politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Announcing the Politicalbetting Prize EU referendum competi

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Did you read the Daniel Hodson article I linked to earlier?

Or the IEA report on Brexit?

Or Richard North's papers on the topic?

Or Geoffry Lyon?

Yes, I've read all of those.

As I said, I don't have a closed mind on this, I read and take seriously informed opinion on both sides. And I never, ever, accuse those making a sensible case on the Leave side of lying, bullying, being Europhobes, etc etc.

The Daniel Hodson article, to take the most recent, doesn't seem to say very much. Yes, he is right about regulation (but did he seriously ever expect the UK to get back its veto???).

As I've said zillions of times, the Leave side are preaching to the converted when they point out what's wrong with the EU. I get that. It's the alternatives, and how we get there, that are unconvincing.

It's a negotiation.

Weren't you one of those who said that rUK would behave rationally in the event of iScot negotiations?

It is, indeed, a negotiation. And in effect we will be negotiating with 27 different countries. The sword that hangs over them is that we may put tariffs on their imports to if they do not allow us to impose significant restrictions on immigration. For the countries that have no significant trade surplus with us, that is not a meaningful threat. For others, such as Germany, it may be. But then the Germans will ask themselves whether, in practice, this is something that we will be wiling to do. Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?

No, we won't.

The EU agrees a common negotiating position. Whatever they do behind the scenes to come up with that common position is no concern of ours.

It is if it takes years for them to agree. What happens in the meantime? As we have seen from other deals the EU negotiates it takes a great deal of time because all member states have to be satisfied before anything can be signed.

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

chestnut said:

SouthamObserver said:

Would we be willing to make German cars and other products more expensive to buy in the UK? Would we be willing to restrict choice in that way and give car manufacturers from elsewhere the ability to put up their prices. They may well conclude that the answer is No. Then what happens?

We invite in alternative suppliers from the 190 nations outside the EU?

We promote an increase in domestic production?

We approach BMW etc and suggest that they manufacture here to circumvent any barrier?

The issue is that many key parts in the engine/drive train may only be sourced form Europe.. eg Fuel Injection systems..

So if you impose import tariffs, you may get retribution given in the form of export tariffs which will make UK manufacture uncompetitive...

Beggar my neighbour politics...like in the 1930s.. That worked well didn't it?

Scott_P said:

Owen Patterson on DP has just pitched another incoherent Out position.

He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50.

He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts.

So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.

Owen Patterson is always incoherent..

'Certainly, as a partner in a small fund management firm, the loss of the Single European Passport for financial services regulation would be a pretty severe blow to our firm.'

Perhaps - but on the question of welfare gains I was thinking in rather broader terms than the experiences of one small company.

So for example if we dial back a few decades, what were the most important aspects of the various GATT and WTO trade rounds? The tariff reductions or other items?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

RodCrosby said:

Trump seems to be running away with it, at least in the national GOP polls.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cnn-23911

If he's touching 50% in a 5 way race, surely it's time for Rubio and Cruz to call it a day? If Rubio does try and drag it out until Trump's delegate lead is unassailable he'll only damage the party.

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

Any time you leave something (job, partner, country) there is a "push" element and a "pull" one.

In my experience, any decision motivated only or largely by the "push" factor can lead to the wrong decision. Once you've left all the factors pushing you to leave have gone. So there needs to be more. You need to have some idea of what the answer to the "then what?" question is.

Interesting and persuasive point, not just in the context of politics.

I learnt it, like most things in life, the hard way.

Mr. T, ha, realised that shortly after writing it.

Adjusting for deflation sounds weird, though.

It's almost as if trying to have one currency for umpteen totally different countries is a stupid idea...

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has

Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
ly weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.

In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.

But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.

It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.

I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.

Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.

So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.

Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....

do tell.

SeanT said:

Relevantly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/eurozone-slides-back-into-deflation/
Deflation is seriously nasty. If it takes hold of the EZ then it's time to start caching weapons, and buying tinned soup...... I expect REMAIN to win in June, but the economic nightmare of the euro, the migration crisis, the no-doubt-botched move to Federalisation - all these won't go away. The EU is in secular decline, with no prospect of reversal. At some point we will leave. At some point.

"I expect REMAIN to win in June" also, but my little guesstimate of a spreadsheet is guessing a small LEAVE win so I have gone with that model as an earlier model guessed that Corbyn would win (I only had 14/1).
Sean also agree that the numerous car crashes inside the EU will eventually force us out.

Maybe the first rule is not to believe in any entity that cannot agree to cut down from 2 HQs to 1? Usually a bad sign in a company to have 2 HQs.

DanSmith said:

John Berman ‏@JohnBerman 2h2 hours ago
BREAKING: (BIG) Trump near 50% in new National @CNN/ORC poll.
Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%, Kasich 6%.

I think Chris Chistie's endorsement has given Trump an enormous boost to near hegemony. Surely Christie will be Trump's VP choice.

Scott_P said:

Owen Patterson on DP has just pitched another incoherent Out position. He wants to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, before triggering Article 50. He calls it "informal negotiation", before the "formal negotiation" starts.
So he wants a vote for leave, but doesn't want the PM to act on a vote for leave.

It is called negotiation tactics. Are you unfamiliar with that? Controlling the clock - even when it starts - is a good practice.

RodCrosby said:

Trump seems to be running away with it, at least in the national GOP polls.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cnn-23911

The polls haven't been accurate in.the USA either IIRC.

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.

Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.

So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.

Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....

do tell.

I haven't said the latter. I have always said that this is a very finely balanced decision.

The Leave case would be the same as that for Scottish independence i.e. that being in control of your own destiny is better on the whole than being richer but subservient. The additional case might be that the ability to trade is not the sole measure of human or a country's happiness. The decision is not purely an economic one.

To be honest, based on what I have read, the economic arguments on either side are much of a muchness. There is not much to choose between them. They are not - at least for me - the trump card. Whether in or out I think Britain will thrive. It's what kind of a Britain it will be that is the issue. And it will be different in the different scenarios in ways which may mean more or less to different groups. That's why the vision of Britain which the In / Out groups has is so important.

It is a very fine morning. Spring is wonderful. We should - really - be outside not stuck in front of our computers.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

It is called negotiation tactics. Are you unfamiliar with that? Controlling the clock - even when it starts - is a good practice.

The country votes to leave, but the PM says "no, hang on, we need to chat about it first"?

That is not a credible position.

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

I expect him to.

I do not expect him to lie on a matter such as this. Which is why I would welcome a move to oust him post the referendum, him and Osborne. Does Osborne remind anyone of "Blackadder"?

As a matter of interest, what lie is Cameron supposed to have made?

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

Who gives a feck about AV. The sovereign future of the UK? That's different. You don't lie about that. You really really don't, not if you are the prime minister. I hope he leaves office in disgrace. I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.

So what is the lie?

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has

Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighed by the advantages of being in the Single Market.
ly weak position of a minority, usually of one, within a very much larger bloc - that we won't be faced with significant integration, often against our wishes and not in our interests and that the advantages of the Single Market may not be seen by everyone as outweighing those disadvantages.

In general, trying always to maintain a status quo position can mean diminishing returns in a world that is constantly moving. Very often true. In that respect, semantically, there is probably really no such thing as the status quo at all.

But I think it is probably only in that absolutist definition that you can describe Remain's attempt to claim the status quo as dishonest.

It is an interesting line of argument we are getting to here, eventual UK diminuition and isolation under status quo within the EU (whether or not the EU itself prospers), against immediate isolation and diminuition without, but with the chance to start rebuilding (however painfully) in other directions. Not sure that it instantly converts me into being a Leaver, surely I'm more likely to absorb the argument into a Remain narrative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.

I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.

Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.

So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.

Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....

do tell.

Because we will be free to (a) negotiate our own deals with third parties and (b) innovate around EU regulations to the extent that we want

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.

David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.

It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.

I know, he won the general election warning against the economic risks of changing the status quo, when everyone was calling him a loser.

He's sticking to what works for him

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.

David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.

It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.

Mourinho played to win. And then he came a cropper when he lost the dressing room.

Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information.
My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects.
My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work.
My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?

'Blatant lying by the PM. No.'

It's hardly a new thing. Not that that excuses it, of course.

Not quite in Blair's league either yet, though the PM is making a spirited late dash to overhaul his hero in this regard.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

Who gives a feck about AV. The sovereign future of the UK? That's different. You don't lie about that. You really really don't, not if you are the prime minister. I hope he leaves office in disgrace. I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.

So what is the lie?

The DEAL, dumbkopf.

Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

I am confident he will end up loathed, like a hybrid of Blair and Heath.

Well having predicted all of his previous resignations, I am sure you will be right again

There was a poll last year that had all voters and Lab 2015 voters saying Blair was the best Labour leader.

Poor Sean, always wrong.

So far after 218 entries, the predictions are Turnout 63.1% and LEAVE 46.09%.

People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.

In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris

.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!
Hypocrite.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

Who gives a feck about AV. T

So what is the lie?

The DEAL, dumbkopf.

Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.

Stop being so stupid. It's boring.

This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:

"I've got basically what I wanted"

Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:

1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws
3. Curbing the Working Time Directive
4. Securing changes before the referendum
5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places
and
6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU

He failed in
1
2
3
4
5
and
6

And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".

He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.

Quite so, but if you're trying to persuade people to buy chicken shit, you have to go all out to persuade them it's chicken salad.

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!



Hypocrite.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

David Cameron plays to win, he gives no quarter and he's very effective at what he does.

It's as if Chelsea fans can't appreciate why Diego Costa has relatively few admirers outside their own club.

I agree. Politicians play to win, not to be gallant losers.

So you think it's OK for prime ministers to lie to their voters, on matters of fundamental importance? Really??

I never thought the day would come when I would have to set the moral tone, and raise the moral standards of politicalbetting.com, but there we are.

Next, my lecture on sexual ethics.

It's the nature of the beast.

The question to ask Sir Jeremy Haywood tomorrow ...

Is one of your key performance objectives this year keeping the UK inside the EU?:

nigel4england said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.

Who gives a feck about AV. T

So what is the lie?

The DEAL, dumbkopf.

Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.

Stop being so stupid. It's boring.

This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:

"I've got basically what I wanted"

Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. THIS is what he wanted, as he told us in his Bloomberg Speech:

1. Opting Out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
2. Repatriating Social and Employment laws
3. Curbing the Working Time Directive
4. Securing changes before the referendum
5. Stopping the EU Parliament from meeting in Two Places
and
6. Achieving "Fundamental, Far Reaching" Reform of the EU

He failed in
1
2
3
4
5
and
6

And then he claims he "basically got what he wanted".

He's a liar. He lied. He's lying. He's a wretched and repulsive liar on this most important of subjects and how anyone sane can continue to support this puce-faced liar is beyond me.

You're voting to Remain aren't you ?

What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.

Now who is resorting to insults?

I'm using facts and abductive reasoning. Not insults.

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris in the Times also promised a "purge" of eurosceptics after the vote. So that's two of the most senior Tory journalists in the country using exactly the same word. And not just any old word. PURGE.

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just as they are trying to frighten and bully the voters in the same direction.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used the same word, it must be a conspiracy!

Again what did you expect? The EXACT same thing has happened in reverse on the other side too. Did you expect a one way Street? Would you only be satisfied if Remain rolled over and played dead. As no doubt Cameron and Osborne's careers are dead after this as it's OK for Leave commentators to say that but if Remain commentators say the same it is bullying.

Hypocrite.

Dullard

Only one side has real power. Remain. Because the Remain side is the PM, the government and the Establishment. You can only bully someone if you are in a position of power over them. As Cameron is, over the rest of us.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I don't expect my prime minister to LIE, though. That's the big problem for me.

Rough and tumble politics, fine. Blatant lying by the PM. No.

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters that said babies would die under AV.

I'm shocked that you're shocked by his behaviour.

It's odd, given that a majority of the most assertive Leavers are card-carrying Conservatives, that Leavers seem so unfamiliar with the tactics of their own leader.

Not on pb they aren't.

And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.

Others seem to disagree.

I can't imagine why. Perhaps encouraging (near) universal literacy was a mistake eh?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

So far after 218 entries, the predictions are Turnout 63.1% and LEAVE 46.09%.

People are forecasting (so far) that turnout in a referendum held about 6 weeks after the locals will have fired up 63% of the voters whereas last year's GE achieved 66.1%.

In 1975 the referendum turnout was 65% and the previous October 1974 GE turnout was 72.8%.

How many of those entries misread the question and are estimating remain and leave? In other words, do the numbers change markedly if you exclude all entries where turnout and leave add up to 100 per cent (or 99 per cent to allow for duff mental arithmetic)?

With hindsight, it might have been better to ask about turnout before leave/remain.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Matthew Parris

If you can't see an agenda here you're a half wit. The Cameroons are trying to frighten and bully the waverers towards REMAIN, just.

Two journalists who've possibly talked to each other used te.

Leavers can threaten to revolt, but Cameron can simply sack people. He has the power. He is the bully. He's a creep and there's an end to it.

So you think that one sided media commentators have carte blanche to insult, threaten, cajole their opponents but the media coverage on the other side has to be whiter than white?

That's more than just hypocritical it's naive. That standard has never applied in any election.

I don't think we should expect either side to play fair. There's too much at stake.

I

David Cameron fought and won the AV referendum by using posters.

Who gives a feck about AV. T

So what is the lie?

The DEAL, dumbkopf.

Ah insults, instead of facts. I'll conclude that when you said he was lying, you were like the contents of my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.

Stop being so stupid. It's boring.

This is David Cameron speaking of his deal, this month:

"I've got basically what I wanted"

Now let's go through that. Because we know what he wanted. T.

You're voting to Remain aren't you ?

What a gullible idiot you must be to back Dave. I'm assuming all those drugs and syphilis from the hookers you've used have addled your mind into voting Remain.

lol. Ten minutes ago you were accusing me of insults, and ad hominem. I shall refrain from returning fire. Because I could be quite effectively cruel.

Never stopped you before.

It's been a while since you insulted me. I think you once compared me to having all the intelligence of a speculum removed from Gordon Brown's anus.

I feel left out. I only get insulted by the thickos on PB these days.

You think Cameron is a liar and you're still voting Remain. I think we can draw our own conclusions from that.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

The question to ask Sir Jeremy Haywood tomorrow ...

Is one of your key performance objectives this year keeping the UK inside the EU?:

Surely that is government policy?

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

Cyclefree said:

Pro_Rata said:

For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has

Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighisadvantages.

In general, trying always to maintaintus quo as dishonest.
ative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.

I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.

Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.

So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.

Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....

do tell.

Because we will be free to (a) negotiate our own deals with third parties and (b) innovate around EU regulations to the extent that we want

I get the whole we would still be able to buy BMW thing, but do you think we could negotiate a better deal alone, say, with China, than we could as part of the EU?

Now, I have no idea what our current trade deal with China is, nor if we have been severely disadvantaged by the terms we have agreed to as part of the EU. Perhaps you do?

As for b) the old "innovate around EU regulations" doesn't surely help when you are trying to sell a good or service into the EU. Because you can innovate as much as you like but if the EU has a regulation about your product, you either conform, or you don't sell it.

TwistedFireStopper said:

Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information.
My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects.
My question is, I want it to be really simple, the plan is for me to sort everything out, and literally hand it all over to the parents to dish out as they wish. My wife and her sister aren't really bothered about anything, so in theory, it should work.
My question is, is this legally possible, given that I'm only a brother in law, rather than say his father or sister taking ownership of it? Will it involve jumping through lots of legal hoops?

My condolences to you TFS.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

CNN - national Republican

Trump 49%, Rubio 16%, Cruz 15%, Carson 10%

It's all over folks

Please don't count the chickens

Sessions and Christie were two great endorsements though, Sessions in particular gives Cruz supporters the green light to switch to Trump.

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.

There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.

It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.

Hah. Would that be the ICE TWINS which sold a million copies, is translated into 24 languages, including Albanian, Estonian and Taiwanese Chinese, and is being made into a movie? That one? How silly of Hollywood not to listen to the members of the "Mayfield book club".

The same goes for Cameron. There comes a time when the weight of opinion is so heavy the opinion of a few smelly Sussex geriatrics is irrelevant.

The weight of opinion is that Cameron lied.

You're confusing weight and volume. And everyone knows that empty vessels make most noise.

I've gone totally off Dave - and, I think, Ozzy too. I used to think they were on my side and basically motivated to to do the right thing. The EU nonsense has pulled any remaining wool from my eyes. Dave's gone all Establishment. There is no worse crime. I'm praying that Donald Trump and PM Bojo (of a totally independent UK) will be running the western world soon. The current Establishment have demonstrated that they're aren't up to it and need to be purged for a while. Get them to remember who they really work for.

DecrepitJohnL said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

The question to ask Sir Jeremy Haywood tomorrow ...

Is one of your key performance objectives this year keeping the UK inside the EU?:

Surely that is government policy?

Not when the objective was drawn up.