BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ddraver

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dougan on immigration - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20 ... oes-viral/

I struggle a bit with all the pundits (for want of a better word) that can only see arguments one way. This has meant the entire debate is a struggle for me. Dougan, despite his credentials, seems to fit into that category.

No more BR drinks if you vote out (mostly as a leave vote will likely make me redundant, so I won't be hanging around the City.)

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dougan on immigration - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20 ... oes-viral/

I struggle a bit with all the pundits (for want of a better word) that can only see arguments one way. This has meant the entire debate is a struggle for me. Dougan, despite his credentials, seems to fit into that category.

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I await his comments on the 2020 GE

That would be entirely fair wouldn't it as it is in the countries interest? How can you not see a difference?

I wouldn't have a problem if he did, I'd trust him more than most politicians to be honest. Maybe it's because he can't be seen to favour one political party over another, but this isn't a party political referendum.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

It was Carney getting involved.
...
He is putting getting the result he wants ahead of his responsibility to the country. Whatever results he wants he has to accept his responsibility. Shocking behaviour IMO

Maybe he believes it's his duty to warn people as he believes, as do many others, that leaving would be that bad for the country. He is putting the country first with a stark warning people like you are happy to ignore. If we do vote leave and it all goes pear shaped you'll probably blame him for giving the warning, not people like you that ignored it because you think you know better. :roll:

I await his comments on the 2020 GE

That would be entirely fair wouldn't it as it is in the countries interest? How can you not see a difference?

This is an irrelevance. Brexit leaders must be well aware of the reality. Page one of a Google search gives you the answer.

The accusation against Mr Carney is that, by focusing on the problems associated with Brexit, he has taken a political position and thus compromised the bank’s independence. But this is to misunderstand how the Bank of England works. Every inflation report sets out the big risks facing the British economy—the usual suspects recently have been the euro crisis and China’s slowdown. The nine-member monetary-policy committee thinks the referendum is currently the biggest threat to financial stability (look at the currency markets and it is hard to disagree). Britain’s current-account deficit, at an all-time high of 7% of GDP, will be an obvious weakness if Britain votes Leave.

That logic also explains why Mr Carney did not weigh in so heavily in the run-up to the vote on Scottish independence, a seeming inconsistency for which even those voting Remain have rebuked him. Back then Mr Carney merely said that an independent Scotland could not share the pound. His intervention was minimal because Scottish independence was not a big risk to Britain’s overall economic outlook. As the minutes from the bank’s financial-policy committee in September 2014 show, the biggest problems in the event of a “yes” vote for independence would have been encountered by financial firms with headquarters in Scotland.

Leave campaigners also claim that by stressing the dangers of Brexit, Mr Carney has all but ensured economic turmoil if there is indeed a vote to Leave: Andrea Leadsom, another Conservative MP, said that Mr Carney’s words were “incredibly dangerous”. In fact, the opposite is true. Decades of evidence show that investors get most scared if they think central bankers have ignored risks, not when they are being transparent.

rick_chasey

Yeah but he's an expert Surrey. So you have to discount his view. :roll:. Only the opinions of the non-experts are worth listening to.

i mean. He actually sees the data and hears the confidence or lack of.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dougan on immigration - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20 ... oes-viral/

I struggle a bit with all the pundits (for want of a better word) that can only see arguments one way. This has meant the entire debate is a struggle for me. Dougan, despite his credentials, seems to fit into that category.

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I agree with Bender's explanation but would add that I work (and cycle) with people like Dougan. They have lived and breathed economics for decades and to them it is black and white. Three months ago they actually laughed at the thought we would vote Brexit, a month ago they started looking worried and since the weekend they have cheered up.

To an economist leaving the world's largest trading bloc on the basis of jingoistic rhetoric from politicians is ludicrous. Think about the fact that Boris/Gove are well aware that what they are saying about economics and trade deals is ludicrous.

To put this into a cycling analogy it would be like asking Dave Brailsford if Froome would d better as part of a team or entering the TdeF as a solo rider. He would laugh and then with a bit of pushing explain why being part of a team would be preferable - it would not sound very balanced

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dougan on immigration - https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20 ... oes-viral/

I struggle a bit with all the pundits (for want of a better word) that can only see arguments one way. This has meant the entire debate is a struggle for me. Dougan, despite his credentials, seems to fit into that category.

No more BR drinks if you vote out (mostly as a leave vote will likely make me redundant, so I won't be hanging around the City.)

You're fine. The status quo always wins.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah but he's an expert Surrey. So you have to discount his view. :roll:. Only the opinions of the non-experts are worth listening to.

i mean. He actually sees the data and hears the confidence or lack of.

Campaigning wise I have a sneaking respect for the Brexit campaign, they have neutralised their biggest weakness through the simple tactic of sneering at experts. The £350m a week has also been a great campaigning tactic.

Mind you I would still like the "man in the street" to realise how badly he is being mugged off, form an angry mob and string Gove/Boris up from the nearest lamp-posts

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

Jez mon

"Post truth politics" is what the brexit campaigns been called in some of the pro EU press. I think it's quite a neat phrase...

People basically think all politicians are lying all of the time anyway, and (generally) the press seems incapable of presenting any nuanced views.

Dougan's comment about the EU and sovereignty/where the power lies, was along the lines of, sure we get "more" power over our own laws if we leave the EU, but we then get no say in Europe, and thus are going to dilute our influence in the world, giving us less power.

But if the remain campaign tried to say something similar, the pro exit press would be all over it with claims that we had no power over our laws...

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

True. But his role is simply to explain the factual inaccuracies of the campaign for far. Which he does with aplomb.

And that's the thing isn't it. Take the cold light of day, debunk the myths, present the facts and work forward from that.

Now, there may be good reasons for leaving and those reasons will use the flaws in the present system. So, a good reason for leaving would be to have greater control of immigration of EU nationals. That's fine, as an argument, but it behoves those who put forward that argument to ascribe greater intelligence to it and explain the rationale for it. That would include, for example, denying Farage's posted as a) not showing EU nationals and b) if those individuals were to be naturalised etc etc etc. Whichever camp you are in, there is a truth, not a soundbite. And, of course, you must own up that X number of immigrants are UK Government policy and unrelated (though admittedly not entirely) to EU policy. Then you'd have to go onto tie in economics and trade as, if you were to subscribe to a Norway model, immigration becomes pointless again.

And that's the thing isn't it. It's not about issue a b and c. It's about how they all work now and how they might work post brexit. No one has put forward a single cohesive scenario other than we'll be fine because we were great once.

coopster_the_1st

Coopster the 1st wrote:

iPete wrote:

Been listening to Radio 4's More or Less today and on law making; over the same time period we've been outvoted 55 times but have voted yes on 2,500 occasions. So it seems we are in vast agreement with these policies, no?

But yet, every person says the EU needs reforming. This is not a vote of confidence for the structure of the EU and says we disagree with much of it

I don't believe the EU will reform, particularly as it has so many issues with Euro based countries to resolve first hence it's simple that my position is to Leave

We've not even had the vote but the EU are confirming no more reforms! :roll:

Wow, I thought they'd keep their mouth shut until at least Friday! :shock:

4kicks

Coopster the 1st wrote:

4kicks wrote:

Its not an "economic versus political" argument. Trade constraints, be they hard (duties) or soft (import regulations) always benefit the nation imposing them in the short run, But not in the long run. The point is almost all political legislation is short term focused cos politicians want to get reelected, and all decisions by politicians, even German ones, are by their nature political. ( as an aside, theres a reason why the first real book about Economics featured "the invisible hand"):.... . No-one looks at it as "how can I maintain the positive balance of trade for my country over the next twenty-five years¨, its how can I get the voters in the Bosch factory to vote for me next time round. The concept of economic principles triumphing political expediency is a false paradigm akin to unicorns being able to outrun shetland ponies. Only one thing exists. .

Let's take Bosch and Germany as your example

Germany has federal elections in 2017

Bosch has UK sales of £2.7bn, it's second biggest European market after Germany.

Any negative political legislation will already be causing nervousness in Bosch employees if not job losses because of it. That will influence the vote as the employees will be seeing this.

Bar your last sentence you have validated my reasoning.

What you describe as "negative" political legislation would be considered a positive within the länder concerned especially given the inevitable devaluation of the pound post Brexit.

4kicks

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

True. But his role is simply to explain the factual inaccuracies of the campaign for far. Which he does with aplomb.

And that's the thing isn't it. Take the cold light of day, debunk the myths, present the facts and work forward from that.

Now, there may be good reasons for leaving and those reasons will use the flaws in the present system. So, a good reason for leaving would be to have greater control of immigration of EU nationals. That's fine, as an argument, but it behoves those who put forward that argument to ascribe greater intelligence to it and explain the rationale for it. That would include, for example, denying Farage's posted as a) not showing EU nationals and b) if those individuals were to be naturalised etc etc etc. Whichever camp you are in, there is a truth, not a soundbite. And, of course, you must own up that X number of immigrants are UK Government policy and unrelated (though admittedly not entirely) to EU policy. Then you'd have to go onto tie in economics and trade as, if you were to subscribe to a Norway model, immigration becomes pointless again.

And that's the thing isn't it. It's not about issue a b and c. It's about how they all work now and how they might work post brexit. No one has put forward a single cohesive scenario other than we'll be fine because we were great once.

This is a worryingly coherent and well reasoned post. Part of the issue with the "quality" media, with teh exception of the FT, has been a desire for balanced coverage and hence counterarguments, which goes typically along the lines of "heres expert x giving some well thought out analysis with worked examples...now, as a counterargument, heres Kate Hoey who was, iirc, a relatively average sports minster"

bendertherobot

4kicks wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

True. But his role is simply to explain the factual inaccuracies of the campaign for far. Which he does with aplomb.

And that's the thing isn't it. Take the cold light of day, debunk the myths, present the facts and work forward from that.

Now, there may be good reasons for leaving and those reasons will use the flaws in the present system. So, a good reason for leaving would be to have greater control of immigration of EU nationals. That's fine, as an argument, but it behoves those who put forward that argument to ascribe greater intelligence to it and explain the rationale for it. That would include, for example, denying Farage's posted as a) not showing EU nationals and b) if those individuals were to be naturalised etc etc etc. Whichever camp you are in, there is a truth, not a soundbite. And, of course, you must own up that X number of immigrants are UK Government policy and unrelated (though admittedly not entirely) to EU policy. Then you'd have to go onto tie in economics and trade as, if you were to subscribe to a Norway model, immigration becomes pointless again.

And that's the thing isn't it. It's not about issue a b and c. It's about how they all work now and how they might work post brexit. No one has put forward a single cohesive scenario other than we'll be fine because we were great once.

This is a worryingly coherent and well reasoned post. Part of the issue with the "quality" media, with teh exception of the FT, has been a desire for balanced coverage and hence counterarguments, which goes typically along the lines of "heres expert x giving some well thought out analysis with worked examples...now, as a counterargument, heres Kate Hoey who was, iirc, a relatively average sports minster"

And of course, the options can't be properly shown in an infographic.

Take Johnson's worst case WTO most favoured nation status. Some tariffs etc. That, to me, seems to be the only one which frees up the £350 million. So the worst case scenario should be sold as the ultimate saving plan.

The other models won't save £350 million. Indeed, there might no saving at all (given no rebate) and immigration comes back again.

And that's just two scenarios with about 3 issues. Indeed, there's only one example with any concrete evidence at all. And that's where we are now.

TheBigBean

The £350m statement should be rightly criticised for lack of transparency. It would not be hard to present this accurately although that would be longer than your average soundbite. That said, the payment, the rebate and its expenditure is far from certain if the UK remains in the EU, so there is a risk both ways. In the grand scheme of things it is small change though.

BelgianBeerGeek

Absolutely btr. Whatever happens, in five years time you won't be able so say "I wish we'd done the other thing". How would you know what the alternative would be? I suspect we will hear a lot of people saying "I told you so" etc but stuff 'em.
Somehow I don't think the sky will fall in come Friday am. As someone who despises politicians (apart from N Sturgeon :P ), I can't wait to watch the knives come out for Dave C. Or Boris. Actually I think Boris is like some kind of cockroach, he will survive anything.

surrey_commuter

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Absolutely btr. Whatever happens, in five years time you won't be able so say "I wish we'd done the other thing". How would you know what the alternative would be? I suspect we will hear a lot of people saying "I told you so" etc but stuff 'em.
Somehow I don't think the sky will fall in come Friday am. As someone who despises politicians (apart from N Sturgeon :P ), I can't wait to watch the knives come out for Dave C. Or Boris. Actually I think Boris is like some kind of cockroach, he will survive anything.

Gove will be the sacrificial lamb. I would give Johnson a poisoned chalice like sorting out the NHS.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

A basic principle of economics is that free trade is good therefore it follows that no economist* would think that leaving the world's largest trade bloc is a good idea. To them all the rest is detail.

* this excludes ones seeking publicity

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

The £350m statement should be rightly criticised for lack of transparency. It would not be hard to present this accurately although that would be longer than your average soundbite. That said, the payment, the rebate and its expenditure is far from certain if the UK remains in the EU, so there is a risk both ways. In the grand scheme of things it is small change though.

Let's face it there are 2 issues here. The £350m and immigration. Most people had never heard of sovereignty and, of course, that word isn't really used by the campaign as no one would understand what it means.

The problem with the £350m is that it's intrinsically linked to every single pathway. Save the £350, stop immigrants, suffer tariffs. Fund the NHS (and everyone else many times over), suffer potential economic consequences.

Get a better deal? Don't save the £350 million, probably still have immigration, pay about £50 to the NHS, say sorry to the others you promised.

And variations thereof.

At the end of the day, whilst the message is about hope, fear, emotion and pathos, it all comes down to maths.

BelgianBeerGeek

Just had a flyer through the letterbox. A4 size, saying my street is one of the most likely to Vote Leave in the country, and once I'd done so, the reverse has a handy "We've been to vote leave today" slogan. I am encouraged to put this up in the window to shame my neighbours into being like me :roll:
All rather tawdry. Mrs BBGeek recognised the delivery bloke as the one delivering a pamphlet about how gay marriage would lead to the end of the world a while back. Last time she drove him from the street calling him a homophobe. No wonder he legged it.
Boy will I be glad when this is over. If it ever is over....

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

^^I'm not really sure what you mean Bean - his posts have just explained the reality behind some of the larger myths. Most of it is simply pointing out that the UK is the real cause of much of the problems people wrongly attribute to the EU...

bendertherobot wrote:

Thing is, virtually all of what Dougan says isn't one way. It's the way. He's explaining the truth of the entire situation in a calm manner. It's that type of presentation which should form the core of the discussion. From there remainers start and then build on a positive case for remain and, this has been lacking, one for reform. For brexiters the position is more difficult as it removes their case almost entirely leaving them with small criticisms and half truths. The brexiters message of hope is actually quite dangerous as there is no substance to it. We need substance and proposal.

Dougan is an expert and, as such, falls into Gove and Johnson's expert denial scheme. I don't have as much expertise in this area as Dougan but I have enough. It's a calm, practical and rational explanation of the truth. What you do with that truth should form the basis of the next step.

I didn't hear or read any arguments being made by him as to why leaving would be a good idea, and I think there must be at least one. It's all a bit tribal like discussing football with a football fan. For example, he declares that anyone who claims to know exactly what will happen if the UK decides to leave is deluded, but follows up with his four opinions of what will happen....

A basic principle of economics is that free trade is good therefore it follows that no economist* would think that leaving the world's largest trade bloc is a good idea. To them all the rest is detail.

* this excludes ones seeking publicity

The guy is a lawyer (non-practising academic type whatever they are) and not an economist.

Separately, what you say is true for economists although I've often wondered why they don't consider the issue in the context of M&As which are largely considered to be value destroying.

As a complete aside you don't have to look far to see failures of true free market economics. Environmental stuff being the easiest example.

BelgianBeerGeek

Surrey Commuter wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Absolutely btr. Whatever happens, in five years time you won't be able so say "I wish we'd done the other thing". How would you know what the alternative would be? I suspect we will hear a lot of people saying "I told you so" etc but stuff 'em.
Somehow I don't think the sky will fall in come Friday am. As someone who despises politicians (apart from N Sturgeon :P ), I can't wait to watch the knives come out for Dave C. Or Boris. Actually I think Boris is like some kind of cockroach, he will survive anything.

Gove will be the sacrificial lamb. I would give Johnson a poisoned chalice like sorting out the NHS.

DC will move onto the Lords. He isn't't doing a third term, apparently. Bet he can't resist kicking Boris in the balls just once, though. Gove will be forgiven like the errant child he is. But I bet you the only politician keeping DC awake at night is Boris.

joelsim

It'll be hilarious when some of the heartland of the vote for Leave get their benefits cut by those masters of care running the campaign.

Oh and destroy the NHS. Let's not forget.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/739400328521617408

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The £350m statement should be rightly criticised for lack of transparency. It would not be hard to present this accurately although that would be longer than your average soundbite. That said, the payment, the rebate and its expenditure is far from certain if the UK remains in the EU, so there is a risk both ways. In the grand scheme of things it is small change though.

Let's face it there are 2 issues here. The £350m and immigration. Most people had never heard of sovereignty and, of course, that word isn't really used by the campaign as no one would understand what it means.

The problem with the £350m is that it's intrinsically linked to every single pathway. Save the £350, stop immigrants, suffer tariffs. Fund the NHS (and everyone else many times over), suffer potential economic consequences.

Get a better deal? Don't save the £350 million, probably still have immigration, pay about £50 to the NHS, say sorry to the others you promised.

And variations thereof.

At the end of the day, whilst the message is about hope, fear, emotion and pathos, it all comes down to maths.

I think that is a fairly accurate summary of the popular leave issues. Throw in the economy and you have the complete set of issues that 90% of the electorate will use in deciding how to vote.

TheBigBean

Of course, it will be touch and go whether the can't be bothered to vote vote defeats both remain and exit.

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The £350m statement should be rightly criticised for lack of transparency. It would not be hard to present this accurately although that would be longer than your average soundbite. That said, the payment, the rebate and its expenditure is far from certain if the UK remains in the EU, so there is a risk both ways. In the grand scheme of things it is small change though.

Let's face it there are 2 issues here. The £350m and immigration. Most people had never heard of sovereignty and, of course, that word isn't really used by the campaign as no one would understand what it means.

The problem with the £350m is that it's intrinsically linked to every single pathway. Save the £350, stop immigrants, suffer tariffs. Fund the NHS (and everyone else many times over), suffer potential economic consequences.

Get a better deal? Don't save the £350 million, probably still have immigration, pay about £50 to the NHS, say sorry to the others you promised.

And variations thereof.

At the end of the day, whilst the message is about hope, fear, emotion and pathos, it all comes down to maths.

I think that is a fairly accurate summary of the popular leave issues. Throw in the economy and you have the complete set of issues that 90% of the electorate will use in deciding how to vote.

But, at the end of the day, it's all economics. Migrants drain, EU law hampers, we spend more than we get back, we don't have control. Each option has a financial cost and outcome. Each combination makes it more complex. It's so hard to grasp that those in charge of each campaign just went issue, issue, issue as if there were several issues that could cause you to be in or out. There aren't several issues. There is one, better off or not. And whatever ideological beliefs we use to satisfy our vote, the measure will be money.

surrey_commuter

Joelsim wrote:

It'll be hilarious when some of the heartland of the vote for Leave get their benefits cut by those masters of care running the campaign.

Oh and destroy the NHS. Let's not forget.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/739400328521617408

Those who chose the tune should pay the piper. Use the demographic chart showing those most likely to vote out as a blunt tool for targeting cuts and taxes to fill any budget deficit. So end the triple lock on pensions, end rural subsidies, stop subsidising council tax outside the Home Counties and a special tax on the Daily Express. Oh and Boris to pay 90% income tax for the rest of his life.

Best to announce tonight so they know what is coming out of the barrel they are staring down.

TheBigBean

Better off or not works at a number of levels: Europe as a whole, UK as a country, class / smaller groups and on a personal level.

There are some people in the EU who think about the first although not that many in the UK.

What seems to be missed by a large chunk of the educated and wealthy is that what may be worse for the UK is perceived to be better for some individuals and it is this that will determine their vote. Immigration being an example of one such point.