Opinion polling is a fluid thing, you don’t peer review each poll.
But I’m sure if the answers agreed with you….
Yes, like all polling they carry no weight whatsoever other than to liven the topic.
They didn’t want to engage with someone who confuses “things I’ve decided in my head” with “facts”.
One of the many possibilities I guess.
One of them blatantly refused to answer at all saying that it was a private matter between himself (his perspective whatever). As for others they gave me hint when I asked further but still refused to give a clear answer. I roughly know their political inclination but I have No way to confirm them other than taking hints.
Oh hang on there...
As far as the circle of people I know they have remain the same. i.e. no change on both sides.
but
One of them blatantly refused to answer at all saying that it was a private matter between himself (his perspective whatever). As for others they gave me hint when I asked further but still refused to give a clear answer. I roughly know their political inclination but I have No way to confirm them other taking hints.
Are you saying that you don't know but you do know?
Are you saying that you don’t know but you do know?
Hints cannot be conveyed as the real a Yes or No answer.
If I were to interpret their hints then I might simply get them wrong, which is why the interpretation of hints can only go so far as hints and Not a definite clear answer.
So when you said you knew you really didn't. Don't think that needs a peer review, doesn't even pass the pub test.
So when you said you knew you really didn’t. Don’t think that needs a peer review, doesn’t even pass the pub test.
Their true answers nobody knows apart from themselves the individuals. The poll is just to generate a topic for pub discussion and to liven the topic. Nothing more.
Well apart from the bit where you made up that you knew their responses.
Well apart from the bit where you made up that you knew their responses.
I am not sure what you are getting at but honestly they did not tell me who they have voted for. I guess people feel uncomfortable when ask about "sensitive" issues.
Put it this way I ask for a Yes or No answer. I did not ask for hint or lengthy explanation.
I am not sure what you are getting at but honestly they did not tell me who they have voted for.
You first post said you knew that nobody had changed their minds, then to follow up you told us you don't know what their views are. The 2 statements can't both be true
anyway tomorrows papers
Prime Minister Theresa May has "ordered officials" to begin work on a British satellite navigation system to compete with the EU's Galileo, according to the Sunday Telegraph. The UK will not be allowed access to the system after Brexit - and the Telegraph says "as much as £100m" has been allocated to the project by Chancellor Philip Hammond.
Not sure if £100 Million gets you a fully operational Global Positioning System or not but it's £100 million not being spent on something useful, best add that to the spreadsheet.
Assuming there is no R&D cost then you might get one small satellite launched for that...
I mean Galileo cost 10bn euro and has 30 odd satellites same as GPS which apparently costs $750 million per year to operate and maintain (2012).
Just add this cost to the hundreds of underfunded projects that will be started and abandoned after draining money from things people want
or this could be money to tide over Astrium in the UK while the EADS questions are answered.
Given that Boris managed to spunk £40million on a non existent bridge I expect the £100 million will be spent on a Lego model of Sputnik tied to a helium ballon and launched to a rousing rendition of god save the queen
The EU has some benefits, and it's stupid to leave, but let's not pretend it's perfect....
Who is pretending it is perfect. I don't think it is that great and if we were not already in it I wouldn't vote to join (as if we were not in it we would have all the things in place - be trading however we traded etc,.)
However, it is so difficult and costly to the economy and people of the UK that I would 100% stay in it (warts and all). Especially based on a projection of taking 30 years to break even.
What the hell happened to chewkw?
Has he been replaced by a functioning communications bot?
Iv’e been suspicious since his dropping of the word “maggots” a year ago... 😲
I should imagine we will put the satellite project out to tender and have it built by Branson.
Then we can pay double trying to get it to work.
... Because let's face it, the vitally important and urgent issue facing the UK right now is a surfeit of people pretending that the EU is perfect.
30 years to break even??
And next in a WTF are you thinking about series - The Horse racing lot
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45301966
<p class="story-body__introduction">Next year's Grand National could look very different if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the British Horseracing Authority warns.</p>
Crashing out of the EU would potentially have a huge impact on Irish trainers and Irish horses.And it could see the end of the Tripartite Agreement system which allows horses to be easily moved between the UK, France and Ireland.
Eight Irish-trained horses have won the Grand National since 1999.
Still it would stop those bad foreign horses coming over here taking our winnings...
30 years to break even??
Would be interesting to see the report but a quick totting up puts the costs to the UK at over 10x the membership fee we pay, without taking into account trade losses and other little things like screwing up other industries in event of a hard brexit so 30 years seems very plausible if it triggers a recession.
If you think those who were hardest hit under thatcher are bitter just wait for this lot.
Hardest hit???
using the gov’s own numbers, in 15 years time the economy will have grown 24.4% instead of 25% which suggests to me that there will be very little to be bitter about - unless we are trying to make people unnecessarily fearful
but good analogy re Thatcher since most of the praise and vitriol directed her way was massively misplaced in both directions. Thatcherism was a myth that became a convenient excuse for many. You may be right that Brexit is used in the same manner
i actually starting to look forward to it
There is at least the possibility of a silver lining if the Tories get so strongly associated with it that they are unelectable for a few decades. For those of us who are adequately insulated from the effects of it, that would be quite entertaining.
Hardest hit???
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-42977967
15 year forecast, outside SM&CM, no trade deal, growth lower by…
Scotland: 9%
Wales: 9.5%
NE England: 16%
What scenario is that thm and where exactly did you get those numbers from please?
using the gov’s own numbers, in 15 years time the economy will have grown 24.4% instead of 25% which suggests to me that there will be very little to be bitter about – unless we are trying to make people unnecessarily fearful
Well for starters there will be no brexit dividend for at least 10 years which was one of the big claims.
Is that the forecast in event of a hard brexit? Free trade agreement? Bespoke pile of shit agreement?
i actually starting to look forward to it
Well being insulated from any real issues probably helps. When did you last work minimum wage?
I suspect that 24.4% number comes from taking the Government's 2% reduction in growth if we go for the EEA/Norway option.
But that then leaves us in the same situation we are now, except we have zero say in what the EU does - we're "rule takers". That's the option where JRM and Johnson accuse May of "betraying" Brexit, and a lot of people get very gammony asking what exactly it was we voted for.
And if they're going to get angry anyway, we might as well just have a final referendum on the deal ("People's Vote") - it's not like they can be any more angry.
But surely noone with a passing competence in economics could misinterpret the numbers in that way. The reduction in growth is quoted in percentage points, eg a 2% reduction means 23% rather than 25% over that period. The more realistic figures are substantially higher losses.
A billion here, a billion there... Soon we're talking serious money.
And the 2% is just the hit on London. The forecast is a reduction of 16 percentage points in the forecasted growth over the same period following a no-deal Brexit for the north east of England, and nearly as bad for the northwest and midlands.
But John Redwood says the figures are nonsense, and he ought to know.
I too am interested in how THM arrives at his 24.4 figure. Surely he can't really be just taking 2% of 25? Has he got his team of economists sitting next to him?
Indeed the specific example was the EEA. But note how the percentages are misused. What does 11% over 15 years mean?!?
Oh FFS we are back at the patronising teacher approach.
So the simple conclusion is the UK will be worse off out of the EU.
In addition not all of the impacts are fully understood as the government has not really bothered to take the time to produce detailed impact studies.
Stick that on a bus
Misused by you it seems thm. It means a previously anticipated growth of 25% (I'll assume you got that directly from somewhere) is forecast to be 14% instead. This is sort of basic stuff, it would be embarrassing for me to find out I'd been wasting my time "debating" with someone who understood so little about economics so I hope you are just joking.
No. People misuse (as you do) the stats
as above 2% is not 25 to 23.
Is growth lower being out of the EU?
Is that on the best case leave solution that is unpalatable to a significant number of Tory MP's?
Oh FFS stop embarrassing yourself.
30 years to break even??
Yep 2050 - 2020. We can all make numbers up and when estimating what will be happening in 5+ years made up is all they ever are.
Meanwhile Rees-Mogg is keen on bringing back border controls:
Costs so far...
Contraction of economy
https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-762d-11e8-a8c4-408cfba4327c
So add in another couple of Billion here and there
(in all this time we are still paid up members)
So we are spending a lot of money while receiving less which means cuts to services etc and more "austerity"
Then we have bills to pay on leaving which roughly equal 5 years of membership so that is 5 years in before any of that pesky brexit dividend can be realised (in simple terms excluding any of the extra spending that is needed)
Next up is the extra spending needed to do the simple things like borders and medicine regulations...
Proper break even is a long way off and projected growth reductions mean less income over a time where more expenditure is required - more borrowing? More cuts?
But hang on didn't the PM promise to be paying more to the NHS while maintaining current EU spending plans for agriculture and development?
Man that is a lot in the spend column and bugger all in the revenue column isn't it.
The grown ups have been working hard though - they've got a plan for some portaloos for the 20 miles of trucks queuing to get into Dover.
Perhaps we could make some cash back with a burger van every 500 yards?
Perhaps we could make some cash back with a burger van every 500 yards?
Or the rejuvenation of some of those sleepy little fishing villages who are about to be decimated by becoming the centre of smuggling for vital medical supplies or fresh tomatoes 😉
If it’s that basic why do you continue to misrepresent this?
and probably the most definitive bit of the Brexit analysis is in the first couple of pages
There is no single model or analysis that can provide a definitive assessment of all potential outcomes
and yet project fear jump on the most extreme and then misquote them to exaggerate the effects further. And then complain about buses.
THM has his maths correct, but he is not looking at those areas "hardest hit", and he is using figures that assume an outcome that this government, and opposition, have ruled out… so pretty unlikely, even if favourable.
Indeed. I merely quoted one of the base assumptions used by the government. Which basically shows minimal economic impact over 15 years.
How many times is the scenario quoted? Several hundreds of pages back we even had people posting that the economy was going to contract by these amounts in one year!!!
Eg we are going to have a -4% recessions. At least the same posters went on to say that people who didn’t understand economics should be banned from voting 😉
So the simple conclusion is the UK will be worse off out of the EU.
Don't over simplify… damage can be reduced by continuing to operate in the Single Market as a non member, EEA style. The alternative ways to Leave all hit certain geographical areas, and social economic groups, far harder. You could argue that it doesn't matter "to the elite" how we Leave… so we shouldn't leave it to them to choose. Lazy and cynical way to frame it perhaps, but that approach seems to be quicker than others… and… tick tock.
Indeed. I merely quoted one of the base assumptions used by the government. Which basically shows minimal economic impact over 15 years.
So economy contracts, revenue raised drops and spending is needed in places it was never needed before.
That means more borrowing or more cuts - or at least none of the promises being met.
Some of the hardest hit implications are massive for those areas and will need serious investment in order to mitigate the impact of them. Again where is all that cash going to come from?
Still no real reason to be even vaguely positive about this self inflicted shit storm being propagated by internal tory bickering.
And that is for an option that would require a guns to the head 3 line whip from the Tories to get through any kind of vote/avoid a revolt.
Don’t over simplify… damage can be reduced by continuing to operate in the Single Market as a non member, EEA style.
I think the simplification still holds, no version of leave makes the UK better off or holds the current trajectory. IE Worse off in all scenarios.
Of course, there is no manner of giving up EU membership that is more popular than keeping it.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Choosing to participate in the Single Market, without EU represention, does not have mandate. Damages the country, while ceding control.
Choosing to leave the Single Market, without replacement treaties and agreements, does not have a mandate. Much greater damage to the regions, including Brexit voting ones, long term, and causes shorter term hugely damaging disruption for most of us.
Pick one. Ask the public to accept/back it over continuing to be a member.
Yes it does. Giving up membership of the EU means giving up membership of the SM. The vote result = the mandate
Hence the need to negotiate a new form of “access to” the SM as a non member. Very different questions.
Hence the need to negotiate a new form of “access to” the SM as a non member. Very different questions.
Shame nobody wants to ask us those questions though...
Still now we are into the least worst options if the Tories can stop squabbling and put the country first, seems unlikely though past performance should not be a guarantee of future outcomes.
Next up some honesty from May about the implications of each option, and each SEL from her party who complains gets a slap.
That should help things along with public confidence.I mean she has no credibility whenever the term Brexit Dividend comes out of her mouth.
Indeed many are still fighting the old battle - which we lost- instead and then wonder why the “negotiations” (sic) are going badly.
