Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

I'm still voting for the side who have told fewest obvious outright lies as major parts of their campaign.

Huge posted:

I'm still voting for the side who have told fewest obvious outright lies as major parts of their campaign.

So that'll be a "leave" then.��

Willy.

Apparently I just learned  from the radio yesterday, that if the final vote is to come out of Europe then the actual change over will take place in approx 2 years.  I am surprised that that the Brexit  out people did not use this point in their arguments for coming out of Europe.  I thought the change would be instantaneous, 2 year period gives the chance for Uk to wean of Europe and form a new market outside of Europe.  A strong argument maybe?  

I heard the votes don't really count, because its really controlled by the Brexit Super-Delegates...

Willy posted:

Huge posted:

I'm still voting for the side who have told fewest obvious outright lies as major parts of their campaign.

So that'll be a "leave" then.��

Willy.

Err, no.

I'm not going to vote to support politicians who either can't work out 66% of £350 or knowing the figure to be an obvious lie, repeatedly tell the same lie to convince those who don't know the facts; and who, when they get caught out many times, simply re-express the same figure again, expecting me to not be able to divide by 7.

Insulting your potential voters isn't the best way to get support.

Romi posted:

Apparently I just learned  from the radio yesterday, that if the final vote is to come out of Europe then the actual change over will take place in approx 2 years.  I am surprised that that the Brexit  out people did not use this point in their arguments for coming out of Europe.  I thought the change would be instantaneous, 2 year period gives the chance for Uk to wean of Europe and form a new market outside of Europe.  A strong argument maybe?  

As I understand it, if the vote is "Leave" then the government (assuming they don't just ignore the result which they legally can) will go to Brussels and say ... we wish to leave the EU. It will then take a minimum of two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.

But its not just negotiations with the EU.  Every trading agreement that the UK has outside the EU is made on the basis of the UK being part of the EU.  There is also the slight problem that there are very few people in the civil service who would be qualified / experienced enough to start negotiations of that nature so the time scales would likely slide leading to uncertainty for a much longer period possibly up to 10 years.

Huge posted:

Willy posted:

Huge posted:

I'm still voting for the side who have told fewest obvious outright lies as major parts of their campaign.

So that'll be a "leave" then.��

Willy.

Err, no.

I'm not going to vote to support politicians who either can't work out 66% of £350 or knowing the figure to be an obvious lie, repeatedly tell the same lie to convince those who don't know the facts; and who, when they get caught out many times, simply re-express the same figure again, expecting me to not be able to divide by 7.

Insulting your potential voters isn't the best way to get support.

But you're quite happy about Osbourne's £4300 per household fabrication? Or indeed about his need for a Brexit budget that even the IFS couldn't stomach. 

Both sides have been totally reprehensible in their claims in order to generate discussion around their particular USP. 

Willy.

From the moment that a request to leave the EU is made the departing country has 2 years to disentangle the relationship between the EU and the country, this will be sorting out the amounts to be paid or repaid. Any trading treaties will be negotiated outside of the two year disentanglement  period as a new country of lesser significance to to the other trading blocks in the world.

Many Europeans want the UK to stay in the EU as the UK will be the stroppy country that will aim to sharpen up the EU organisation and to provide balance to the French influence and legislation.

Eloise posted:

Romi posted:

Apparently I just learned  from the radio yesterday, that if the final vote is to come out of Europe then the actual change over will take place in approx 2 years.  I am surprised that that the Brexit  out people did not use this point in their arguments for coming out of Europe.  I thought the change would be instantaneous, 2 year period gives the chance for Uk to wean of Europe and form a new market outside of Europe.  A strong argument maybe?  

As I understand it, if the vote is "Leave" then the government (assuming they don't just ignore the result which they legally can) will go to Brussels and say ... we wish to leave the EU. It will then take a minimum of two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.

But its not just negotiations with the EU.  Every trading agreement that the UK has outside the EU is made on the basis of the UK being part of the EU.  There is also the slight problem that there are very few people in the civil service who would be qualified / experienced enough to start negotiations of that nature so the time scales would likely slide leading to uncertainty for a much longer period possibly up to 10 years.

If we decide to leave the EU, the government/parliament will decide the direction of Britain’s future trading policies. It may be decided the best option (my guess it would) is to join the European single market, in which case we’d be able to trade freely across the EU, but, we’d have to accept free movement of EU citizens into the UK, amongst other things.

  The Brexit campaigners don’t control the government/parliament, so, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

 If we do vote to leave, there’s going to be a hell of a lot of disgruntled brexit supporters, who's main reason for leaving is to curb EU immigration.

Willy posted:

But you're quite happy about Osbourne's £4300 per household fabrication? Or indeed about his need for a Brexit budget that even the IFS couldn't stomach. 

Both sides have been totally reprehensible in their claims in order to generate discussion around their particular USP. 

Willy.

Not happy, no.  Both sides have made wildly exaggerated claims about what MIGHT happen - predicting the future is about uncertainty and isn't fact.

But we don't send £350M to the EU each week, because the rebate money isn't sent and then returned - it just isn't sent in the first place.  That's why that headline claim is a simple factual lie (whereas the others are mere exaggerated predictions - from both sides).

fatcat posted:

...
If we do vote to leave, there’s going to be a hell of a lot of disgruntled brexit supporters, who's main reason for leaving is to curb EU immigration.

And if we don't vote to leave...

... there’s going to be a hell of a lot of disgruntled brexit supporters, who's main reason for leaving is to curb EU immigration.  !!

It will be interesting to see how many of the eligible 46 plus million people will vote.

There was a estimate that 15% of eligible voters won't be registered on the day - almost 7 million.

Plus another estimate of a similar amount who won't bother vote, so with a close result it's possible for one side to get a win result with only 30% of all eligible voters of the 46 plus million. It will be a bad day for democracy if the leave votes wins with only a third of the electorate wanting it, and over two thirds of the electorate not voting for it. 

IMO it would be far fairer if a overall leave vote win could only be secured if over 50% of the eligible electorate actually vote for it.

Debs

Huge posted:

Willy posted:

But you're quite happy about Osbourne's £4300 per household fabrication? Or indeed about his need for a Brexit budget that even the IFS couldn't stomach. 

Both sides have been totally reprehensible in their claims in order to generate discussion around their particular USP. 

Willy.

Not happy, no.  Both sides have made wildly exaggerated claims about what MIGHT happen - predicting the future is about uncertainty and isn't fact.

But we don't send £350M to the EU each week, because the rebate money isn't sent and then returned - it just isn't sent in the first place.  That's why that headline claim is a simple factual lie (whereas the others are mere exaggerated predictions - from both sides).

My contention is that in synthesising the £4300 per household figure Osbourne had driven a coach and horses through  "exaggerated prediction" and well into "unscrupulous spin" territory. The manner in which the baseline numbers were "cherry picked" and then presented was utterly shameful for a serving Chancellor. Arguably  even lower than Gordon Brown ever stooped.

Willy.

I think that it is totally valid not to vote. It just shows that you aren't interested. If you are happy for others to make decisions for you then that's fine. (this is actually the way that UK democracy works anyway. You elect some career politician who will then make their own decisions about issues).

Willy posted:

My contention is that in synthesising the £4300 per household figure Osbourne had driven a coach and horses through  "exaggerated prediction" and well into "unscrupulous spin" territory. The manner in which the baseline numbers were "cherry picked" and then presented was utterly shameful for a serving Chancellor. Arguably  even lower than Gordon Brown ever stooped.

Willy.

Wildly exaggerated, Yes.  Highly unlikely, Yes.  Actually impossible, well no.

Therefore not actually a lie.

There are other things from the other side.   BJ claiming we'll spend £350M per week more on the NHS.  He claimed this but did then backtrack a few day later, saying they'd spend part of it on other things.  However he still claimed the government could spend £350M per week more and that's as ludicrous as Osbourne's claim - in practice he wouldn't have the £350M in the first place, 'cause it doesn't exist (but there is a tiny extremely remote possibility that our economy could grow enough the make this possible).

Both have made very silly claims about their vision of the future that are ludicrous, but not completely outside the realms of the remotest probability.  When possible, I deal with the known facts rather than dubious conjecture, and the fact is that £350M per week paid to the EU is a simple lie.  Other extreme claims are conjecture and should be dismissed as such - from both sides.

Willy posted:

My contention is that in synthesising the £4300 per household figure Osbourne had driven a coach and horses through  "exaggerated prediction" and well into "unscrupulous spin" territory. The manner in which the baseline numbers were "cherry picked" and then presented was utterly shameful for a serving Chancellor. Arguably  even lower than Gordon Brown ever stooped.

Willy.

My understanding was that the figure while headline grabbing in itself was based on a 6% reduction in the economy by 2030.  That 6% reduction isn't wildly different from the "experts".  Just the way that it was presented wasn't quite what they meant.  In the case of Osbourne's claim its "statistics" vs the "lies and damn lies" of the Leave.EU claims.

Bananahead posted:

I think that it is totally valid not to vote. It just shows that you aren't interested. If you are happy for others to make decisions for you then that's fine. (this is actually the way that UK democracy works anyway. You elect some career politician who will then make their own decisions about issues).

If you don't vote, so the argument goes, then you can't complain about the result.  

However I'm in favour of everyone being sent their voting paper which has to be returned (either via post or on the day at a polling station).  That way you have to vote, but have the option of expressing the fact you aren't voting!

fatcat posted:

If we decide to leave the EU, the government/parliament will decide the direction of Britain’s future trading policies. It may be decided the best option (my guess it would) is to join the European single market, in which case we’d be able to trade freely across the EU, but, we’d have to accept free movement of EU citizens into the UK, amongst other things.

  The Brexit campaigners don’t control the government/parliament, so, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

 If we do vote to leave, there’s going to be a hell of a lot of disgruntled brexit supporters, who's main reason for leaving is to curb EU immigration.

That assumes that the remaining 27 members of the EU are willing for us to join the European Single Market.  And to join the single market it would be required (as you commented) that the UK accepts free movement of EU citizens as well as complying with EU regulations.

And if we do; then all the referendum will have accomplished will be to throw away any influence in the EU and stopped a few more people voting for UKIP in the 2015 election!

Eloise posted:

And if we do; then all the referendum will have accomplished will be to throw away any influence in the EU and stopped a few more people voting for UKIP in the 2015 election!

Correct.

Eloise posted:

fatcat posted:

If we decide to leave the EU, the government/parliament will decide the direction of Britain’s future trading policies. It may be decided the best option (my guess it would) is to join the European single market, in which case we’d be able to trade freely across the EU, but, we’d have to accept free movement of EU citizens into the UK, amongst other things.

  The Brexit campaigners don’t control the government/parliament, so, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

 If we do vote to leave, there’s going to be a hell of a lot of disgruntled brexit supporters, who's main reason for leaving is to curb EU immigration.

That assumes that the remaining 27 members of the EU are willing for us to join the European Single Market.  And to join the single market it would be required (as you commented) that the UK accepts free movement of EU citizens as well as complying with EU regulations. and still paying in billions of pounds for the privilege (OK, maybe a little less than now, but still a shed load).

And if we do; then all the referendum will have accomplished will be to throw away any influence in the EU and stopped a few more people voting for UKIP in the 2015 election!

Exactly.

Huge posted:

Willy posted:

My contention is that in synthesising the £4300 per household figure Osbourne had driven a coach and horses through  "exaggerated prediction" and well into "unscrupulous spin" territory. The manner in which the baseline numbers were "cherry picked" and then presented was utterly shameful for a serving Chancellor. Arguably  even lower than Gordon Brown ever stooped.

Willy.

Wildly exaggerated, Yes.  Highly unlikely, Yes.  Actually impossible, well no.

Therefore not actually a lie.

There are other things from the other side.   BJ claiming we'll spend £350M per week more on the NHS.  He claimed this but did then backtrack a few day later, saying they'd spend part of it on other things.  However he still claimed the government could spend £350M per week more and that's as ludicrous as Osbourne's claim - in practice he wouldn't have the £350M in the first place, 'cause it doesn't exist (but there is a tiny extremely remote possibility that our economy could grow enough the make this possible).

Both have made very silly claims about their vision of the future that are ludicrous, but not completely outside the realms of the remotest probability.  When possible, I deal with the known facts rather than dubious conjecture, and the fact is that £350M per week paid to the EU is a simple lie.  Other extreme claims are conjecture and should be dismissed as such - from both sides.

In Osbourne's analysis the number of households used in the calculation was from the start of the period under consideration whilst the size of the economy was from the end of the period, over which there had been significant immigration (assumed in the model). There is no justification for this other than to inflate the value to £4300. As far as I'm concerned this is as good as a bare faced lie. Nothing to stop him using the end of model period number of household to derive a figure, other than that it would have resulted in a figure less £4300.

You may argue that technically it isn't a "lie" but it betrays a deliberate intent on the part of Osbourne to deceive. Unforgivable in a serving Chancellor.

Willy.

Willy posted:

You may argue that technically it isn't a "lie" but it betrays a deliberate intent on the part of Osbourne to deceive. Unforgivable in a serving Chancellor.

Willy.

Both sides have used estimated predictive figures to deceive - no difference there.

The exit campaign have also lied about past facts that can be established with sufficient precision to prove that their claims are a lie.

I predict that the vote will be carried by 'the great unwashed', if you'll pardon my use of the phrase, to the wholesale consernation of the bulk of UK politicians who have singularly failed to grasp the enormity of the Pandora's box they have opened, as the penny drops among the masses during the day that there's something going on and they might just be able to make a difference. By way of example, an EastEnder, long since resigned to the fact that his/her home town is now 'overrun by XX' (where XX may be any visually different race, different from what the said person regards as his/her own brethren), and even though not considering him/herself a racist person, always trying to accept the modern world, he/she suddenly twigs that by voting the said immigrant people will leave, 'giving England back to the English' as he/she may view it. Yes, that is totally getting the wrong end of the immigration stick, as it were, but hey, didn't some bloke on the TV said we could vote out and get rid of immigrants?

...and if we then have a long, hot, summer, watch out for riots as some of these people start to think they,ve been tricked, andor racial tensions stirred up by some of the campaigning start to surface.

i hope my prediction is wrong

Willy posted:

Huge posted:

Willy posted:

My contention is that in synthesising the £4300 per household figure Osbourne had driven a coach and horses through  "exaggerated prediction" and well into "unscrupulous spin" territory. The manner in which the baseline numbers were "cherry picked" and then presented was utterly shameful for a serving Chancellor. Arguably  even lower than Gordon Brown ever stooped.

Willy.

Wildly exaggerated, Yes.  Highly unlikely, Yes.  Actually impossible, well no.

Therefore not actually a lie.

There are other things from the other side.   BJ claiming we'll spend £350M per week more on the NHS.  He claimed this but did then backtrack a few day later, saying they'd spend part of it on other things.  However he still claimed the government could spend £350M per week more and that's as ludicrous as Osbourne's claim - in practice he wouldn't have the £350M in the first place, 'cause it doesn't exist (but there is a tiny extremely remote possibility that our economy could grow enough the make this possible).

Both have made very silly claims about their vision of the future that are ludicrous, but not completely outside the realms of the remotest probability.  When possible, I deal with the known facts rather than dubious conjecture, and the fact is that £350M per week paid to the EU is a simple lie.  Other extreme claims are conjecture and should be dismissed as such - from both sides.

In Osbourne's analysis the number of households used in the calculation was from the start of the period under consideration whilst the size of the economy was from the end of the period, over which there had been significant immigration (assumed in the model). There is no justification for this other than to inflate the value to £4300. As far as I'm concerned this is as good as a bare faced lie. Nothing to stop him using the end of model period number of household to derive a figure, other than that it would have resulted in a figure less £4300.

You may argue that technically it isn't a "lie" but it betrays a deliberate intent on the part of Osbourne to deceive. Unforgivable in a serving Chancellor.

Willy.

Surely increasing the number of households in the equations would have increased the £4,300 figure.

 What would be interesting know is, is the £4300 in today’s money, or £4,300 in 2030 money, when inflation would reduce its value.

Huge posted:

Willy posted:

You may argue that technically it isn't a "lie" but it betrays a deliberate intent on the part of Osbourne to deceive. Unforgivable in a serving Chancellor.

Willy.

Both sides have used estimated predictive figures to deceive - no difference there.

Agreed. 

The exit campaign have also lied about past facts that can be established with sufficient precision to prove that their claims are a lie.

 

In Osbourne's published methodology, that has been widely analysed, it clearly states that the value they used for GDP was from the end of the model period and the number if households from the start. Fact. Proven. No one has been able to explain why this, statistically invalid, approach was taken other than as a deliberate attempt to deceive the public. Arguably no better, or worse, than the leave campaign misrepresentations, although, as I've said before, to my mind unforgivable for a serving Chancellor to wilfully deceive the public on the economy.  (Yes I know that it happens all the time, doesn't make it any less unforgivable).

Willy.

I think Royal Mail are trying to give me a hint about how to vote.

Sent a parcel off to France last week. He's not received it yet. So, I've been on website to track it and apparently it arrived in Curitiba, Brazil a few days back. And it's still there. (Rang up the nice people at Royal Mail earlier to enquire what happens next and the long and short of it is 'Tough', I can't report it lost until 13th July apparently. Though I suppose technically it isn't lost. They know where it is, it's just on the wrong side of the planet from where it's meant to be). Anyway, it seems our national postal service is gearing up to do more biz with South America rather then extend the current entente...