Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
If remain wins then he has a reasonable chance of sticking around as leader. He will be gone in days if we leave the EU though.
Caporegime
Yup. I'm actually looking at the list of potential candidates and thinking "you know, Gove might not actually be that bad...". I think BoJo is the most likely winner and that's a scary thought. Not quite as terrifying as Prime Minister May though.
Soldato
If leave wins then BoJo is almost guaranteed to become PM, with Gove in a high ranking position, possibly chancellor. Theresa is trying to sit on the fence between the two factions in the party at the moment, and that might be enough to keep her in the cabinet, possibly still at the home office to keep some sense of governmental continuity. The rest of the cabinet would then be stocked full of euroskeptics, Jacob Reece Mogs would probably do well, foreign office?
If remain wins, then its a much more complicated picture. Boris would have a chance of winning still, and Osborne would be in with a shout - especially if Cameron steps down instead of being ousted. Theresa would also be a contender, and some other lesser seen figures too.
All in all, a win for remain could be hugely damaging for the conservative party, intensifying internal divisions and alienating the grassroots (with are very much in favour of brexit)
In an ideal world the impending Conservative party meltdown would happen a few years down the line when the opposition are done fighting amongst themselves, have learned a bit of media management, and Osborne has run out of excuses on the economy. It's all happening a bit short into the term for any genuine upsets.
Caporegime
Cameron can't "hand" leadership to George, it doesn't work like that. And after the recent shambles, his stock with the Tory party is not high. There will be an election for leader and George won't even pass the first round.
Soldato
Perfect timing for a party meltdown for the Tories though - Labour are a shambles right now.
Nate
Nate
By Shambles you mean under attack in the press for "so called" anti-Semitism?
Soldato
Rudderless, would probably have been a better description of my impression of them I suppose.
Nate
Looking at the Brexiter's concerns re immigration and freedom of movement accounting for 73% of the exit vote I imagine Andrew Mitchell shouting as he sees camoron "the plebs are revolting" camoron retorting "I know ghastly but we can still turn them around if we push hard"
Personally I'm pleased with the Leadership, he's not a slick leader I'll grant you that, but after Blair and Cameron, different to their "style over substance" approach is a real plus.
As for the hysterics coming from the Conservatives etc, they clearly needed a distraction at this point.
Yeah this anti semitism bs isn't fooling anyone, it's probably going to make Corbyn more popular if anything, most people are very sympathetic to the Palastinians.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
Cameron could survive a no confidence assassination if he keeps us in. Indeed, it would make sense to deploy BoJo later on, having had a more senior role in the cabinet arranged for him in the interim. He's not a great Commons peformer, so the fewer days to gaffe before a GE, the better. Then do a run off against an open field, possibly face a no-name moderate at the final ballot, head to the polls. BoJo is calculating enough to see the advantages in this. Hence why I've come round my summary point earlier.
Also the trade jig still just doesn't add up.
We would lose more money on tariffs and non-tariff costs of trade under Brexit than we currently spend on EU's membership fee (amounting to, as a neat figure: 6-10% of our trade receipts in goods and services with the bloc, or <1% of our GDP), whichever way you slice it, the new trade magic(tm) approach will wipe away any 'big savings on Brussels excesses', lol.
The mooted scenarios:
1) WTO->FTA->FTA-active
2) WTO->EEA
3) EEA->FTA->FTA-active; if allowed -- no precedent
4) EEA -- if not stupid and the EU agrees to waive the formality of us negotiatng back in under reduced association terms
Repeat 1 for up to 50 times with EU's current FTA partners, the Canada-esque option. We reciprocate, the volume of trade goes down further. Easily eats <1% of GDP in and of itself, Obsborne's projections notwithstanding, due to innefficiency of FTAs vs the single market alone, as Fox often hints.
Money thus expended is not spent on a membership fee with benefits attached, but gone down the pan; and that's without anyone 'spiting us' really. Talk about waste and reclamation. Most annoying for the financial rectitude crowd, I'm sure.
Also the trade jig still just doesn't add up.
We would lose more money on tariffs and non-tariff costs of trade under Brexit than we currently spend on EU's membership fee (amounting to, as a neat figure: 6-10% of our trade receipts in goods and services with the bloc, or <1% of our GDP), whichever way you slice it, the new trade magic(tm) approach will wipe away any 'big savings on Brussels excesses', lol.
The mooted scenarios:
1) WTO->FTA->FTA-active
2) WTO->EEA
3) EEA->FTA->FTA-active; if allowed -- no precedent
4) EEA -- if not stupid and the EU agrees to waive the formality of us negotiatng back in under reduced association terms
Repeat 1 for up to 50 times with EU's current FTA partners, the Canada-esque option. We reciprocate, the volume of trade goes down further. Easily eats <1% of GDP in and of itself, Obsborne's projections notwithstanding, due to innefficiency of FTAs vs the single market alone, as Fox often hints.
Money thus expended is not spent on a membership fee with benefits attached, but gone down the pan; and that's without anyone 'spiting us' really. Talk about waste and reclamation. Most annoying for the financial rectitude crowd, I'm sure.
Caporegime
Money thus expended is not spent on a membership fee with benefits attached, but gone down the pan; and that's without anyone 'spiting us' really. Talk about waste and reclamation. Most annoying for the financial rectitude crowd, I'm sure.
It's not really clear we'd save any money to start with. The EU currently carries out a host of regulatory roles, we'd need to replicate those roles if we left the EU and the cost of that is not trivial.
Some say we'd just get good free trade deals with the rest of the world with little cost/difficulty. My personal position is that, such an idea is fantasy and with the current US/UK government, any trade deal is likely to look like TTIP which has some very troubling points.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,610
A bit of jew hating here, a few more muslim votes there...
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Why is it so often that when people disagree with the other side they assume that it's because the other side are stupid in some way? Often it's a question of interpretation and it might well be that the same information will be processed differently by people because of their life experiences and values.
I might not like the answer to this but do you distrust all information from the government (leaving aside the already noted point that ONS is state funded but independent)? It must be rather troublesome if you've always got to assume that all official information is wrong as a starting point.
I'd dispute that it's only the remain voters who display animosity or fear mongering - what is "if we stay in the EU we'll be overrun by Turks/Albanians/insert group of peoples here" apart from fear mongering? I'm also not totally convinced that one side or other apparently showing fear is convincing as an argument for the opposite side having merit - I think you can fear someone making what you judge to be a bad decision (which will affect you regardless of your actions) without thinking there is merit to all or even most of the arguments for it.
For what it's worth I think there are reasoned and reasonable points to be made on both sides of the argument but that doesn't mean it's 50/50 for me and that all points put forward have equal merit. Alongside the sensible commentary from either side some of what is said is misleading, some is varying degrees of daft and some will be based on views that I simply can't reconcile myself with. I can recognise I've got biases the same as everyone else and whatever information I take in will naturally be judged against my own experiences, views and principles. However I'm not intending to try and influence anyone towards any particular point of view, it's up to you and every other voter to make up your own mind - that's both the beauty and flaw of democracy.
Soldato
Agree.
Rather leave everything as is now. Hasn't stop anyone making investments or trading with the rest of the world.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
Given the facts it'd be stupid to trust government sources on the EU referendum. Not on all cases but on the EU referendum in particular we've already seen the civil service blocked from helping the out campaign, the government having a heavy pro EU bias (to the point of not wanting to give out any unbiased perspective such as the leaflet which was definitely biased) and based obviously on the fact they are aligned generally with the government they are no less likely than the civil service to have there strings pulled.
Let's be honest, when your run by the government and the top man runs the country and he is unashamedly biased (which he should be allowed a preference but his actions have proven bias) then that is likely to effect there position. Politicians often force memo's to have different wording, bar people from speaking about things, issue orders to certain departments etc and at the very least they expect them to meet party line somewhat. Most things you can trust them on but you'd be a bit daft to take everything they say without any pinch of salt.
Been quite busy lately so sorry if it's already been posted but 250,000 euro fines for any refugee we refuse to accept?
https://euobserver.com/migration/133318
Keeps getting better in the EU. Somehow they decided that they deserve the right to penalise us extensively regardless of situation should they not have there demands met. I understand having some level of punishment but it gets to a point where the comments about them being anti democratic and dictator like do seem quite evident when they penalise people this heavily to meet there demands.
Last edited:
- Status