politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 100 days to go till the referendum and the betting moves a

I really disapprove of this. What is Hammond doing? I don't care what the context is.

Vladimir Putin is like a man who beats his wife, Philip Hammond says https://t.co/IaqPSA0pU8

16/1 winner too

JosiasJessop said:

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better of encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

As much as Farage might like it to be, "leave" is not one single truism. It's like asking for a divorce - who gets the kid and house is decided afterwards.

I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. By the same regard, would the hardcore leavers on here be happy if, after a narrow remain vote, the government decided to fully enter the EU by getting rid of all our safeguard and joining the Euro?

We need to know what we're voting on. On the remain side, it's Cameron's renegotiation (and yes, that may change in the medium or long term). On the leave side, it's a nebulous mess.

If the government promised to resign, in the event of a Leave vote, and agreed that the politicians who run the Leave campaign would form the government from that point on, that would be a reasonable request. But, that's not going to happen.

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The concept of Leave is not remotely vague. Leave means we decide. If we don't like our decision we can change it every five years.

Eh?

If we 'leave' and join the EEA, you are saying that each and every GE will be a referendum on that membership?

That's patently ridiculous, and means that the EEA would be bonkers to admit us.

Besides, general elections are generally about more than one issue.

No I'm saying that if we Leave and want to join the EEA then anyone who wants to leave the EEA can opt to vote for a party with that as it's policy.

That's not what you said above ("we can change it every five years."). Besides, a general election is *not* a vote for single issues, except perhaps government (in)competence. Someone might want to leave the EEA, and a party might offer that, but the voter is put off by other manifesto policies from that party.

You can see this with UKIP and their support. Far more people want to vote leave than are willing to vote for UKIP, th only party remotely likely to take us out without a referendum.

If we join the EEA, it has to be for the long haul, not something we tell them we will review every few years as and when we petulantly throw the toys out of the pram.

Also, any decision to leave the EEA would probably have to go to a referendum. The precedent has been set.

What happened to Southfield Theatre in that one ?

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better of encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

As much as Farage might like it to be, "leave" is not one single truism. It's like asking for a divorce - who gets the kid and house is decided afterwards.

I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. By the same regard, would the hardcore leavers on here be happy if, after a narrow remain vote, the government decided to fully enter the EU by getting rid of all our safeguard and joining the Euro?

We need to know what we're voting on. On the remain side, it's Cameron's renegotiation (and yes, that may change in the medium or long term). On the leave side, it's a nebulous mess.

If the government promised to resign, in the event of a Leave vote, and agreed that the politicians who run the Leave campaign would form the government from that point on, that would be a reasonable request. But, that's not going to happen.

? Can you explain further please?

There's a huge error on Ohio's Republican primary ballot: voters are asked to pick a president twice.
That's just to make sure they are sure of their choice, no problem.

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

16/1 winner too

But it had a French name. Frankly I'm a little disappointed in you.

Me too, but reminded me of an infamous professional mistake I made.

We needed to hire some admin staff, and we used to a firm called Permanent Temps in the past, shortened to PerTemps.

I said "We need some more Pert temps"

#MultiMillionSexualHarassmentCaseWaitingToHappen

isam said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Vote Leave almost certainly want a different future from Grassroots Out. It doesn't mean that either organisation is telling a whopper of a lie.

Both organisations agree that they want Britain to leave the EU, even though they have different visions of the future.

Gosh could you be bothered to criticise the REMAIN camp if one person said "I want to REMAIN because its marginally the best option to stay in although the EU has a lot of faults" and another said "I love the EU and everything about it, I prefer kg to lb, km, to miles, and Euros to ££££"??

So what?!

No, the Remain camp is completely unified Sam. Those who want the single European superstate and for us to be in it are on completely the same page as those who like the one foot out of the door status quo.

nigel4england said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Apologies if you see it as an attack on you, it wasn't meant to be, just pointing out another whopper from the Remain lunatics.

Off to take my four oldest grandsons to Prezzo for tea.

Tea with John Prescott - nice!

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better of encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

As much as Farage might like it to be, "leave" is not one single truism. It's like asking for a divorce - who gets the kid and house is decided afterwards.

I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. By the same regard, would the hardcore leavers on here be happy if, after a narrow remain vote, the government decided to fully enter the EU by getting rid of all our safeguard and joining the Euro?

We need to know what we're voting on. On the remain side, it's Cameron's renegotiation (and yes, that may change in the medium or long term). On the leave side, it's a nebulous mess.

If the government promised to resign, in the event of a Leave vote, and agreed that the politicians who run the Leave campaign would form the government from that point on, that would be a reasonable request. But, that's not going to happen.

? Can you explain further please?

Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.

We might speculate, that in the event of a Leave vote, Boris Johnson would become the next PM, but it would be far from certain,

MaxPB said:

isam said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Vote Leave almost certainly want a different future from Grassroots Out. It doesn't mean that either organisation is telling a whopper of a lie.

Both organisations agree that they want Britain to leave the EU, even though they have different visions of the future.

Gosh could you be bothered to criticise the REMAIN camp if one person said "I want to REMAIN because its marginally the best option to stay in although the EU has a lot of faults" and another said "I love the EU and everything about it, I prefer kg to lb, km, to miles, and Euros to ££££"??

So what?!

No, the Remain camp is completely unified Sam. Those who want the single European superstate and for us to be in it are on completely the same page as those who like the one foot out of the door status quo.

I may have to comment endlessly on the minute effect each person who wants to REMAIN (as long as they are a celeb or a politician), and their various reasons for wanting that, has on my thought process

Enjoy

Lennon said:

valleyboy said:

It was mentioned on the other thread that up to 5 Tory MPs might rebel against the boundary changes. Interestingly, my cpndituency, Preseli, which is home to the Welsh Secretary will take a good chunk of Ceredigion, which is Lib/Plaid. This would take a pretty secure Tory seat into uncharted territory, with an outcome I would not like to predict. I cannot see Crabbe being happy at all, but suspect he is making noises behind the scenes.

Actually I think that's pretty unlikely - much more likely to take some of the Pembrokeshire South bit of the pretty ugly 'Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South' seat as currently looking at the electorates and various potential options.

Basically Crabb and Hart will fight over one seat

Aberconwy/Clwyd West/Vale of Clwyd - likely to be 3 into 2
Brecon/Montgomeryshire - likely to be 2 into 1 with remaining Powys wards being scattered around
Carmarthen W & Pembs S/Preseli Pembroke - likely to be 2 into 1 with bits going to Ceredigion and Carmarthen seats
Cardiff N - not far short of quota so ought to be OK but still marginal
Gower - Likely to be notionally flipped but still competitive. A lot of the additional areas were strong for the LDs previously
Monmouth - will remain pretty safe
Vale of Glamorgan - may be a bit more marginal as gains Penarth

So that makes it 11 reduced to 7. However, if the remaining Vale of Glamorgan wards end up with Bridgend it is possible this could be flipped Con. Also the NE seats are all very marginal so there is an opportunity there.

So basically depending how the boundaries come out (and I expect them to be very hard fought) Con could end up with 6-9 seats. Cameron said a while back something about making sure everyone was looked after (i.e. got a seat somewhere). Perhaps some of the Welsh MPs could relocate to England.

isam said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Vote Leave almost certainly want a different future from Grassroots Out. It doesn't mean that either organisation is telling a whopper of a lie.

Both organisations agree that they want Britain to leave the EU, even though they have different visions of the future.

Gosh could you be bothered to criticise the REMAIN camp if one person said "I want to REMAIN because its marginally the best option to stay in although the EU has a lot of faults" and another said "I love the EU and everything about it, I prefer kg to lb, km, to miles, and Euros to ££££"??

So what?!

I prefer kilogrammes to pounds, but miles to kilometers.
Which way should I vote???

RodCrosby said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.

No, it could simply resign. No other government could be formed and an election campaign would automatically be triggered two weeks later.

As a means of engineering an election to take advantage of current popularity, it's not good because it's too clever by half and gives plenty of time for the other parties to criticise. However, if the other parties are seen to have forced the government into resigning on an issue where the public had already spoken and where parliament was blocking the public's wishes, then I'd expect the electorate to at least understand and probably support the government's actions.

The convention when a government resigns is the LOTO is charged by HMQ with forming a government, as in 1905, even if in a minority in the HoC...

That convention has not been displaced by the FTPA.

I don't think that's the case, nor has it ever been that automatic: Thatcher wasn't invited to form a government after Callaghan lost a vote of no confidence in 1979. Similarly, Churchill, when he resigned the War coalition government in May 1945 after Labour withdrew, was recalled to form a continuity National government.

But the FTPA does change things. Conventions are based as much on what's seen as acceptable now as on expectations set in the past. The most recent precedent is 2010, when Brown stayed on in post while negotiations continued but then resigned before they were finished.

Technically, yes, she could invite Corbyn to form a government but he would still need the Commons to approve him, which it wouldn't. Does he then resign? More realistically, based both on modern equivalent positions in other countries and in Britain's more distant past is that the invitation to form a government does not equal an appointment until the PM-candidate is willing to put his government to the Commons.

But Cameron would certainly risk allowing Corbyn into No 10 if he resigned the government, even if (IMO) it's a relatively low one.

Sean_F said:

Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.

(snip)

They could be in that position if they made it clear to the public what the vote for Leave meant. Then, whoever was in charge of the negotiation would have to aim for that, as it is what the people voted on. It's up to the Leave campaign to define what Leave means.

Cameron's made it quite clear that Remain means a vote on his renegotiation. Now, you and I may be doubtful whether that renegotiation is worth anything, and whether the EU will stick to it in the medium and long term. But that's what we're voting for if we vote Remain.

Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.

Polruan said:

david_herdson said:

Polruan said:

david_herdson said:

chestnut said:

We could vote Leave on 23 June 2016 and still have close to two years 'pre-negotiation negotiations' before the government served Article 50 to complete exit before the next election. A useful by-product of an early referendum?

In theory, yes. In practice, the Conservative MPs will ensure not.

Are you sure?

The more I see of the debate, the less certain I am that a Leave vote will actually result in steps to leave taking place. The liberal part of the Tory party and the right of the Labour party see it as disastrous, and probably command a majority in the house, with a small sprinkling of LDs to help out. It's a faction that can lay claim to moderate centrism and stability as against the "hard left" of Corbyn and the "chaotic loons with no plan" of the Leave campaign.

Of course it won't be phrased as "the results are in.... but Nope!" but rather a continuation of the current campaign: "it's so dangerous for our children/economy/those darling fluffy little kittens you see on Facebook and anyway the result is so unclear, nobody even knows what they were voting for so now we have to go through a process of deciding what Leave looks like, even if we seriously think the electorate want it, which of course they don't..." etc etc

Just me?

Yes, I'm sure. Cameron would probably resign anyway in the event of a Leave but even if I'm wrong there, there would be far more than sufficient Tory backbenchers to trigger a vote of no confidence in Cameron if he didn't trigger Article 50 within weeks. Such a vote would carry if he were seen to be stalling for no good reason (and thinking that Britain is better off in the EU is not a good reason).

Do you mean a party leadership challenge or no confidence as PM? I think there are enough Labour MPs who are so desperate to be seen as moderate, centrist etc etc and also pro-EU that they would support Cameron in a confidence vote on this issue.

I mean as party leader.

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Vote Leave almost certainly want a different future from Grassroots Out. It doesn't mean that either organisation is telling a whopper of a lie.

Both organisations agree that they want Britain to leave the EU, even though they have different visions of the future.

Gosh could you be bothered to criticise the REMAIN camp if one person said "I want to REMAIN because its marginally the best option to stay in although the EU has a lot of faults" and another said "I love the EU and everything about it, I prefer kg to lb, km, to miles, and Euros to ££££"??

So what?!

I prefer kilogrammes to pounds, but miles to kilometers.
Which way should I vote???

LEAVE!

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

Did she really say that? What a cretinous remark.

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

nigel4england said:

Much as I quite fancy Anna Soubry she really is stupid:

http://order-order.com/2016/03/15/eu-order-of-the-ott-super-soubs-souped-up-spin/

"Jonathan Dimbleby: “Can you both agree on a matter of fact, what proportion of this market is in Europe and what proportion is outside?”

Anna Soubry: “44% of our exports which is £290 billion goes into the EU.”

Kate Hoey: “That has gone down by 10% in the last 8 years.”

Anna Soubry: “But Kate it will go down to almost absolutely zero if we come out of the EU.”"

No doubt she had the perma shocked look on her face as if utterly baffled no one agreed with her views, delivered in a Midsomer Murders style hammy acting stylee

Bloody SDPers

nd to think only an hour or so ago Mr. Jessop accused Leave of being liars.

That's a stupid attack. I said Leave's argument is based on a whopper of a lie: i.e. not being willing to say what Leave means.

I never said anything about Remain being utterly truthful. Nor would I.

You might be better off encouraging Leave to answer that question than in attacking me.

Vote Leave almost certainly want a different future from Grassroots Out. It doesn't mean that either organisation is telling a whopper of a lie.

Both organisations agree that they want Britain to leave the EU, even though they have different visions of the future.

Gosh could you be bothered to criticise the REMAIN camp if one person said "I want to REMAIN because its marginally the best option to stay in although the EU has a lot of faults" and another said "I love the EU and everything about it, I prefer kg to lb, km, to miles, and Euros to ££££"??

So what?!

I prefer kilogrammes to pounds, but miles to kilometers.
Which way should I vote???

I want to bring back good old chains and links.

Plato_Says said:

Remainders are on thin ice here

The statistics show that sales of British goods to the EU fell 8 per cent to a six-year low of just £134 billion in 2015 – £31 billion less than in 2011 and exports to non-EU countries were up more than 2 per cent to £151 billion. Britain now has a record high trade deficit in goods with the EU of £8.1bn.

In 2013, according to world economics, the Commonwealth economy overtook the eurozone's, and the IMF forecasts that by 2019 the Commonwealth will have overtaken the EU contributing 17.7 per cent to the world’s output compared with the EU’s 15.3 per cent. The Commonwealth also has far more favourable demographic figures.

The Commonwealth idea is fantasy. It's 53 different countries, not a bloc, and some of the main ones are not obvious commercial partners:

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/3/15/brexit-camp-cant-count-on-family-ties-to-bind-for-trade

RodCrosby said:

kle4 said:

There's a huge error on Ohio's Republican primary ballot: voters are asked to pick a president twice.
That's just to make sure they are sure of their choice, no problem.

It's a technical error, of no consequence.

It was a joke.

watford30 said:

Polruan said:

watford30 said:

Polruan said:

david_herdson said:

chestnut said:

We could vote Leave on 23 June 2016 and still have close to two years 'pre-negotiation negotiations' before the government served Article 50 to complete exit before the next election. A useful by-product of an early referendum?

In theory, yes. In practice, the Conservative MPs will ensure not.

Are you sure?

The more I see of the debate, the less certain I am that a Leave vote will actually result in steps to leave taking place. The liberal part of the Tory party and the right of the Labour party see it as disastrous, and probably command a majority in the house, with a small sprinkling of LDs to help out. It's a faction that can lay claim to moderate centrism and stability as against the "hard left" of Corbyn and the "chaotic loons with no plan" of the Leave campaign.

Of course it won't be phrased as "the results are in.... but Nope!" but rather a continuation of the current campaign: "it's so dangerous for our children/economy/those darling fluffy little kittens you see on Facebook and anyway the result is so unclear, nobody even knows what they were voting for so now we have to go through a process of deciding what Leave looks like, even if we seriously think the electorate want it, which of course they don't..." etc etc

Just me?

Were that to happen, the Tories would suffer a heavy defeat at the next GE.

Really? At whose hands? We know that Corbyn is electoral poison, plus (however reluctantly) supports Remain. So residual left Labour won't get anywhere. Tory leavers either stay in the party, and probably don't lose their seats to UKIP; or join UKIP/form some other rightwing nationalist grouping. They win some seats in vociferously Leave constituencies. Not many.

You think disaffected Tories will vote for a party that has reneged on a Leave vote? Or sit on their hands and not bother voting? And what's the outcome then?

This is a perfect illustration of the complacency currently afflicting the Tory party - the cast iron belief that Corbyn will never gain power.

The outcome then is probably Tory + LD coalition minority government, supply and confidence from the right of Labour as the party goes into full-on post-GE meltdown when the membership refuse to elect anyone to the right of Corbyn as his successor. Blues see this as a triumph as the Labour party is split forever.

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The concept of Leave is not remotely vague. Leave means we decide. If we don't like our decision we can change it every five years.

Eh?

If we 'leave' and join the EEA, you are saying that each and every GE will be a referendum on that membership?

That's patently ridiculous, and means that the EEA would be bonkers to admit us.

Besides, general elections are generally about more than one issue.

No I'm saying that if we Leave and want to join the EEA then anyone who wants to leave the EEA can opt to vote for a party with that as it's policy.

That's not what you said above ("we can change it every five years."). Besides, a general election is *not* a vote for single issues, except perhaps government (in)competence. Someone might want to leave the EEA, and a party might offer that, but the voter is put off by other manifesto policies from that party.

You can see this with UKIP and their support. Far more people want to vote leave than are willing to vote for UKIP, th only party remotely likely to take us out without a referendum.

If we join the EEA, it has to be for the long haul, not something we tell them we will review every few years as and when we petulantly throw the toys out of the pram.

Also, any decision to leave the EEA would probably have to go to a referendum. The precedent has been set.

Actually it is exactly what I set out above. General Elections decide all manner of great matters of state and both can and will settle any of the differences between the Leave side.

As far as UKIP are concerned, UKIP only has one MP in Parliament and even his vision of the future is different to his leaders vision. If we vote to Leave then the Commons will have to make decisions for which Farage has almost no influence. Yet they're still campaigning for Leave despite knowing that they won't get to make the decisions as it's a step to what they want.

As for the EEA, if join the EEA towards the tailend of this Parliament as a transition from leaving the EU without having a referendum to confirm us joining it ... and then we elect a government pledging to leave the EEA I don't see why we'd need a referendum.

watford30 said:

This is a perfect illustration of the complacency currently afflicting the Tory party - the cast iron belief that Corbyn will never gain power.

ps I trust you didn't mistake me for someone with the Tory party's best interests at heart?

AndyJS said:

"Canadians want EU-style mobility between UK, Australia, New Zealand: poll"

http://globalnews.ca/news/2575513/canadians-want-eu-style-mobility-between-uk-australia-new-zealand-poll/

I've been calling for that all along!

Would absolutely love that.

Dafydd Foster Evans
An interesting historical tidbit: this is Attlee's response to Bevan's infamous 'lower than vermin' speech. https://t.co/TYdFOA4huy

SimonStClare said:

surbiton said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCJLandale: Parish notice: after 20+ years reporting UK politics, I am leaving Westminster to become Diplomatic Correspondent for BBC News

The Etonian didn't get the Political Editor's job.

There was a time when to get the top BBC job you had to have dated half the shadow Labour cabinet. - Can’t see many choosing to take that route with the present lot.

I nominate Diane Abbott as BBC political editor on those grounds, plus she's a good performer/experience on BBC political shows.

MaxPB said:

Are people suggesting that Cameron or the government could in any way defy the will of the people in a binding referendum? No chance.

Technically speaking, no referendum is binding, is merely advisory.

MaxPB said:

Are people suggesting that Cameron or the government could in any way defy the will of the people in a binding referendum? No chance.

I think it's only me suggesting it so far. But what do you mean when you say it's "binding"?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Remainders are on thin ice here

The statistics show that sales of British goods to the EU fell 8 per cent to a six-year low of just £134 billion in 2015 – £31 billion less than in 2011 and exports to non-EU countries were up more than 2 per cent to £151 billion. Britain now has a record high trade deficit in goods with the EU of £8.1bn.

In 2013, according to world economics, the Commonwealth economy overtook the eurozone's, and the IMF forecasts that by 2019 the Commonwealth will have overtaken the EU contributing 17.7 per cent to the world’s output compared with the EU’s 15.3 per cent. The Commonwealth also has far more favourable demographic figures.

The Commonwealth idea is fantasy. It's 53 different countries,

Freedom, Fraternity, Federation!

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/antique-illustrated-map-of-the-world-anonymous.jpg

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

surbiton said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCJLandale: Parish notice: after 20+ years reporting UK politics, I am leaving Westminster to become Diplomatic Correspondent for BBC News

The Etonian didn't get the Political Editor's job.

There was a time when to get the top BBC job you had to have dated half the shadow Labour cabinet. - Can’t see many choosing to take that route with the present lot.

I nominate Diane Abbott as BBC political editor on those grounds, plus she's a good performer/experience on BBC political shows.

She also has that one essential qualification for being Pol Ed - a motor bike licence….

surbiton said:

MaxPB said:

AndyJS said:

"Canadians want EU-style mobility between UK, Australia, New Zealand: poll"

http://globalnews.ca/news/2575513/canadians-want-eu-style-mobility-between-uk-australia-new-zealand-poll/

I could live with that, plus Ireland if they leave after us.

Why don't we make it the whole of the Commonwealth. Of course, keep the Yanks out !

No, I think we can make it the Anglo-sphere minus the USA. UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and Ireland. The idea that the commonwealth would want to do such a deal is a fantasy.

Could you even imagine an open border deal between India and Pakistan? It would be a nightmare.

\o/ What a great race !

Shows how effective the bookmakers policy of restricting/banning winning clients is.

Today a friend emailed me 9 horses I might want to back at Cheltenham today, so I looked at oddschecker thinking I might have a little dabble ew on them... the thought of sheer pain and mind numbing bureaucracy of logging in/depositing money only to be knocked back made me not bother backing any of them!!

A winner and a place from four bets so far.. MISSED!

isam said:

Aren't they just being honest? People who want to leave for different reasons are giving the reasons they want to leave rather than pretending that they all agree

Strikes me that it would be dishonest to pretend they are all broadly united in anything other than a desire to leave the EU

No, because they are saying different things to different people. They are holding out the carrot of EEA membership to some people, and the sovereignty and immigration carrots to others. Yet those carrots cannot exist at the same time (*). Within the EEA we cannot fully control immigration as much as some want, nor AIUI have full sovereignty. Outside the EEA we cannot be as sure about the economic effects of leaving.

(*) I'm not going to get sidelined into Schrödinger's carrots here.

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.

(snip)

They could be in that position if they made it clear to the public what the vote for Leave meant. Then, whoever was in charge of the negotiation would have to aim for that, as it is what the people voted on. It's up to the Leave campaign to define what Leave means.

Cameron's made it quite clear that Remain means a vote on his renegotiation. Now, you and I may be doubtful whether that renegotiation is worth anything, and whether the EU will stick to it in the medium and long term. But that's what we're voting for if we vote Remain.

Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.

Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not

(Snip)

Because we're having a referendum, and they need to be honest to the electorate. And the decision about what we do will have to be taken before the next GE in 2020.

Yet Leave are not being clear. Part of that is because their campaign is leaderless (or, more accurately, is several campaigns with several leaders), and partly because they know they need a broad church to win.

It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."

I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.

These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.

New Zealand are worth a very small dabble at 10/10.5 to defend this 126, I reckon.

MaxPB said:

Polruan said:

MaxPB said:

Are people suggesting that Cameron or the government could in any way defy the will of the people in a binding referendum? No chance.

I think it's only me suggesting it so far. But what do you mean when you say it's "binding"?

The referendum bill is law, to ignore the result any government would breaking the law. IANAE, but I don't see it as any kind of likely.

The EU Referendum Act just says that a referendum must be held on a date not later than 31.12.2017.

It's a political, not legal, reality that the Government will have to respect the result.

Tissue_Price said:

New Zealand are worth a very small dabble at 10/10.5 to defend this 126, I reckon.

Ha I just backed India at 1.12!

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

New Zealand are worth a very small dabble at 10/10.5 to defend this 126, I reckon.

Ha I just backed India at 1.12!

Well then you'd be all green if you followed my advice

EDIT: and even greener if you waited for India to score one aerial run!

Military Times poll of troops:

Trump 27%
Sanders 22%
Cruz 17%
Clinton 11%
Rubio 9%
Kasich 8%

PeterC said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.

(snip)

They could be in that position if they made it clear to the public what the vote for Leave meant. Then, whoever was in charge of the negotiation would have to aim for that, as it is what the people voted on. It's up to the Leave campaign to define what Leave means.

Cameron's made it quite clear that Remain means a vote on his renegotiation. Now, you and I may be doubtful whether that renegotiation is worth anything, and whether the EU will stick to it in the medium and long term. But that's what we're voting for if we vote Remain.

Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.

Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not

(Snip)

Because we're having a referendum, and they need to be honest to the electorate. And the decision about what we do will have to be taken before the next GE in 2020.

Yet Leave are not being clear. Part of that is because their campaign is leaderless (or, more accurately, is several campaigns with several leaders), and partly because they know they need a broad church to win.

It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."

I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.

These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.

No. If it was a decision for government then we wouldn't be having a referendum. As we're having a referendum then it's a decision for the people, and the people should know what they're voting for.

Plato_Says said:

Military Times poll of troops:

Trump 27%
Sanders 22%
Cruz 17%
Clinton 11%
Rubio 9%
Kasich 8%

Interesting that Sanders is ahead of Hillary.

Tissue_Price said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

New Zealand are worth a very small dabble at 10/10.5 to defend this 126, I reckon.

Ha I just backed India at 1.12!

Well then you'd be all green if you followed my advice

EDIT: and even greener if you waited for India to score one aerial run!

In bad shape really, Big on India at 1.06

I'm not in great shape either, laid India twice in-running just before wickets...

You're trading off five live not the tv right? Or do you have fast pics?

Leave may be "united" in wanting to Leave, but they remind me of the Roger McGough poem

I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader

OK what shall we do?

And I think the voters have a right to know what is likely to happen next.

That's not being frightened of change; if we Remain we can have a share in what happens.