The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
So is it correct, that as the Telegraph claims, that Cameron has told MPs to ignore what their constituency have to say on the EU and a referendum?
Firstly misleading the house by claiming he's got a legally binding agreement, and now telling the cosy Westminster tribe to ignore the very people who put them there.
Has he been nominated yet in the 'people that need a punch in the face' thread?
Firstly misleading the house by claiming he's got a legally binding agreement, and now telling the cosy Westminster tribe to ignore the very people who put them there.
Has he been nominated yet in the 'people that need a punch in the face' thread?
FiF said:
So is it correct, that as the Telegraph claims, that Cameron has told MPs to ignore what their constituency have to say on the EU and a referendum?
Firstly misleading the house by claiming he's got a legally binding agreement, and now telling the cosy Westminster tribe to ignore the very people who put them there.
Has he been nominated yet in the 'people that need a punch in the face' thread?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...Firstly misleading the house by claiming he's got a legally binding agreement, and now telling the cosy Westminster tribe to ignore the very people who put them there.
Has he been nominated yet in the 'people that need a punch in the face' thread?
Was it on this thread that someone posted a link relating to the death of the Tory party?
Edit: Link: The death of the Conservative Party
Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 4th February 12:19
Conversely this OP Ed ardues that the stitch up could be good for Eurosceptics. Personally not convinced though can see the argument.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...
Boris is playing his cards close to his chest. He has a difficult decision.
He doesn't want to be on the losing side but, if the vote is convincingly to stay in, then Osbourne is a shoe-in when Cameron steps down (the only prize BoJo wants). May has already put herself into the In camp, so, if the economy tanks, she moves into number one slot. Going In is going to make him a solid Tory insider but not really get him nearer No 10.
Going Out will endear him to the Tory faithful. But they love him anyway - and can't deliver him the leadership. He gets a potential place in history and will be highly visible - both things he craves. Are there enough Eurosceptic MPs to take him to Cameron's role? Probably not but, if he goes Out and wins, then they might back a winner, especially with the grass roots support ecstatically idolising him.
He's a gambler and "players gonna play". I think he rolls the dice and goes Out.
He doesn't want to be on the losing side but, if the vote is convincingly to stay in, then Osbourne is a shoe-in when Cameron steps down (the only prize BoJo wants). May has already put herself into the In camp, so, if the economy tanks, she moves into number one slot. Going In is going to make him a solid Tory insider but not really get him nearer No 10.
Going Out will endear him to the Tory faithful. But they love him anyway - and can't deliver him the leadership. He gets a potential place in history and will be highly visible - both things he craves. Are there enough Eurosceptic MPs to take him to Cameron's role? Probably not but, if he goes Out and wins, then they might back a winner, especially with the grass roots support ecstatically idolising him.
He's a gambler and "players gonna play". I think he rolls the dice and goes Out.
AJS- said:
Quick note on how economists come up with these very scientific and accurate sounding predictions. They use a statistical method called Regression Analysis which is great for looking complicated, but very limited in it's real world applications.
To take a simple example, supposing an economist wanted to measure the effect of putting a new camshaft in his car on fuel consumption, he would make such a formula accounting for every detail that might affect it, then say this cam will use 2.1325343% more fuel. What he might not say, depending on what he wants to prove, is that this hangs on a whole load of assumptions some of which are tenuous at best. And that it only really applies at a certain constant speed, ambient temperature, grade of fuel etc etc.
If you think how many variables could go into that just for swapping the cams in your car it's already quite a complex calculation, and the result is also subject to a few qualifications. Eg. the cam might work out more efficient if you use the car on track days at high revs, or much less efficient if you drive in traffic.
That's for a fairly well known change to a relatively predictable mechanical device with some fairly easily controlled variables.
Try doing that while accounting for all the possible variables in the British economy and the external factors which might influence that and it is simply an exercise in absurdity. The only possible purpose of which is to scare voters like Trif into thinking that leaving will make the country poorer. Don't fall for it.
To take a simple example, supposing an economist wanted to measure the effect of putting a new camshaft in his car on fuel consumption, he would make such a formula accounting for every detail that might affect it, then say this cam will use 2.1325343% more fuel. What he might not say, depending on what he wants to prove, is that this hangs on a whole load of assumptions some of which are tenuous at best. And that it only really applies at a certain constant speed, ambient temperature, grade of fuel etc etc.
If you think how many variables could go into that just for swapping the cams in your car it's already quite a complex calculation, and the result is also subject to a few qualifications. Eg. the cam might work out more efficient if you use the car on track days at high revs, or much less efficient if you drive in traffic.
That's for a fairly well known change to a relatively predictable mechanical device with some fairly easily controlled variables.
Try doing that while accounting for all the possible variables in the British economy and the external factors which might influence that and it is simply an exercise in absurdity. The only possible purpose of which is to scare voters like Trif into thinking that leaving will make the country poorer. Don't fall for it.
As an ex-engineer who has studied a lot of economics it never ceases to annoy me how academic economists try and dress up their assumptions and estimates as mathematically rigorous scientific findings, usually by quoting far too many significant figures and omitting any error range. Without fail the most comedic pseudo-science is out the LSE.Agree with the "who the fek knows on the figures".
Thus go with your instincts, gut feeling. To me the who EU and Euro is a feking mess and does its best to screw one over on the UK. Easy choice to vote to Leave. Decide where we spend our own money and decide on who we want to let into this country.
Thus go with your instincts, gut feeling. To me the who EU and Euro is a feking mess and does its best to screw one over on the UK. Easy choice to vote to Leave. Decide where we spend our own money and decide on who we want to let into this country.
So lets look at this LSE statement.
upto 3% reduction on total UK GDP. UK GDP is around the $3tn mark, so 3% represents a fall of $0.09tn = roughly £60bn.
Assuming all of this £60bn is lost to the private sector as the scaremongering propoganda says, this represents a reduction of a maximum corp tax revenue to the treasure of £12bn.
So UK treasury loses £12bn if all of the GDP losses happen in the private sector and the total GDP loss is 3% as predicted by LSE.
The NET contribution to EU by UK is around £8-11bn per year. IF we get out of EU and save that cost, it offsets the maximum predicted loss of revenue to UK govt does it not?
As far as the benefits and spending power of UK govt budget is concerned, it doesnt matter! The private sector loss of £60bn in sales will be tough, but that will come back up in a few years.
Am I looking at this the right way? if so, the EU can f
k off!
upto 3% reduction on total UK GDP. UK GDP is around the $3tn mark, so 3% represents a fall of $0.09tn = roughly £60bn.
Assuming all of this £60bn is lost to the private sector as the scaremongering propoganda says, this represents a reduction of a maximum corp tax revenue to the treasure of £12bn.
So UK treasury loses £12bn if all of the GDP losses happen in the private sector and the total GDP loss is 3% as predicted by LSE.
The NET contribution to EU by UK is around £8-11bn per year. IF we get out of EU and save that cost, it offsets the maximum predicted loss of revenue to UK govt does it not?
As far as the benefits and spending power of UK govt budget is concerned, it doesnt matter! The private sector loss of £60bn in sales will be tough, but that will come back up in a few years.
Am I looking at this the right way? if so, the EU can f
k off!Of course you are. The only reason we are wanted in the EU is because we are one of the big net contributors, it's a gigantic crony enrichment and socialist/wealth redistribution scheme.
As pointed out, if Turkey joins, they will get more or less what we put in. We can't subsidize the rest of the world, we already have a debt problem. It's insane.
As pointed out, if Turkey joins, they will get more or less what we put in. We can't subsidize the rest of the world, we already have a debt problem. It's insane.
fblm said:
As an ex-engineer who has studied a lot of economics it never ceases to annoy me how academic economists try and dress up their assumptions and estimates as mathematically rigorous scientific findings, usually by quoting far too many significant figures and omitting any error range. Without fail the most comedic pseudo-science is out the LSE.Leaving would be by means of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives a ball-park figure of 2 years negotiations before the completion of secession.
BoRED S2upid said:
Has it been discussed what happens IF the vote is to leave? Timescales for leaving and the like? I'm pretty sure the UK wouldn't be able to leave the next day or even year. Any idea?
Two years for the main stuff has been suggested, followed by a longer indeterminate period while working through other more minor details.The PM and Cabinet do not want a credible 'No' campaign so delays will be invented.
Unfortunately it seems to me that when politics enters the front door, the truth leaves by the back.
Do you think that even if the vote is 'No' it will end there? I strongly suspect it will be hard to find the difference with the past as our politicians will insist that we need an 'accord' with Brussels which will end up pretty much business as usual.
By the time a deal is done most of the damage to British society will be entrenched and the clock cannot be reversed.
Unfortunately it seems to me that when politics enters the front door, the truth leaves by the back.
Do you think that even if the vote is 'No' it will end there? I strongly suspect it will be hard to find the difference with the past as our politicians will insist that we need an 'accord' with Brussels which will end up pretty much business as usual.
By the time a deal is done most of the damage to British society will be entrenched and the clock cannot be reversed.
Einion Yrth said:
Leaving would be by means of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives a ball-park figure of 2 years negotiations before the completion of secession.
Key word in bold there. Too many occasions media and commentators who ought to know better assume that the UK would have no part in the process and would merely have to sit respectfully while the EU in isolation decided what crumbs and retribution to hand out. There was even a similar suggestion earlier on this very thread. Also with agreement the process can be extended, or indeed shortened compared to the two years, during which the UK would still be a full member. Personally I don't see the process as being shortened, whilst it may be possible to achieve an intermediate stage in two years, to get to where we want to be will imo take longer, 3-5 years maybe.
turbobloke said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Has it been discussed what happens IF the vote is to leave? Timescales for leaving and the like? I'm pretty sure the UK wouldn't be able to leave the next day or even year. Any idea?
Two years for the main stuff has been suggested, followed by a longer indeterminate period while working through other more minor details.Scuffers said:
drdel said:
The PM and Cabinet do not want a credible 'No' campaign so delays will be invented.
which leads on this this...IF the vote is emphatically to leave, how tenable is CMD's position as PM?
do the people that voted to leave want him to negotiate the separation?
BoRED S2upid said:
Has it been discussed what happens IF the vote is to leave? Timescales for leaving and the like? I'm pretty sure the UK wouldn't be able to leave the next day or even year. Any idea?
Apart from anything else, if the vote is to leave, parliament (which technically is not bound by the result) will have to do things that are against what most of them believe. Our constitution isn't really setup for referendums, I don't believe we have had one where the result went against the establishment's wishes.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff