated by what happened, not just with that prediction but other predictions they made and also by other evidence.

RobD said:

calum said:

Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.

Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.

The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.

RobD said:

And the IMF have never been wrong in a prediction before? Remind me what they said during Osborne’s tenure about the UK economy.

I remember the gritted teeth when they made their appology to Osborne.

The city consensus for UK growth in 2017 is 1.8%, my gut feeling is we'll end up a smidgeon above that figure once all of the revisions are in by the middle of this year. At that point it should be fairly clear that the Brexit slowdown was a statistical phantom and that UK growth will be in the top end of our international partners.

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

Manchester City are winning the Premier League.

It's not settled though.

Sean_F said:

However, it will be some time before we know for certain what the rate of growth was in 2017. FWIW, without the Brexit vote, I expect that consumer spending would have been far stronger in 2017 than proved to be the case, and the balance of trade correspondingly worse.

FWIW, I would expect the IMF figure for 2017 to be accurate. The data was collated this month. We'll see.

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

You lost that discussion back then and, should you choose to resurrect it now, you would lose it again.

So the meeting between Turkey and the EU the week after the referendum was a load of bolllocks then?

BBC Source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
Headline: “EU opens new phase in Turkey membership bid talks”

They want to join the EU. The EU wants them to join. But Turkey, as Turkey is today, is not eligible to join the EU for several reasons. Hence it is not about to join. Everyone knows this.

Now, in 20-30 years, once they have satisfied all the joining criteria, and absent any veto from existing EU members, they might be in a better position to join, but then that is not the Turkey that exists today.

So no, Turkey is not joining the EU.

We are talking about the period prior to the Referendum, so not later than June 2016. Your comments relate to the period subsequent to that.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/955827942579408896

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

Manchester City are winning the Premier League.

It's not settled though.

Fleetwood Town want to win the Champions League.

They may but they're not currently winning it, they're not even taking part in it. Unlike Turkey at the time of the accession talks who were joining the EU.

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

You and i both know it was unlikely to happen any time soon (and has become considerably more unlikely since June 2016), because of political considerations. However, in what procedural way was Turkey's position any different from that of Serbia - and is not Serbia joining the EU?

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

"James is buying a house"...

Pong said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/955827942579408896

Austerity iBt kaput.

ist.

Also, Boris not the only one on manoeuvres.

MaxPB said:

calum said:

RobD said:

calum said:

Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886

Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.

Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.

The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.

That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.

Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.

If the NHS needs another £8 billion - there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.

Pong said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/955827942579408896

Austerity iBt kaput.

No Scharfers S in ist.

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

"James is buying a house"...

Feck, that’s been going on for months now.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

Manchester City are winning the Premier League.

It's not settled though.

It probably is with Paddy Power.

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

That rather depends on what is meant by "joining".

Turkey was not about to become a member of the EU. It could not reasonably be argued that it was undertaking an action that would shortly mean it had "joined".

On the other hand, Turkey was, as it had been for decades, making glacial but real progress towards membership. The joining process had been begun, talks were underway and the acquis chapters had been opened. In that sense, Turkey was in the process of joining.

The ambiguities of the English language and international diplomacy mean either case can be made for the same word.

The normal meaning of the words "Turkey is joining the EU" is that the matter had been settled. Consider:

"Fulham is being promoted to the Premiership"
"The Conservatives are forming the next government"
"David Herdson is joining the Conservative party"

Turkey was not joining the EU.

Manchester City are winning the Premier League.

It's not settled though.

It probably is with Paddy Power.

They paid out last month

https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/938710711722741760?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&amp;ref_url=https://news.paddypower.com/football/2017/12/07/manchester-city-early-payout-title-win-2017-premier-league/

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

You lost that discussion back then and, should you choose to resurrect it now, you would lose it again.

So the meeting between Turkey and the EU the week after the referendum was a load of bolllocks then?

BBC Source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
Headline: “EU opens new phase in Turkey membership bid talks”

They want to join the EU. The EU wants them to join. But Turkey, as Turkey is today, is not eligible to join the EU for several reasons. Hence it is not about to join. Everyone knows this.

Now, in 20-30 years, once they have satisfied all the joining criteria, and absent any veto from existing EU members, they might be in a better position to join, but then that is not the Turkey that exists today.

So no, Turkey is not joining the EU.

We are talking about the period prior to the Referendum, so not later than June 2016. Your comments relate to the period subsequent to that.

You’re implicitly repeating the lie that was common currency at the time that the EU was ready to ‘fast track’ Turkish membership.

No. I'm calling out the lie that, at the time of the Referendum, Turkey deffo wasn't joining the EU. That may have been what EUrocrats sniggered behind their hands when the Turks kept tipping up to Brussels for meetings. But no-one had had the decency to tell them.

Or us.

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Manchester City are winning the Premier League.

It's not settled though.

It probably is with Paddy Power.

https://extra.bet365.com/news/en/Press-Releases/bet365-pay-out-on-manchester-city-as-premier-league-champions

I didn't know that but at least my instinct was right.

To be fair, you can see their point. Man City have dropped only 7 points in 24 games so far this season. For them to not win the league, they'd need to drop at least another 12 in the remaining 14 games, while Man Utd win every single one, and for the latter to make up a GD deficit of 19 goals - or for Utd to claw 13+ points back in the remaining games. not going to happen.

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

"since Turkey was not joining the EU"

And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!

Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.

I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.

The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.

The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.

You lost that discussion back then and, should you choose to resurrect it now, you would lose it again.

So the meeting between Turkey and the EU the week after the referendum was a load of bolllocks then?

BBC Source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
Headline: “EU opens new phase in Turkey membership bid talks”

They want to join the EU. The EU wants them to join. But Turkey, as Turkey is today, is not eligible to join the EU for several reasons. Hence it is not about to join. Everyone knows this.

Now, in 20-30 years, once they have satisfied all the joining criteria, and absent any veto from existing EU members, they might be in a better position to join, but then that is not the Turkey that exists today.

So no, Turkey is not joining the EU.

We are talking about the period prior to the Referendum, so not later than June 2016. Your comments relate to the period subsequent to that.

You’re implicitly repeating the lie that was common currency at the time that the EU was ready to ‘fast track’ Turkish membership.

No. I'm calling out the lie that, at the time of the Referendum, Turkey deffo wasn't joining the EU. That may have been what EUrocrats sniggered behind their hands when the Turks kept tipping up to Brussels for meetings. But no-one had had the decency to tell them.

Or us.

You don’t think David Cameron saying they were not joining gave the game away? Or the various leaders who’d said on multiple occasions they would veto it?

OrderOrder:

"Members of Jared O’Mara’s Constituency Labour Party are calling for him to stand down in time for the by-election to take place on the same day as the local elections in Sheffield"

TOPPING said:

They are in the process of joining the EU. But there are significant hurdles to that which means that by any reasonable judgement, they will not be joining for years if at all for a number of reasons and if and when they do join it will be a different Turkey that we will welcome on account of its adherence to the joining requirements.

Analagously to Fleetwood Town winning the Champions League.

"They are in the process of joining the EU" - so they were joining the EU. Glad that's clarified.

Not remotely analagous. Turkey is/was an official accession nation, one of only 4 at the time from memory. All 4 are in the process of joining the EU.

Fleetwood Town and the Champions League isn't remotely comparable.

tpfkar said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

tpfkar said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/955791521034403840

What bloody dividend?

£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.

It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?

£40 billion is equivalent to about 2 1/2 years of our current gross payment. I hope you are not another one if those idiots who thinks paying £15 billion a year for ever more is an argument against paying it for only 2 1/2 years.

I'm certainly not - clearly a one-off spend of £40bn to make an ongoing saving of £15bn is a superb investment and we've used similar principles to make savings in our council budget in recent years, albeit with fewer zeros.

However I'm afraid I am another one of those idiots who look at the costs we'll incur to either replicate EU agencies or pay top dollar rate for client (not partner) membership, and the money we'll end up paying to farmers and others, and fear that the £40bn will end up being an 'as well as' rather than an 'instead of' contribution.

Given that there was a very large gap between net and gross payments it should be obvious that we could replicate every one of the EU programmes in Britain and still be better off than the £5 billion a year Boris is proposing for the NHS. So your argument still doesn't make sense.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They are in the process of joining the EU. But there are significant hurdles to that which means that by any reasonable judgement, they will not be joining for years if at all for a number of reasons and if and when they do join it will be a different Turkey that we will welcome on account of its adherence to the joining requirements.

Analagously to Fleetwood Town winning the Champions League.

"They are in the process of joining the EU" - so they were joining the EU. Glad that's clarified.

Not remotely analagous. Turkey is/was an official accession nation, one of only 4 at the time from memory. All 4 are in the process of joining the EU.

Fleetwood Town and the Champions League isn't remotely comparable.

Of course it's comparable.

Fleetwood Town dearly want to win the Champions League. They are perfectly eligible. Indeed one could say they are winning the Champions League.

All they need to do is to get promoted to the Premier League, qualify for the Champions League, and then go on and win it.

Analagously, Turkey is joining the EU. But as it stands, there are many and various reasons why it would not be able to do so tomorrow morning. Call it a journey. If, in time, they become eligible and acceptable to join, then join they will. But they are not joining in the terms that was put about at the Referendum.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They are in the process of joining the EU. But there are significant hurdles to that which means that by any reasonable judgement, they will not be joining for years if at all for a number of reasons and if and when they do join it will be a different Turkey that we will welcome on account of its adherence to the joining requirements.

Analagously to Fleetwood Town winning the Champions League.

"They are in the process of joining the EU" - so they were joining the EU. Glad that's clarified.

Not remotely analagous. Turkey is/was an official accession nation, one of only 4 at the time from memory. All 4 are in the process of joining the EU.

Fleetwood Town and the Champions League isn't remotely comparable.

Of course it's comparable.

Fleetwood Town dearly want to win the Champions League. They are perfectly eligible. Indeed one could say they are winning the Champions League.

All they need to do is to get promoted to the Premier League, qualify for the Champions League, and then go on and win it.

Analagously, Turkey is joining the EU. But as it stands, there are many and various reasons why it would not be able to do so tomorrow morning. Call it a journey. If, in time, they become eligible and acceptable to join, then join they will. But they are not joining in the terms that was put about at the Referendum.

No Turkey were wanting to join the EU which means beginning the accession process and getting accepted as an accession nation. That had happened.

If they had completed the process they'd no longer be joining, they would have joined.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

You don’t think David Cameron saying they were not joining gave the game away? Or the various leaders who’d said on multiple occasions they would veto it?

Who are you trying to kid, David Cameron repeatedly said they were. In fact he said he was their "chief supporter" in joining.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world/europe/28iht-britain.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-10773007/cameron-uk-strongly-supports-turkey-eu-membership-bid
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10767768

Please find any time Cameron said they were not joining before the referendum campaign.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-david-cameron-points-out-the-three-lies-made-in-leave-campaign-leaflets-a7090706.html

“Let me just say again, for people sitting at home: I don’t want anyone to vote in this referendum on the basis of Turkey joining [the EU] because its not going to happen.

Can you read? I said "before the referendum campaign". How is the 19th of June 2016 before the referendum campaign?

I can highlight lots of articles of Cameron backing Turkey joining before the campaign, yes during the campaign he threw his principles out as they no longer suited his agenda but try and find one before then.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.

... the leadership.

Winning the vote scuppered that plan.

this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...

For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.

About two hours after Dave resigned.

I’ll never forget that morning.

Two hours, really? I recall Cameron’s speech, followed immediately by Mark Carney (who’d clearly done his homework) then the Leave team speech.

Carney was 7.30am

Dave was 8.15am*

Vote Leave’s press conference was 10am.

*I was told Dave was resigning at 7.40 am.

Dave spoke to Gove at 7.30am to congratulate him and to tell him he was going to make a statement.

Gove only found out Dave was resigning when Dave made his speech outside Downing Street.

Gove wasn’t expecting to win, is why on June 21/22nd he spent most of his time making sure no one tried to topple Dave after Remain won.

Okay I’ll defer to your timings. I knew that you had a tip-off on the DC resignation.

To go back to my original point, when Boris and Gove were pictured making their statement, they weren’t in as much of a triumphant mood as one might expect, because their good friend the prime minister had not long ago announced his resignation.

I'd always assumed they were knackered after being up most of the night and having to scrub up and speak in front of cameras in the morning. Not sure you can read as much into this as some are trying. I wonder if those of us who've attended an election count and tried to do much the next day might sympathise!

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They are in the process of joining the EU. But there are significant hurdles to that which means that by any reasonable judgement, they will not be joining for years if at all for a number of reasons and if and when they do join it will be a different Turkey that we will welcome on account of its adherence to the joining requirements.

Analagously to Fleetwood Town winning the Champions League.

"They are in the process of joining the EU" - so they were joining the EU. Glad that's clarified.

Not remotely analagous. Turkeyhe EU.

Fleetwood Town and the Champions League isn't remotely comparable.

Of course it's comparable.

Fleetwood Town dearly want to win the Champions League. They are perfectly eligible. Indeed one could say they are winning the Champions League.

All they need to do is to get promoted to the Premier League, qualify for the Champions League, and then go on and win it.

Analagously, Turkey is joining the EU. But as it stands, there are many and various reasons why it would not be able to do so tomorrow morning. Call it a journey. If, in time, they become eligible and acceptable to join, then join they will. But they are not joining in the terms that was put about at the Referendum.

No Turkey were wanting to join the EU which means beginning the accession process and getting accepted as an accession nation. That had happened.

If they had completed the process they'd no longer be joining, they would have joined.

Ah yes - "if they had been promoted to the Premier League, qualified, and then won the Champions League" "if they had completed the process".

Is not getting promoted to the PL, etc "completing the process"?

No.

The process for the Champions League begins with qualifying via your league position or winning a relevant trophy. Fleetwood Town haven't done either.

The process for EU accession begins with being accepted as an official accession nation and beginning accession talks. Turkey have done that.

Your Fleetwood Town example is more comparable to Russia - a European nation that is eligible geographically to one day apply but has not begun the process.

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

FF43 said:

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

Several other people appear to have replicated the result

Scott_P said:

FF43 said:

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

Several other people appear to have replicated the result

Did one of them call themselves Ndabaningi Sithole?

FF43 said:

Correct. Although there won't be any net savings until 2021 at the earliest, if the transition goes as planned. Even after that any net savings will be reduced by ongoing A50 payments. All these leave aside any economic effects of Brexit.

Who knows what the deal will look like afterwards, but from our gross contribution of £12-13bn, I'm sure £7-8bn will be available. As to the effects of Brexit on the economy, or at least government revenue, well this year the OBR are going to be ~£11bn out on their deficit forecast, mainly due to much stronger than expected tax receipts owing to stronger growth in production than expected.

I don't know about you, but if our fiscal ombudsman can be £11bn out in-year then I'm not going to even pretend that anyone can predict the effects of Brexit on the economy.

It could be that once we're out Liam Fox surprises everyone and we sign favourable trade deals with scores of countries and it adds more to our export growth than anyone expects. It could be that Sterling crashes to parity with the Euro forcing us to import more from non-EU countries with whom we may decide to cut or eliminate tariffs, further boosting growth.

There's so many scenarios with post Brexit economic growth that it would be folly to predict how it will effect the government's finances. I'll repeat, the OBR are going to be £11bn our with an in-year prediction. They have access to more data than any other organisations tying to predict UK economic development.

Anyway, I'm sure this will all fall on deaf ears and you will continue on your path of Brexit = doom, despite mounting evidence to the contrary and I'll continue to look at the actual numbers, mainly because I have to.

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

You have the ability to know if the name is fake and you still agree to cover them???

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

But I reckon they’d be able to check if there are any significant differences in claims rates by name.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

You have the ability to know if the name is fake and you still agree to cover them???

What I mean is that they have historical data for one of the names if confirmed. I am speculating here. The idea that Admiral have actually programmed their quoting system to add weights according to the applicant's surname seems (even) less likely.

Meh. Turkey again. It's one of the areas where Leavers have a tin ear. Once more into the breach.

Turkey applied in 1987. They were accepted as an official accession country in 1999. They'd met one of the 35 accession criteria by 2016. The EP voted to suspend accession talks at the end of 2016. The CoM followed suit shortly thereafter.

I know we all like to win arguments on t'Interwebs, but Turkey were never going to join the EU. Never. If we take the interval between referendums as forty years, they might join before 2056, but given the direction of travel in their domestic politics, that's unlikely.

The Leave campaign were outrageously wrong to make it an issue, and just because Osbourne was a lying twat with his punishment budget, it doesn't make it right.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

Comparable to Russia.

Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.

Voila!

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

Comparable to Russia.

Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.

Voila!

You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.

So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.

Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.

MaxPB said:

FF43 said:

Correct. Although there won't be any net savings until 2021 at the earliest, if the transition goes as planned. Even after that any net savings will be reduced by ongoing A50 payments. All these leave aside any economic effects of Brexit.

Who knows what the deal will look like afterwards, but from our gross contribution of £12-13bn, I'm sure £7-8bn will be available. As to the effects of Brexit on the economy, or at least government revenue, well this year the OBR are going to be ~£11bn out on their deficit forecast, mainly due to much stronger than expected tax receipts owing to stronger growth in production than expected.

I don't know about you, but if our fiscal ombudsman can be £11bn out in-year then I'm not going to even pretend that anyone can predict the effects of Brexit on the economy.

It could be that once we're out Liam Fox surprises everyone and we sign favourable trade deals with scores of countries and it adds more to our export growth than anyone expects. It could be that Sterling crashes to parity with the Euro forcing us to import more from non-EU countries with whom we may decide to cut or eliminate tariffs, further boosting growth.

There's so many scenarios with post Brexit economic growth that it would be folly to predict how it will effect the government's finances. I'll repeat, the OBR are going to be £11bn our with an in-year prediction. They have access to more data than any other organisations tying to predict UK economic development.

Anyway, I'm sure this will all fall on deaf ears and you will continue on your path of Brexit = doom, despite mounting evidence to the contrary and I'll continue to look at the actual numbers, mainly because I have to.

Just to refine your comment, our gross contribution is £15 billion a year.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

Comparable to Russia.

Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.

Voila!

You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.

So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.

Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.

No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.

"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

Comparable to Russia.

Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.

Voila!

You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.

So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.

Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.

No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.

"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.

Nah.

I am getting the train if I am stepping up from the platform onto the train.

I am in the process of getting the train if I am stuck on the A1(M) at the Black Cat heading to Peterborough Station to get the train with 20 minutes before it leaves.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

You have the ability to know if the name is fake and you still agree to cover them???

Don't background checks and credit scores get affected by whether you are on the electoral roll?

Given that you have given Admiral both your name and address it is possible that one is a name that exists on the electoral roll at that address and the other is not.

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

Oh dear...

https://twitter.com/halhod/status/955836303282790402

I would be very surprised if Admiral are discriminating on surnames. Maybe one of the names is real and the other isn't?

You have the ability to know if the name is fake and you still agree to cover them???

What I mean is that they have historical data for one of the names if confirmed. I am speculating here. The idea that Admiral have actually programmed their quoting system to add weights according to the applicant's surname seems (even) less likely.

Both points taken. Surely the Twitter poster is not Mr Smith, though, i.e. both individuals are fictitious, at least in terms of address.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/955828026595450880

Interesting for Trump betting. Economy is improving but it isn't improving as fast in Trump country as it is in floppy wet liberal country.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.

There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.

The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.

Incorrect again.

Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.

Dear f*cking god this is painful.

Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.

Voila!

Comparable to Russia.

Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.

Voila!

You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.

So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.

Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.

No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.

"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.

Nah.

I am getting the train if I am stepping up from the platform onto the train.

I am in the process of getting the train if I am stuck on the A1(M) at the Black Cat heading to Peterborough Station to get the train with 20 minutes before it leaves.

To be fair, when you use the analogy below, Turkey's chances of joining the EU must look like a dead cert.

"The UK is in the process of negotiating a vast new trade area ten times the size of the single market."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/david-davis-mocked-for-promising-free-trade-area